Military Review

The future is clearing up: "Terminators" have reached the troops

144

In 2017, the Russian Ministry of Defense issued the first order for the supply of support combat vehicles tanks / "Terminator" fire support combat vehicles. Soon, this technique was built and even took part in the parade on Red Square. However, only now the first batch of BMPTs is entering trial operation on the basis of one of the formations of the ground forces.


Latest news


On December 1, the press service of the Central Military District and the NPK Uralvagonzavod reported on the arrival of new equipment in the troops. A batch of eight BMPTs was transferred to the 90th Guards Tank Vitebsk-Novgorod twice Red Banner division of the Central Military District (Sverdlovsk and Chelyabinsk regions). The experimental military operation of such vehicles is organized on the basis of the division's motorized rifle subunits.

According to the press service of the Central Military District, the crews for the new combat vehicles have already been formed and are now undergoing retraining. The servicemen are introduced to the design features, basic qualities and combat capabilities. Training events are held with the participation of representatives of the manufacturer.


Details of future trial operation are not provided. At the same time, messages from Uralvagonzavod and the Central Military District indicate the main features, functions and advantages of the new model of equipment. It should be expected that in the course of the next events, the servicemen of the 90th Guards Tank Division will check how the real characteristics and capabilities of the new equipment correspond to the manufacturer's statements.

Long way to the troops


The first versions of the modern BMPT, which gave rise to a whole family of projects, appeared at the turn of the nineties and two thousandths. Such equipment regularly participated in exhibitions and attracted public attention - but the interest of the army was limited. One of the BMPT versions passed all the necessary tests and was even recommended for service, but did not enter the army.


The situation changed only a few years ago. The first contract for the supply of Terminators to the Russian ground forces was signed at the Army-2017 forum. It provided for the construction and transfer of 12 production vehicles by the end of 2018. Already at the beginning of 2018, NPK Uralvagonzavod showed the first BMPTs of this order. Shortly thereafter, three armored vehicles took part in the parade on Red Square.

In the autumn of the same year, the Ministry of Defense announced the imminent transfer of 10 BMPTs to units of the 90th Guards Tank Division for trial operation. It was planned to spend about a year on these events. However, as follows from further messages, such a transfer did not take place.

Apparently, the technique of the first batch needed some modifications, which took a lot of time to complete. Because of this, the actual timing of the transfer of the "Terminators" of the 90th division has shifted to the right by more than two years. In addition, the first batch included 8 cars, and not 10, as reported in 2018.


The future is clearing up


At the moment there is only one contract for the supply of "Terminators" to the Russian army, and it provides for the construction of only 12 vehicles. New orders for this equipment have not yet appeared, and the possibility of placing them is still in question. The reasons for this are simple and related to the current success of the entire program.

According to the 2017 contract, NPK Uralvagonzavod must assemble and deliver 12 BMPTs to the customer. This technique must pass all the necessary checks, fine-tuning and experimental military operation. Only after all these measures can the army make final conclusions and place new orders. As the events of 2018-2020 show, at the time of the launch of production, the equipment needed fine-tuning.

Fortunately, some of the necessary measures have been successfully completed, and the Terminators have reached operation in the military. This means that the identified shortcomings have been successfully corrected, and in the foreseeable future the Ministry of Defense will be able to draw final conclusions. Then new orders should be expected, due to which other formations will be re-equipped.


The general needs of the Russian army for BMPT are still unknown. Motorized rifle units of the 90th Guards Tank Division received only 8 vehicles; where the other 4 products of the first order will go has not yet been specified. In addition, it is not known whether all the division's needs for such equipment have been met. The number of divisions that can be retrofitted with Terminators is also in question. Thus, the number of BMPTs required by the troops can be estimated within a fairly wide range - from tens to hundreds of pieces.

Interest for troops


A recent press release from the Ministry of Defense mentions the main advantages of the BMPT and the reasons why such equipment is of interest to the troops. So, the use of "Terminators" in the same battle formations with tanks allows you to increase the capabilities of the unit and reduce the risks for combat vehicles. The BMPT is capable of fighting lightly armored vehicles and tanks, as well as participating in military air defense, hitting low-flying aircraft and helicopters.


Other advantages are mentioned in the message from NPK Uralvagonzavod. Thus, the main barrel armament can be used with large elevation angles, which allows attacking targets on the upper floors of buildings. The complex of weapons is multi-channel. In terms of the size of the BMPT ammunition, it is twice the size of a typical modern infantry fighting vehicle. It is argued that one "Terminator" in its combat effectiveness corresponds to two infantry fighting vehicles and a platoon of motorized riflemen.

In general, the BMPT is an armored combat vehicle of an unusual type with protection and mobility at the level of the main tank and more diverse weapons to defeat a wide range of targets in a wide range of ranges, incl. with the possibility of simultaneous shelling of several. This unusual concept is still a topic of controversy; the same applies to the question of the need for such armored vehicles of the army. However, the Russian Ministry of Defense has already provided positive answers to both questions. BMPT was considered necessary for the ground forces, which resulted in a contract for the first production vehicles and a recent news on the beginning of experimental military operation.

In parallel with the preparation of "Terminators" for full service, the development of the project continues. New modifications of armored vehicles with new weapon systems are proposed. A great future is predicted for a variant of the BMPT with a 57-mm automatic cannon of increased power. The possibility of transferring the Terminator units to the modern Armata platform is also being considered. However, all these projects are still at the very early stages.


The long-awaited ending?


The latest news is conducive to optimism, but does not put an end to the protracted epic with the creation, promotion and development of tank support combat vehicles. Eight "Terminators" made it to the experimental military operation, which may open the way for mass production and use of such equipment.

Earlier it was reported that it will take about a year for trial operation in the troops. This means that at the end of 2021, the Ministry of Defense will be able to decide on further plans for the BMPT and take appropriate steps. Most likely, a positive scenario will be launched, and new orders for serial equipment will appear. Thus, the timing and volumes of upcoming purchases are now becoming an urgent issue.
Author:
Photos used:
Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation, NPK "Uralvagonzavod"
144 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Nazar
    Nazar 4 December 2020 03: 44
    +23
    Well, the fact that ordinary infantry fighting vehicles on the battlefield have nothing special to do, they brought the infantry to the place and "into the bushes", that's understandable.
    And here it is practically a tank, only with different weapons, complementing the traditional MBT weapons. Everything seems logical to me.
    1. Pechkin
      Pechkin 4 December 2020 05: 04
      +3
      Here the question is, if you can take in the field with the infantry (which was unloaded by the BMP) 4 T72B3 or 3 T72B3 and a terminator (although it may have a price like T90break) which you will choose.
      1. Flamberg
        Flamberg 4 December 2020 05: 47
        +14
        Here the question is, if you can take in the field with the infantry (which was unloaded by the BMP) 4 T72B3 or 3 T72B3 and a terminator (although it may have a price like T90break) which you will choose.

        Here is another question really. When was the last time an MBT in the field went to an MBT? Likely in the Arab-Israeli wars? But all sorts of babakhs have been chased through the mountains and cities regularly over the past decades, and here BMPT already looks appropriate. By the way, I am not agitating to change MBT to BMPT, I just think that having such equipment in some quantity is justified.
        Yes, in the same Nagorno-Karabakh, give peacekeepers ... just in case ...
        1. Pechkin
          Pechkin 4 December 2020 06: 20
          +8
          MBTs against MBTs were used in the Donbas, Syria, I think in Karabakh too. As far as possible to detect and destroy infantry, the terminator is hardly superior to the T90M with a modern sight of the commander and gunner. But as a heavy infantry support vehicle in the city, it is quite. And why the terminator is the same thing to write: you need to give the T72-B3, BMP-3, MSTA-S, TOP to the peacekeepers just in case. They have enough weapons for their tasks. They are not going to fight with Turkey or Azerbaijan. And the weapons of the peacekeepers should be discussed. ...
          1. Old tanker
            Old tanker 4 December 2020 07: 21
            +15
            BMPT, in terms of the possibility of detecting targets, especially small-sized, is significantly superior to the main tank. Five pairs of eyes are more than three. And tankers know that an intelligent driver is the best spotter. Since, after firing a cannon, he first jumps out of a cloud of powder gases and dust, and therefore sees where the projectile is flying. Well, and often the first to detect targets, due to the wider field of view.
            Well, on the BMPT on the left and on the right, a pair of eyes armed with automatic grenade launchers, which can independently immediately open fire on the detected target. Well, the BMPT does not have a blinding cloud from a powerful shot. Which improves the reconnaissance of targets by the commander and gunner
            So, choosing between 4 T-72 and 3 T-72 and BMPT, I would choose the second option.
            1. The comment was deleted.
            2. Pechkin
              Pechkin 4 December 2020 07: 51
              +2
              Well, if possible, to detect and destroy the infantry, I compared the terminator with the T90M, which has a panoramic sight of the commander with a thermal imager, and here it is unlikely that the driver has a wider field of view. And this is of course your choice and your opinion. For that, here is the forum to discuss hi


              1. Old tanker
                Old tanker 4 December 2020 12: 21
                +3
                I repeat, five rar eyes are more than 3. The terminator also has a panoramic sight with a thermal imaging channel. So it's 1: 1. And the gunners' sights are identical.
                1. OgnennyiKotik
                  OgnennyiKotik 4 December 2020 12: 34
                  -7
                  Quote: Old Tankman
                  five rar eyes more than 3.

                  This means that instead of three corpses there will be five. We need optoelectronic systems and / or radar. Necessarily developed BIUS. A machine will detect, prioritize, select, and point weapons much faster than a human. The car does not get tired, does not panic, does not get nervous, does not get lost. For a man only confirmation of the opening of fire.
                  1. Boris Chernikov
                    Boris Chernikov 4 December 2020 14: 17
                    +7
                    and also artificial intelligence and Schaub flew ...
                    1. PSih2097
                      PSih2097 4 December 2020 15: 32
                      +3
                      Quote: Boris Chernikov
                      and also artificial intelligence and Schaub flew ...

                      ugums, "and then SkyNET will come and drive everyone in holes" ... laughing
                      1. Boris Chernikov
                        Boris Chernikov 4 December 2020 16: 49
                        +2
                        and we will set Aunt Masha from the Accounting Department on him)
                      2. Alexey RA
                        Alexey RA 4 December 2020 17: 14
                        +6
                        Quote: Boris Chernikov
                        and we will set Aunt Masha from the Accounting Department on him)

                        I didn't press anything - it's all by itself! © smile
                      3. nobody75
                        nobody75 4 December 2020 19: 57
                        -2
                        And artificial intelligence will be on the 1C platform ...
                        But seriously, I think that heavy flamethrower systems should be used to handle the front line of those who are dropping and introduce tanks into the breakthrough. Such as Buratino or Solntsepek. I have great doubts about the use of the Terminator in the air defense system ...
                        Sincerely
                      4. Boris Chernikov
                        Boris Chernikov 4 December 2020 22: 41
                        -3
                        Well, why ... put the radars from the Kaz, the optics from the Sosna, so that guidance is provided + shells with distant detonation ..
                      5. nobody75
                        nobody75 5 December 2020 09: 24
                        -2
                        What will be the detection range of such a radar failure?
                        Sincerely
                      6. Boris Chernikov
                        Boris Chernikov 5 December 2020 09: 26
                        0
                        in KB, contact, they will tell you
              2. Maikcg
                Maikcg 5 December 2020 17: 19
                +3
                An uprising of machines began in Togliatti, but it died out very quickly (c)
            3. barsik92090
              barsik92090 5 December 2020 11: 22
              0
              And periodically farts, if smart.
          2. Old tanker
            Old tanker 4 December 2020 16: 20
            0
            And in the BMP until the infantry dismounted there will be ten. With modern means of joy, only a small part of the armored vehicles will be able to reach the line of transition to the attack, even smaller to the line of dismounting. For example, in general, the main method of attack is in an armored battle formation. Dismounting only with intense enemy resistance.
            1. Boris Chernikov
              Boris Chernikov 4 December 2020 16: 50
              -6
              here is an important point, some BMPT can be taught to work on an uav, and tanks need to be equipped with KAZs ... then they can work together in pairs on enemy positions
              1. Old tanker
                Old tanker 4 December 2020 16: 58
                +3
                While we do not have 30mm ammunition with remote detonation (development is just underway, and this can go a long way ....), then there is no question of fighting UAVs from BMPT cannons.
              2. Boris Chernikov
                Boris Chernikov 4 December 2020 17: 06
                -3
                the projectile, as it were, and they are being tested, On this army, the BTR-82at already with a firing module shone. It's simple: no one has given the go-ahead to publish the video from the tests so far, so they are not shown
              3. Old tanker
                Old tanker 4 December 2020 17: 08
                +5
                Exactly how! Many developments have been shining for many years, but not in serial production. "Petrel" also kind of flies ... laughing
              4. Boris Chernikov
                Boris Chernikov 4 December 2020 18: 11
                -4
                a question of secrecy ... the T-14 has been in the army for a year in trials ... not a single photo or video ... pichal
            2. nobody75
              nobody75 4 December 2020 20: 00
              -1
              According to my calculations, the programmable detonation of a 30 mm projectile does not give much advantage when dealing with an uav.
              Sincerely
            3. ProkletyiPirat
              ProkletyiPirat 4 December 2020 20: 43
              0
              nobody75 that's all right, even more, it does not give any benefit to the infantry, even if it were 40mm, but with ready-made fragments the same trouble, there is neither mass, nor speed, nor volume. Who needs details, look for information on American-European analogs where the caliber was constantly increased right up to 45-50mm, while closing the old programs ...
            4. nobody75
              nobody75 4 December 2020 20: 45
              +2
              And I myself counted the model with the contact and remote Monte Carlo method
              Sincerely
            5. Boris Chernikov
              Boris Chernikov 4 December 2020 22: 44
              +1
              yeah .. of course it doesn’t give a benefit ..
            6. ProkletyiPirat
              ProkletyiPirat 5 December 2020 00: 12
              +2
              Boris is just another "promotional video" and advertising doesn't lie, it doesn't tell the whole truth!
              For example, they won't explain to you about the curvature and wretchedness of the trench and the fighter who stands at full height.
              For example, you will not be shown that the fragments lie before and after the trench and not inside it
              For example, you will not be told that the fire is fired from a hill down and not vice versa (as it happens in real conditions)
              For example, you will not be told that such a fire on the move and at a target inside a bunker in an apartment building is simply impossible to conduct due to the fact that the shrapnel field will simply fly over the fighter because the detonation point must be selected for a long time, which is impossible in a real battle.
              Well, and most importantly, they will not tell you that such an arrow will not be banally allowed to go out like this and fire direct fire at prepared positions. (Well, if you consider the enemy mentally incomplete, then you can beat him with sticks wink )
            7. Boris Chernikov
              Boris Chernikov 5 December 2020 09: 18
              +3
              laughing how good are you ... and the shells are bad, and experienced enemies will not let you fire ... only when the detonation point is in the air, this allows exactly what to cover with a high probability of the enemy than if you hit the usual office on the ground ... then following your logic, the war came out, fired, and then went to look for a new enemy ... and now imagine yourself in a position when such shells fly into you from a distance of 1,5-2 km and somewhere above your trenches - there will be no desire to bravely stick out anymore, because you want to live .. about "but in a friend pillbox", and not "suddenly you can shoot into the depths of the pillbox with an ordinary office" ..?
            8. nobody75
              nobody75 5 December 2020 17: 52
              +1
              Have you written to Shipunov Jr. about this? With emoticons ... He doesn't know.
              Sincerely
            9. Boris Chernikov
              Boris Chernikov 5 December 2020 23: 10
              -2
              but what does he have to do with it? there are specific trends of our time, if something at one time, 30 mm was introduced precisely at the suggestion of Shipunov .. although it was possible to put 37 and 45 and 57 mm ..
        2. Thomas N.
          Thomas N. 6 December 2020 10: 26
          0
          Quote: ProkletyiPirat
          It's just another "promotional video" and advertising doesn't lie, it doesn't tell the whole truth!
          For example, they won't explain to you about the curvature and wretchedness of the trench and the fighter who stands at full height

          Wretchedness of the trench and a soldier standing in the trench at full height? What did you want the trench at the range to be dug according to all the rules - a broken line in the plan with individual cells for shooting and parapet, and the mannequins were hidden behind the parapet? What for? What will it change? The "broken" line of the trench will just show that with an air blast of the Mk310 PABM-T OFS with a bottom fuse, the ellipse of the projection of the scattering of fragments on the ground will cover the entire "broken" trench in depth. Hiding targets deeper into the trench behind the parapet is generally meaningless - when firing from an automatic cannon, the targets must be in a position for firing at the advancing infantry and armored vehicles, i.e. standing in a trench, and not lying in it as they wait out artillery preparation. The shooting shown in the video is a test of the operation of the OFS on simulators of targets in order to check how many fragments hit the target and then compare with the usual OFS with ground detonation. In the Russian army, shooting practice shoots at the same targets, only made of plywood and flat.
          Quote: ProkletyiPirat
          For example, you will not be shown that the fragments lie before and after the trench and not inside it

          How the fragments fall is clearly visible from the dust fountains before and after the trench, and inside the trench, the dust raised by the fragments cannot be seen on the video due to the difference in illumination. Or do you really think that the fragments flying into the trench have disappeared somewhere? smile
          Quote: ProkletyiPirat
          For example, you will not be told that the fire is fired from a hill down and not vice versa (as it happens in real conditions)

          Of course the fire in this video is fired from a hill down, and not vice versa. This is the only way to be at the test site for safety requirements, otherwise the test site will have to be greatly increased in size so that the projectiles flying upward do not leave the test site. The video clearly shows (1:37) that the terrain immediately rises behind the target area, i.e. the landfill is located in a hollow. In addition, firing is carried out at a range of ~ 500-600 m at a slight downward angle in order to obtain an angle of approach of projectiles to the targets corresponding to the actual firing ranges of 1500-2000 m, without the need to build a 2 km firing track on the range.
          In real conditions, shoot from below on a hill so that the projectile flies up to the target from the bottom up and its fragments from an air explosion could not cover the target, it is necessary only if the BMP drove into an ambush on a mountain road (or in a city) and they shoot at it from top to bottom under a large angle and at short range. In other cases, when firing at an elevation from a conventional BMP cannon with a range of 1000 m and more, the projectile flies to a higher target already on the descending branch of its trajectory, i.e. at an angle of 3-5 degrees just like on the plain and the fragments cover the target as usual.
          Quote: ProkletyiPirat
          For example, you will not be told that such a fire on the move and at a target inside a bunker in an apartment building is simply impossible to conduct due to the fact that the shrapnel field will simply fly over the fighter because the detonation point must be selected for a long time, which is impossible in a real battle.

          Fire on the move is provided by the weapon stabilizer together with the ballistic computer.
          A shrapnel field during an air blast of the OFS will not fly over a soldier inside a bunker in an apartment building because it will hit the wall of this house laughing (not counting the debris that fall into the window / embrasure). Therefore, the target inside the apartment building is fired at by the OFS in the contact blasting mode with a delayed response, this is shown in the video under discussion. If the OFS does not break through the wall, then they shoot with armor-piercing ones.
          About the fact that "the point of detonation must be selected for a long time, which is impossible in a real battle" - it is not clear what you wanted to say. If the target is detected, then after measuring the distance to it, the score. The calculator, using the projectile firing tables included in it, calculates the distance at which it is necessary to detonate the OFS in the air in front of or above the target so that the fragments cover the target, and the corresponding projectile flight time. And you don't need to "pick up for a long time". Another thing is if the target is not visible, but only flashes of shots from the bushes are detected, then they shoot with a chain of explosions in order to cover the area from which they were shooting with fragments. This mode is called "String of Pearls", it is also on the video (1:40), when the shooting is carried out along the communication between the front and rear trenches.
          Quote: ProkletyiPirat
          Well, and most importantly, they will not tell you that such an arrow will not be banally allowed to go out like this and fire direct fire at prepared positions. (Well, if you consider the enemy mentally incomplete, then you can beat him with sticks wink )

          "This is how to leave ..." of course, you can only at the test site, which are shown in this video. There are still observers next to the BMP, of course they will not be in battle either. smile The BMP will shoot in battle on the move, but otherwise everything will look like this with fire support from the direct fire of the attack of its infantry on the platoon stronghold of the enemy.
    2. Maikcg
      Maikcg 5 December 2020 17: 24
      +2
      In general, an air blast of 200-300 kilotons of light and heat is better.
  2. Boris Chernikov
    Boris Chernikov 4 December 2020 22: 42
    -2
    1-maybe it won't, but the detonation of 5-6 shells will fill up any kamikaze ... and everything above 1 meters is removed by conventional air defense ..
  3. nobody75
    nobody75 5 December 2020 09: 20
    -1
    The fact of the matter is that out of 5 - 6 shells, the detonation of which in 1 meter from the UAV will overwhelm it, one gets into it ... And the point in remote detonation?
    Sincerely
  4. Boris Chernikov
    Boris Chernikov 5 December 2020 09: 25
    -2
    Well, you mean "the usual 5-6 shells will hit the UAV" can tell the Saudis .. they will appreciate
  5. nobody75
    nobody75 5 December 2020 09: 28
    0
    I did not write this, I wrote that out of 5 projectiles fired into the profile of the UAV and flying from it at a distance of 1 m (so that your remote detonation would work) 1 hits this profile.
    Sincerely
  6. Boris Chernikov
    Boris Chernikov 5 December 2020 09: 37
    0
    1) everything will work, here is the question for a clear setting of the LMS, 2) yes, even if one works, it will work and knock down, this is his task
  7. Alt 22
    Alt 22 5 December 2020 09: 59
    +2
    For the destruction of small UAVs from a distance, there is nothing better than programmed detonation of a projectile, because a large number of fragments are formed at the intended meeting point, the probability of hitting a target by one or more of them is much higher than the probability of hitting a single projectile, which would otherwise require a large number, and that worse - it takes more time to destroy. Strictly speaking, this principle is implemented in the SAM - the target is hit with a "scalpel" from a cloud of fragments.
  8. Thomas N.
    Thomas N. 5 December 2020 22: 55
    0
    Quote: nobody75
    According to my calculations, the programmable detonation of a 30 mm projectile does not give much advantage when dealing with an uav.

    And what do you think - is it better to shoot at a flying bird with a bullet or still with a shot? smile
  9. Thomas N.
    Thomas N. 6 December 2020 11: 10
    0
    Quote: Old Tanker
    While we do not have 30mm ammunition with remote detonation (development is just underway, and this can go a long way ....), then there is no question of fighting UAVs from BMPT cannons.

    The ammunition, that is, - 3UOF23 ("Russian Military Review" 2018, N1, p.20), but to combat UAVs, you need a means of detecting them. To put radar on BMPT? So the crew will be so overwhelmed by the fight simultaneously with ground (ATGM, grenade launchers, tanks) and air targets (UAVs, helicopters) that they will not be able to perform normally either one or the other task. We'll have to add two to the tank platoon instead of one BMPT. And this is a dead-end path, tanks have already passed along it, therefore the BMPT was needed.
  • IS-80_RVGK2
    IS-80_RVGK2 6 December 2020 16: 05
    0
    Well, then five will be able to work out more targets even if you press the buttons stupidly. Although perhaps I agree five a lot. Four is enough.
  • ProkletyiPirat
    ProkletyiPirat 4 December 2020 09: 10
    -9
    Quote: Old Tankman
    So, choosing between 4 T-72 and 3 T-72 and BMPT, I would choose the second option.

    but I would send such elections to hell, because all this has already taken place in the past (video with a brief example of the "essence of the negative" below) and would order a T-72 with additional weapons, first of all, a rapid-fire 25-30mm cannon, at least an analogue " melon-y ". Better still, I would choose an armature + a turret with a multifunctional hybrid weapon (cannon / howitzer / mortar / launcher) and plus a quick-firing gun in a twin and everything with angles from -10 to +90. So at once a bunch of units and equipment can be replaced if necessary, and even this is not the limit of the already possible improvement of the "tank" ...
    1. your1970
      your1970 4 December 2020 11: 58
      +9
      Yeah ... All this has already been and even was in service ... T-28 and T-35 ...
      1. IS-80_RVGK2
        IS-80_RVGK2 6 December 2020 16: 25
        0
        AND? The level of technical capabilities then and now.
    2. Boris Chernikov
      Boris Chernikov 4 December 2020 16: 52
      -2
      Object 782 with the Bakhcha module, I agree with you ... taking into account the fire capabilities, it would be the best vehicle for the army ... but alas
      1. ProkletyiPirat
        ProkletyiPirat 4 December 2020 18: 59
        0
        actually I wrote about TANK not TBMP not BMPT, namely MBT with the same number of crew (3 people and no landing) and the same main gun (120-155mm), but with additional weapons that are used consistently depending on the current situation. That is, no "parallelism", "all-aspect", "highly specialized" and other unnecessary delirium, delirium which is real terrain(where there are roads, hills, ravines, shitty rivers, minefields, forests, forest plantations, swamps, villages, cities, etc.) corny will not work, as the author says from the video attached above (from 2:45 to 3 : 06 + plus, before that about the tactics of the tiger) ... So all these sketches of super-duper tactics look beautiful on the "training ground" which is flat like a board and studied like your own boots, but in real area there is a mess, and a specific soldier \ platoon \ unit \ ... cannot get the support of a "highly specialized" simply because he is "somewhere there", and not "somewhere here" ....
        1. nobody75
          nobody75 4 December 2020 20: 03
          -1
          For this there is an ACS TK
          Sincerely
          1. ProkletyiPirat
            ProkletyiPirat 4 December 2020 20: 28
            -2
            They do not solve the problem, here is an example: you have a platoon of 3OBT + 1BMPT, you are driving on a road with turns, you cannot leave it (there is no place, it will not allow you to fire, mud / slush, mines and other options), you are in the ACS TZ (ESU TZ) set the order MBT-BMPT-MBT-MBT, the enemy (DRG) lets you through and hits you in the back, the BMPT does not reach it, two rear tanks block the chamber, the DRGs, having destroyed two tanks, leave the position. With the same LDP and the same scenario, if you put the BMPT at the end of the convoy, the DRG will destroy the two front MBTs and also dump them to the next prepared position. In the example I voiced, in a bundle of MGO + SAP installed on each MBT, two vehicles fire from a SAP (30mm) for suppression, and the rear ones with a canopy from MGO for destruction.
            You can cite a thousand other options, but it is inconvenient to describe them in comments, here you need forums and 3D maps.
            1. nobody75
              nobody75 4 December 2020 20: 35
              +1
              Personally, I am not a supporter of BMPT as a class and I consider it not a very useful pribluda
              Best regards
            2. ProkletyiPirat
              ProkletyiPirat 4 December 2020 20: 45
              0
              If you re-read my posts above, you will also see that I am "not a supporter of BMPT" (although rather an enemy) ....
            3. IS-80_RVGK2
              IS-80_RVGK2 6 December 2020 16: 29
              0
              So the BMPT has long been not the BMPT, but the BMOP.
      2. Boris Chernikov
        Boris Chernikov 4 December 2020 22: 40
        -3
        and with what kind of "additional weapons" do you see a tank in 120 mm caliber ... moreover, a NATO one) .. because from 155 mm you are already fantasizing again)
        1. ProkletyiPirat
          ProkletyiPirat 5 December 2020 00: 56
          0
          I am for a tank (MBT) that is produced in large quantities and which has at least the following weapons
          1) Multifunctional Hybrid Cannon (MHO) - that is, a non-chamber gun that shoots along flat, howitzer and mortar trajectories (gun-howitzer-mortar-launcher), the caliber depends on the country and its military-industrial complex, the MVV is scalable in the form of disc-shaped checkers. The hinged trajectory is conducted at distances of at least 500 m, no more than 10 km, on average 1-3-5 km (a tank with an MGO replaces mortar units, including Nona, Vienna, Amos, M1129, etc.)
          2) Rapid-fire Automatic Cannon (SAP) - that is, a caliber of 20-40mm, a high rate of fire and large ammunition for suppressing fire and defensive fire, as well as the destruction of any shushpants, gantrucks and light bunkers, as well as for firing at bushes \ undergrowth and punching passages in buildings / fences ...
          3) A machine gun combined with the commander's optics which, among other things, can be controlled by the shooter

          All other tasks are performed by changing the ammunition and / or other methods.
          For example, instead of a grenade launcher (AGS 30-40mm) and its shots, cluster ammunition for a larger caliber is suitable.
          For example, a high density of fire when working from a closed / semi-closed position is provided by MRSI (real, not on paper)
          For example, the "supposedly high cost" of such a tank is solved by changing the organizational structure and reducing the cost of the ACS, for example, there will be no need for "expensive ACS" on a tracked chassis (acacia, cloves, and especially msta, as well as portable mortars on a tracked chassis (82 \ 120) ) because their tasks will go to the MBT and the self-propelled guns themselves will become wheeled based on trucks
          1. Boris Chernikov
            Boris Chernikov 5 December 2020 09: 23
            -2
            those. first we started about "we need OBT for their versatility" and then about "we need to throw out the high ballistic cannon and insert the" MGO ", and we also need a rapid-fire cannon .. And now the question .. take off your rose-colored glasses for a minute and explain .. Didn't the Bakhcha module please you? In fact, the same "MGO" with 50 shells + "rapid-fire cannon" in the caliber of 30 mm with 500 shells .. and if you take object 782, then there are 2 more AGS ... so you are in front of that how happy it is to paint your mriyas, read what they write to you ... by the way ... the army will appreciate the nonsense about "we don't need an MSTA hitting 30 km, but the MGO with a range of 15 km will do ..." and about "wheeled self-propelled guns" .. .that is 5 points ....
          2. ProkletyiPirat
            ProkletyiPirat 5 December 2020 19: 19
            -1
            Boris, you are offering me something to read, but at the same time you do not want to read my posts, and when you deign to read, you immediately add some of your nonsense to them and begin to assert that I am their author ... In general, you do not need to trolling.
            well, on business
            1) MGO must have a caliber of at least 120mm (for melon 100mm) I wrote about this above
            2) MGO is a full-fledged smooth-bore tank gun, and not a low-impulse rifled gun like that of melon, the main difference from existing tank barrels is the absence of a chamber, therefore the estimated caliber is 150-160mm, although it can be realized in 120 and 125.
            3) MBT with MGO replaces the ACS (2S19 (msta-s)) when firing DIRECT SURVEILLANCE, thanks to which these ACS can be made cheaper and more massive on the basis of a wheeled chassis (meaning self-propelled guns, not towed ones). That is, I chew: thanks to MBT with MGO, there is no need to create tracked armored self-propelled guns, especially self-propelled guns based on tank chassis such as 2S19 (msta-s). BUT THERE IS NO SPEAKING ABOUT A COMPLETE REFUSAL OF SPG AT ALL ... (in general, do not attribute to me what I did not write ...)
          3. Boris Chernikov
            Boris Chernikov 5 December 2020 23: 25
            -2
            1) "not less than 120 mm" and why suddenly such a decision? If you wrote 155 mm as well .. for some reason)
            2) you can also load 200 mm ... the question is in need ... if done in a caliber of 150 mm, then we will get a car with a couple of dozen shots. While the 782 has fifty shells in the BC ..
            3) to replace the Mstu "during direct fire" of the headquarters? Since when do the self-propelled guns work with us?

            In general, your idea in the form of "let's develop some super-duper gun-launcher" breaks down on a trivial question .. What the hell ?! we already have a power of 100 mm of office in terms of explosiveness ... and ready-made ATGMs ... The thing is that it ALREADY is, and you propose to create everything from scratch .. too expensive wishlist
          4. ProkletyiPirat
            ProkletyiPirat 6 December 2020 06: 06
            -1
            Object 782 has a 100mm gun and, moreover, a rifled gun, this caliber + type has problems with BOPS and KSs, tens of years ago it was not for nothing that they switched to a larger caliber of tank guns and abandoned rifling. And in this caliber there will be weak OFS. Well, and most importantly, it is better to have a larger caliber in order, due to the range of ammunition, to cover various tactical tasks, for example, thermobaric ARSs, cluster OSs, guided missiles, anti-tank mines with seeker, etc. As for the small ammo, this is solved by the layout, for example, an uninhabited tower like an armata, plus a change in the storage method of the ammo. As for the caliber, it must be scalable, because not all importing countries that buy military equipment use the 152nd caliber. Well, I will leave your theses from point "3" without comment, just ask why did they create an SPG on a tank chassis, especially in terms of tactics, it's too difficult to describe without maps and videos ...
          5. Boris Chernikov
            Boris Chernikov 6 December 2020 10: 30
            -2
            and the launcher, where the smooth barrel of the launcher is straightforward, suggests a high projectile velocity, yeah) you decide how much the initial velocity of the projectile will be? and yes ... what is not a guided hypersonic missile with a nuclear warhead?) about the tank chassis, you probably do not know what you created for mobility) do not confuse the self-propelled gun and the pt-self-propelled gun, which, as a class, died out half a century ago ... in general, you are trying to shove in something that is that you think it will be better "...

            About importers ... it's interesting ... but what difference does it make to conventional Arabs for a caliber if they have to buy ammunition from us? Not to mention the redundancy of ammunition in the proposed calibers .. laughing
    3. IS-80_RVGK2
      IS-80_RVGK2 6 December 2020 16: 33
      +1
      The fact that the caliber of 100 mm is currently rather weak when fighting tanks.
  • Shopping Mall
    Shopping Mall 4 December 2020 12: 00
    -1
    Quote: Old Tanker
    BMPT, in terms of the possibility of detecting targets, especially small-sized, is significantly superior to the main tank. Five pairs of eyes are more than three.


    Where did 5 pairs of eyes come from? This was only in the first version of the BMPT - there were 2 more grenade launchers with limited viewing angles and firing, but they were removed from there, tk. protection was weakened.

    PMSM BPMT should be completely different:
    T-18 tank support combat vehicle based on the Armata platform
    https://topwar.ru/175339-boevaja-mashina-podderzhki-tankov-t-18-na-baze-platformy-armata.html
    1. Old tanker
      Old tanker 4 December 2020 12: 25
      +1
      Take a close look at the photos of those who entered the 90th division of the BMPT. And pay attention to the barrels of automatic grenade launchers on the left and right on the body.
      The troops went to a slightly modified version of the BMPT "Terminator", and not the BMPT-72 .. which is correct.
      1. IS-80_RVGK2
        IS-80_RVGK2 6 December 2020 16: 38
        -1
        These grenade launchers are like a dog's fifth leg. No stabilization and limited angles. They were cut correctly.
  • Hagen
    Hagen 4 December 2020 14: 35
    0
    Quote: Old Tankman
    Five pairs of eyes are more than three.

    Today, success is achieved not by the number of eyes, but by their instrumental equipment. And on this occasion, I have not heard anything special about the BMPT. Everything is true about the mechanic ... but only at the end of the service in the training regiment and at the usual training ground (BUT shoots once, carries them to M-V all day and knows where what is laughing ). Because except for the muddy, muddy TNPO-170, the driver has nothing. He is generally the blindest in the tank.
    1. Old tanker
      Old tanker 4 December 2020 16: 22
      -1
      So these eyes look under the palm of the hand from the sun, and through modern sights, observation devices with various channels.
    2. Old tanker
      Old tanker 4 December 2020 16: 24
      0
      Here on the usual training ground, where all the pits with targets are known. And you know the conditions of the exercise by mouth, and since the gunner alone strikes everything himself, the mechanic stupidly saws in time with a stopwatch on his knee, and the commander monitors the work of the automation and eliminates the delays that occur during firing.
    3. Old tanker
      Old tanker 4 December 2020 16: 26
      -1
      So these five pairs of eyes are armed with modern multi-channel sights - observation devices, and not polished steel plates, as on the first T-34. And about the soiled TNPO - this is for careless tankers, whom the deputy tech did not tear for a non-working and unfilled GPO system.
  • cat Rusich
    cat Rusich 4 December 2020 16: 31
    +1
    Quote: Old Tanker
    BMPT, in terms of the possibility of detecting targets, especially small-sized, is significantly superior to the main tank. Five pairs of eyes are more than three. And tankers know that an intelligent driver is the best spotter.
    BMPT - crew of 5 people ...
    BMPT-2 - crew of 3 people ... The difference in 2 people is 2 gunners AGS-17D. They have only forward vision (also good ...), but there is not much sense from the ACS shooters in movement. And the AGS shooters were removed. The driver for expensive you need to keep track of everything else for the driver tenth caseHow much does the mechanical drive see through the viewing device? (they stick their head out of the hatch only at the parade)
    BMPT
    1. Old tanker
      Old tanker 7 December 2020 06: 40
      0
      It is immediately evident that they have never sat in the place of a mechanic drive.
      In the BMPT entered service with the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation AG and, accordingly, the arrows are saved. And their sights are "Agat-PM" with a stabilized field of view. So their ability to observe the battlefield is very good.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Flamberg
    Flamberg 4 December 2020 09: 43
    0
    MBTs against MBTs were used in Donbas, Syria, I think in Karabakh too.

    I meant a real combined arms battle with tanks, aircraft, artillery, in which BMPT is not needed.
    In my opinion, the only meaning of BMPT is to clean up an enemy that does not have heavy armored vehicles, including in difficult terrain - mountains, residential buildings, forests (where tanks are difficult to apply), but having a full set of anti-tank weapons (ATGM, RPG).
    And why a terminator for peacekeepers

    This is a spherical example where roadblocks, mountains, the enemy's lack of heavily armored vehicles and hot guys who can do stupid things.
    1. Pechkin
      Pechkin 4 December 2020 11: 01
      0
      First: Iraq (although as WWII will no longer be), I asked what a man would take MBT or BMPT on the battlefield, just meaning that he was not needed there. Second: BMPT is made on the basis of MBT and where it will be difficult due to rough terrain MBT work and BMPT too. And I wrote: as a heavy infantry support vehicle in the city. The order for the vehicle was made earlier, due to the fact that half-blind tanks are left alone without infantry and BMPT. Now, when there are T90M tanks with panoramic sights, thermal imagers, DBM with machine guns of calibers 7,62–12,7 and in general a lot has been done for visibility, survivability. There is no point in spending money on terminators (maybe small units to support infantry during an assault in the city, etc.). It is better to purchase Derivations for Covering equipment from drones on the battlefield or spending this money on installing KAZ on new tanks. Third: about the peacekeepers, you wrote Nagorno-Karabakh. That's about him and answered.
  • Maki Avellevich
    Maki Avellevich 4 December 2020 10: 38
    +3
    Quote: Pechkin
    MBT against MBT were used in Donbass, Syria, I think in Karabakh too. In terms of the possibility of detecting and destroying infantry, the terminator is hardly superior to the T90M with the modern sight of the commander and gunner.

    for me, the tank terminator is so complete. the base of the jeep, maneuverability, stealth.
    He raised his head over the hill, fired at another position.
    observed such tactics in exercises. very much even nothing.
    all that is needed is 100 liters of solarium and two guavas per soldier, as one acquaintance of the reserve officer from parachutists said. and a couple of other missiles.
    1. Flamberg
      Flamberg 4 December 2020 10: 57
      -2
      for me, the tank terminator is so complete. jeep base

      The jeep does not have armor and will not be able to storm the entrenched infantry. The essence of the terminator is to attack by watering everything that moves from the thirty or to stand imitating a pillbox that is not so easy to open.
      1. Maki Avellevich
        Maki Avellevich 4 December 2020 11: 07
        +2
        Quote: Flamberg
        The jeep does not have armor and will not be able to storm the entrenched infantry.

        I would not recommend storming the infantry with the Terminator, it’s none of his business and the wrong weapons.
        Its task is to destroy equipment and not to smoke infantry from the trenches. The infantry, she know, if it has already dug in, then it is not easy to pick out the howitzers.
        And you are talking about a 30 mm cannon.
        .or stand imitating a pillbox which is not so easy to open.

        And here I don’t agree with you.
        Turning Terminator into a pillbox would mean ruining him. Its chassis is protected but the cannons can even withstand machine-gun fire.
        The Terminator is a predator who must hit the enemy first and unnoticed.
      2. Smirnoff
        Smirnoff 4 December 2020 12: 16
        +20
        Quote: Flamberg
        or stand pretending to be a pillbox that is not so easy to open

        It is not recommended to stand during the battle now. Only constant maneuvering.
    2. Incvizitor
      Incvizitor 4 December 2020 23: 33
      +1
      there is such only if the sense in the city is 0 but the terminator in the city will be good.
    3. Old tanker
      Old tanker 7 December 2020 06: 44
      0
      This is only in the Barmaley wars. In a combined arms battle, tanks will go over to the attack only after the enemy's defensive zone has been ironed out by air and artillery strikes. And in this case, only 100 liters of burning solarium will remain from the jeep.
  • HELIALEKS
    HELIALEKS 4 December 2020 12: 58
    +1
    Donbass, please, with a capital letter ... Or Syria is something higher and better ...
  • The comment was deleted.
  • ares1988
    ares1988 4 December 2020 08: 32
    0
    They are in Karabakh without heavy equipment under the terms of the agreement.
  • Kara
    Kara 4 December 2020 10: 11
    +17
    Other advantages are mentioned in the message from NPK Uralvagonzavod. So, the main barrel armament can be used with large elevation angles

    A great future is predicted for a variant of the BMPT with a 57-mm automatic cannon of increased power

    Maybe then it is easier to install a combat module from "Derivation" into the tank hull? And 57 mm, and shoots high.
    1. garri-lin
      garri-lin 4 December 2020 15: 54
      0
      Not a tank but a T 15. And fill the entire void in the hull with Kamikaze Drones with vertical launch. And on top of the tower is DUM with 12,7 and panoramic optics.
  • Boris Chernikov
    Boris Chernikov 4 December 2020 14: 15
    -1
    3 tanks and a terminator) the fact is that initially BMPTs were created at the request of the military for the war in the Caucasus, but since they even then refused to projects created with the Afghan experience, they created a slightly different project in the design bureau ... The peculiarity is not only available tank armor, but also in a powerful armament complex .. all the same 2 30 tanks + 4 ATGMs and 2 AGSs can create a flurry of fire. Of the minuses: the car is expensive and there is no place for it in the organizational staff, so it was just the military who waded and resisted for a very long time, but after running in first in Syria, and then during the summer exercises, an order was given to take the car ... maybe, where to define it and the tactics of its use .. While it appears that 1 vehicle for 3 tanks .. The main thing is that the warriors do not suffer from the game and do not demand "why do we need 2a42, give us a 57 mm cannon and on the Armata platform" ... otherwise a project it will be 10 years behind ... In fact, the project needs to add only a 12,7 mm machine gun to the panoramic viewer and good optics with an FCS for the AGS operators ..
  • VO3A
    VO3A 5 December 2020 16: 31
    +2
    This "practically tank" with its own set of weapons is already outdated ... I would like to remind you that all our tanks are not included in the combat information system operating in real time. We have such systems for ground forces that can receive information about the enemy from UAVs, helicopters ... and vice versa transmit this information to ACS, MLRS and UAVs, airborne vehicles ... We do not have such systems and capabilities, from the word "at all "... And they are not even being developed and do not plan to be developed ... Our backward ground forces ... And all tanks and" terminators "will play the role of targets ...
    Here is a Chinese craft that also does not meet these requirements, but has already been modernized:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aus81pzfQ44
  • Lech from Android.
    Lech from Android. 4 December 2020 05: 06
    -6
    I wonder if the Armenians used it in a modern battle in Karabakh, what would its effectiveness be there?
    1. Pechkin
      Pechkin 4 December 2020 05: 20
      +6
      The Armenians had a problem with poorly prepared defense and drones. They would rather use something like Derivation, while the Azerbadzians would have burned the terminator just like tanks.
    2. Incvizitor
      Incvizitor 4 December 2020 23: 36
      +2
      All the same, the UAV would be dismantled, without air cover, all this is scrap.
  • quaric
    quaric 4 December 2020 13: 53
    +1
    The fact of the matter is that it is better to have a full-fledged tank with a 125 mm cannon than this shit in 2 pukals of 30 mm each. and an unprotected rocket that can be exploded by a stray bullet.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Thrifty
    Thrifty 4 December 2020 05: 08
    -4
    The people in the Ministry of Defense are in power, fighting according to the old schemes. BMPT, if desired, is a means of close air defense, it is enough to introduce into the range of shells with remote detonation against minidrones, and kamikaze drones. I hope that this technique will be appreciated and there will be more large purchases of BMPTs by the Russian army.
    1. Pessimist22
      Pessimist22 4 December 2020 05: 43
      0
      Or it can be easier to make, in a 30 mm projectile, make a container like in a smoothbore buckshot, so that when fired after 500-700 meters, the balls from the container scatter like a fan, against small UAVs and kamikaze drones.
      1. vch62388
        vch62388 4 December 2020 08: 40
        +4
        And there is nothing left: create two new types of projectiles (with remote detonation and shrapnel), test, produce, saturate the troops with them, create a new 30-mm cannon with three or four tapes (the existing one has 2 tapes for armor-piercing and fragmentation).
      2. nobody75
        nobody75 5 December 2020 09: 25
        -1
        Such a projectile was for GSh - 30
        Sincerely
  • Catfish
    Catfish 4 December 2020 05: 09
    +2
    Keep it up! You are on the right path, comrades! Best wishes to my Russian namesake!
  • serg.shishkov2015
    serg.shishkov2015 4 December 2020 06: 11
    0
    There was an article on TV about the evolution of this car! several options, including the landing of a part of the crew as an escort infantry, in general, waited! let's see what will happen next
  • Old tanker
    Old tanker 4 December 2020 07: 09
    +1
    Well, we have decided on the organizational structure. At the moment it is a separate company for the time being in the composition of the regiment. The most rational solution in terms of operation and combat training.
    1. vch62388
      vch62388 4 December 2020 07: 50
      0
      How should this company be used? Crewed? Platooning the battalion? There is no rear. There is not even a field kitchen. Where to hang out? There is not even a MTO-shki in the company. Where to refuel from? There are a lot of questions. It is clear that these are experiments, to travel - to try. If he comes, then the questions will be resolved. I wonder where they want to find a place in the staff structure? Enlighten, if anyone knows, please.
  • Jacket in stock
    Jacket in stock 4 December 2020 07: 11
    +6
    The big question what for.
    What do they want from him.
    Then someone wrote that the idea was born out of poverty.
    In the realities of our army of "saints" years, the tanks went into battle stupidly without the accompaniment of motorized riflemen. So the idea was born to have a full-time BMP replacement instead of a nonexistent interaction.
    And not cardboard BMP-1/2, but a real heavy one, suitable for the battlefield.
    Of course, this vehicle will not replace a platoon of infantry, but a couple of BMPs are easy. Especially when they are not.
    1. Saxahorse
      Saxahorse 4 December 2020 22: 43
      +3
      Quote: Jacket in stock
      Then someone wrote that the idea was born out of poverty.

      Yes, there is no idea behind it .. Until now, no one can clearly explain why this piece of iron is needed actually !?

      There is an unpleasant feeling that this is the very classic tail of a wagging dog! The appointment was not invented, but the production had already been pushed through. Now just like in that old joke:

      "Eeeeee .. well, think of where I slept .. you’re very smart, my dear !!!" (from)
  • Jacket in stock
    Jacket in stock 4 December 2020 07: 19
    0
    Otherwise, yes, in fact, a modern tank should have three links.
    The first link is a classic powerful cannon to destroy other tanks and reach fortified infantry from a distance.
    The second link - a pair of BMPs or BMPTs, if the infantry did not come in order to hit targets easier and closer with a small gun, and an ATGM to get a tank, a bunker or a helicopter, which the tank did not have time to.
    The third link, a little behind - a conditional "derivation", "bird catcher", "pine" or something similar, so as not to let drones come close and catch ATGMs on the fly.
    And all this economy is one indivisible combat unit.
    Something like that IMHO.
    And, the drone also forgot so that the unit commander always knew what and where on the battlefield and in the immediate vicinity.
  • ares1988
    ares1988 4 December 2020 08: 36
    0
    On bmpd they write that the terminator cannot fire from 2 guns at the same time. Does anyone know if there really is such a problem?
    1. Genry
      Genry 4 December 2020 09: 48
      -1
      This is not a "problem" but reliability redundancy and heat load sharing.
      1. ares1988
        ares1988 4 December 2020 14: 06
        0
        With about the same success one could refuse the possibility of simultaneous firing from several guns on Shilka, Tunguska, Pantsir, etc.
    2. psiho117
      psiho117 5 December 2020 04: 48
      +2
      Quote: ares1988
      the terminator cannot fire from 2 guns simultaneously

      everything there is so stupidly done that they did not even bother to put a weapon with selective ammunition on it. As if at the beginning of the last century they returned - for each barrel - their own type of shells am
  • Mikhail S.
    Mikhail S. 4 December 2020 10: 46
    +4
    If this vehicle is a tank escort, then it should be sharpened for what the tanks can take maximum damage from. And in the light of recent events, this is air.
    1. OgnennyiKotik
      OgnennyiKotik 4 December 2020 11: 30
      0
      In fact, nothing prevents us from working on both infantry and air targets. Radar, optoelectronic systems can detect both air and ground targets, projectiles with controlled detonation, ATGM are universal. Is only MANPADS specific. But the price of this BMPT will be like 3 T90.
      Closest to this concept is IM-SHORAD. They probably reworked the BMPT idea, although it is on the surface.
  • Mikhail S.
    Mikhail S. 4 December 2020 10: 48
    0
    A car for past wars.
  • Tektor
    Tektor 4 December 2020 11: 43
    +2
    Unfortunately, without the equipment of the KAZ Arena-M Terminators or the capabilities of the Derivation-Air Defense, their combat stability is in doubt.
  • Mikhail S.
    Mikhail S. 4 December 2020 12: 11
    +3
    In modern war, in order to win, you have to surprise with something. You won't scare a serious enemy with a caterpillar monster. Everyone is ready for them and just waiting to burn them with something.
  • iouris
    iouris 4 December 2020 13: 00
    +1
    Are these military trials or what?
  • certero
    certero 4 December 2020 13: 01
    +1
    And then you need protection from drones
  • Andrei Nikolaevich
    Andrei Nikolaevich 4 December 2020 14: 28
    +1
    This apparatus also has a menacing look. Handsome,
  • Pavel57
    Pavel57 4 December 2020 14: 58
    0
    According to the staffing table, where does the BMPT go to, to the gunners?
    1. Pavel57
      Pavel57 4 December 2020 16: 18
      0
      Quote: Pavel57
      According to the staffing table, where does the BMPT go to, to the gunners?


      Minus was set and what?

      When IT-1 appeared, they did not know where to attribute it. In the end, they did it wisely. 1 company (battalion?) Was given to tankmen, 1 to artillerymen.
  • Vladimir Vladimirovich S
    Vladimir Vladimirovich S 4 December 2020 15: 17
    0
    Good news, but it hurts a bit too long ...
  • Alexander Vorontsov
    Alexander Vorontsov 4 December 2020 16: 18
    -1
    It seems to me that this is more of a start on the eve of the 57-mm combat module ...
  • Prizr
    Prizr 5 December 2020 03: 00
    +2
    Until there is a programmable fuse for the projectile, I consider everything a profanation, a waste of money, a man of hours, and most importantly the risk of not achieving goals. I do not care about this 2A42 myself. ...
    1. Thomas N.
      Thomas N. 5 December 2020 21: 28
      0
      Quote: Prizr
      Until there is a programmable fuse for the projectile, I consider everything a profanation, a waste of money, a man of hours, and most importantly the risk of not achieving goals. I do not care about this 2A42 myself. ...

      Already have - 3UOF23
  • psiho117
    psiho117 5 December 2020 04: 33
    +2
    It is argued that one "Terminator" in its combat effectiveness corresponds to two infantry fighting vehicles and a platoon of motorized riflemen.
    Nonsense. It is not even equal to one BMP-3 in terms of its firepower.
  • andrew42
    andrew42 5 December 2020 13: 32
    +2
    Plenty of water. There is not a word about the intended tactics of using the Terminators, in conjunction with what military equipment, at what level. Hence the complete lack of understanding in the required amount for the aircraft.
  • Evil 55
    Evil 55 5 December 2020 14: 22
    0
    A couple of S-60s on the upper armor plate - this will be a tank support MACHINE, but for now, a spittoon from LNG grenade launchers ..
  • TOR2
    TOR2 5 December 2020 16: 08
    +1
    In parallel with the preparation of "Terminators" for full service, the development of the project continues. New modifications of armored vehicles with new weapon systems are proposed.

    This machine really needs a system for detecting optical devices.
    An example is the SPIN-2 device designed for remote detection of optical and optical-electronic devices, sights, long-focus lenses in conditions of both intense daytime and weak night illumination at a distance of up to 1000 m. in the form of a bright glare against the background of the underlying surface. The bearing angle of the observation means corresponds to the angle of the field of view of the observation means themselves.
    Only the detection distance should be significantly greater than that of a portable device.
  • Olgerd Gediminovich
    Olgerd Gediminovich 5 December 2020 16: 12
    0
    If initially the tasks were set, then, taking into account the correction of recent years, including Karabakh, they should be changed to the following:
    1.fighting anti-tank drones
    2.fighting ATGM and RPG
    everything else is secondary and optional.
    1. Thomas N.
      Thomas N. 5 December 2020 20: 49
      0
      Quote: Olgerd Gediminovich
      If initially the tasks were set, then, taking into account the correction of recent years, including Karabakh, they should be changed to the following:
      1.fighting anti-tank drones

      Having two 30-mm 2A42 cannons is not enough to fulfill the tasks of anti-aircraft art. complex. How to detect drones? The Terminator BMPT does not have a radar, and through the commander's panoramic sight, unless the hovering helicopter can be detected, if you know where to look. External target designation? From whom?
  • Maksim_ok
    Maksim_ok 5 December 2020 20: 02
    +2
    One of the most useless machines. Two 30mm cannons cannot fire simultaneously, that is, only one cannon can be operated. The existing 30mm shells are ineffective against POTs. In the photo there is a car with two course AGS that are controlled by two operators (!) This is generally a step back. We will pile up everything that is at hand on the car, put one person for the AGS and promote it like a miracle weapon. armor protection PU ATGM is clearly insufficient. A very strange car. In my opinion, sculpting a special vehicle with such an indistinct set of weapons and the cost of MBT to protect tanks is an incomprehensible luxury. In my opinion, it is better to modernize the tanks themselves using the KAZ, implementing target designation from the KAZ control radar for the main armament of the tank, increasing the accuracy of the FCS, developing new shells with remote detonation and a ready-made block of fragments, a panoramic view for the commander, a remote-controlled remote mount on the tower with 12.7 mm machine gun or automatic grenade launcher (preferably 40 mm), all these measures make BMPT unnecessary. Plus, we need a heavy BMP based on MBT with a new armament complex, capable of fully interacting with tanks and also fighting the TOC (new 40-57 mm cannon, remote detonation, KAZ, ATGM) BMPT is the industry's attempts to sell Something to the armed forces they do not need at all. This whole story shows that the Armed Forces still do not quite understand why they need such a machine and how to use it.
  • Maksim_ok
    Maksim_ok 5 December 2020 20: 40
    0
    You have to be able to ask the right questions. If our tanks need a separate vehicle to protect them, then maybe something is wrong with the tanks themselves ?! Maybe you need to work with tanks in the right direction? And so it turns out that in the system a tank - an infantry fighting vehicle, a vehicle with a similar armament complex to the BMPT (and at the price of the tank that it should protect) and a crew of as many as five people (in a bad case, we get five dead from the crew) is wedged in if the BMPT thinks about God knows that it will bite off the enemy's MBT, then such an outcome is more than likely, since the terrain does not always allow using the maximum range of the ATGM (also the problem of target identification) and at a distance of 2 - two with a small km, the tank gun has no competitors at all ...
  • DDT
    DDT 6 December 2020 00: 09
    0
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-YiUYjPaiSc
  • Klingon
    Klingon 6 December 2020 00: 50
    0
    Quote: Boris Chernikov
    and also artificial intelligence and Schaub flew ...

    in vain you are ironic. In general, the presence of two grenade launchers here on the BMPT speaks only of the inability of the domestic military-industrial complex to cut down 30mm shells with DP programmers. that's all. since in the bands of 30mm guns there are only ordinary OFZ and armor-piercing. And without modern BIUS nowhere. Or do you think that Armata is also going to take off?
    1. Thomas N.
      Thomas N. 6 December 2020 10: 54
      0
      Quote: Klingon
      In general, the presence of two grenade launchers here on the BMPT speaks only of the inability of the domestic military-industrial complex to cut down 30mm shells with DP programmers. that's all. since in the bands of 30mm guns there are only ordinary OFZ and armor-piercing.

      30-mm OFS 3UOF23 NPO "Pribor" see here:
      https://topwar.ru/uploads/posts/2020-12/1607192874_1-290514112436.jpeg
      "Rain of Steel": a smart 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=v
      https://vpk.name/news/127940_groznye_russkie_terminatory_ozhidayut_rezkogo_povysheniya_ognevoi_moshi.html
      http://gurkhan.blogspot.com/2015/06/blog-post_8.html?m=1
      1. Klingon
        Klingon 6 December 2020 12: 13
        0
        well, it can be developed, but not put into service and not delivered because it is expensive, it was cheaper to shove a couple of AGS operators into the car than to finish the electronics. After all, one smart projectile is not enough, you also need a programmer for the gun, the corresponding software, and so on. I admit that this can be implemented in the future on the BMP T-15
  • Lied71
    Lied71 6 December 2020 13: 27
    0
    What's the point of this car? 2a42 have extremely low armor penetration and cannot hit, for example, a bradley or a marder in the forehead \ ZUBR8 with armor penetration of 27mm \ 1000m (from wiki) \. ATGM, the same Kornets have in modification \ D - armor penetration 1300 mm behind ERA (from wiki) \, Abrams also has \ M1A2SEP / SEPv2 / M1A1AIMv2 / FEP (2000) turret: ~ 1600? Mm from the COP, hull: presumably 1100 ? mm from KS (from wiki) \, and these are 2000x armor packages, not counting KAZ. Yes, to defeat old tanks, infantry fighting vehicles, lightly armored vehicles \ handicraft, houses, manpower, weakly protected fortifications, but it is too expensive and ineffective against modern vehicles. 57mm would be more appropriate here, since it can quite hit tanks, not like BMP / armored personnel carriers of all types + the power of the office is much higher.
  • APASUS
    APASUS 6 December 2020 20: 04
    +1
    Honestly, I already thought about the above-mentioned purchase figures for our MO. I think we need 1 to 3 for three tanks, one Terminator, it is precisely in such groups to maintain a database, in an urban area. And now we seem to be not ready, and in general, it is not very clear that our Defense Ministry neglects such a technique
  • digitalcn75
    digitalcn75 6 December 2020 23: 32
    0
    It has no analogues.
  • Left shot
    Left shot 8 December 2020 05: 26
    0
    An incomprehensible machine with incomprehensible tasks. Its functions must be performed by the tank itself. And here ... some kind of nedotank.
    1. lelik613
      lelik613 12 December 2020 05: 43
      +1
      It may be necessary, but the execution is questionable. A multi-storey superstructure with canned metal casings. Bullet boxes and drives, rocket tubes, oversized sights sticking outward will be demolished by the first hit of fragments.
  • ont65
    ont65 9 December 2020 08: 51
    0
    The machine would also have an intelligent communication and control system for satellite and UAV reconnaissance. With such a striking potential, it is an ideal means of reconnaissance, destruction and cover.
  • storm
    storm 11 December 2020 08: 18
    0
    Terminators should first of all enter the tank divisions, where the "shortage" of infantry is most noticeable (three tank regiments and one motorized rifle regiment).
    The proportion seems to be quite sufficient: one BMPT company per tank battalion.
  • Vanyusha
    Vanyusha 10 January 2021 14: 07
    0
    Just like that, put a CMU with a 12 mm automatic rifle on it to shoot from around the corner, attach a trailer with a supply of drones - and you can sell it to the Arabs
  • tank64rus
    tank64rus 15 January 2021 19: 32
    0
    Already put in 1 tank army. further war will show what kind of car.
  • puskarinkis
    puskarinkis 24 February 2021 12: 48
    0
    I heard the opinion that the BMPT was created so as not to "cut" the tanks under some kind of agreement, plus following the results of the Chechen war, so as not to suppress firing points from the Shilka ... That is, the BMPT's task, the rapid detection and suppression that could pose a danger to the tank. I hope that they are able to cope with the task.