Military Review

The Popular Mechanics: The Terminator Is Undoubtedly Scary, But Perhaps Not Needed

107
Kyle Mizokami from The National Interest this time on the pages of The Popular Mechanics published an article in which, as usual, he speaks in a very peculiar, but logical and reasoned manner. With regard to "Terminator" it sounds like this:


"The Russian army may not need this thing, but it looks menacing."

Russia's Terminator Weapon Is Unquestionably Terrifying, Possibly Unnecessary


Source: Kirill Borisenko, Wikimedia Commons

In the future, Mizokami's quotes will also be in italics, but objections or consent - in plain text.

Like many Western experts (and Mizokami definitely is), Kyle was imbued with newsthat the BMPT "Terminator" began to enter the Russian army. And like many colleagues, Mizokami asks the questions: "Why?" and "Who benefits from?"

Yes, loud cries of "hurray" from our side regarding the fact that as many as 8 (eight) cars entered the real unit after more than 30 (thirty) years from the beginning of development look somewhat rash. Moreover, the cars that will be included in the 90th TD will undergo further tests there. But according to the results of the tests, already, as they say, it will be looked at and decided.

But even this is not the main thing. The main question that Mizokami is trying to clarify for himself is the purpose of the machine.

"BMPT is designed to protect tanks by detecting and destroying anti-tank missile launchers ”.

Yes. Including. Standing in service with the US Army "Stryker" with the ATGM complex "Tou-2" is even a target for the 30-mm guns of the "Terminator". And in the event that the armor or protection can withstand (which is doubtful, to be honest), then there is ATGM "Attack". That being said, with no options.

And the tank, that "Abrams", that "Leopard", "Attack" is unpleasant for them. For KAZ is good, but ... we saw everything, including this:




Nothing lasts forever under the moon, and even more so a tank, which got a good ATGM. So a technique capable of neutralizing the installation of an ATGM on the battlefield is quite justified.

- You love cool military vehicles. And so do we. Let's make fun of them together. (K. Mizokami).

Let's. But remember that the one who laughs last laughs well. So let's try.

To begin with, you should generally understand what Mizokami sees in this car.

“The BMPT takes the chassis of the T-90 main battle tank and replaces the turret with a module containing a lot of weapons... The BMPT is armed with two 30mm 2A42 automatic cannons, two AGS-17 automatic grenade launchers, four 9M120-1 Attack anti-tank missiles and a remotely controlled 7,62mm machine gun.

It's like that. A gentleman's set for all occasions. "Attack" for a tank or intractable armored personnel carrier, 30-mm shells for lightly armored vehicles, 7,62-mm machine gun for infantry and RPG fans.


Photo: Vitaly V. Kuzmin

It can also be added that the "Relikt" inherited from the tank is quite a modern way to complicate the task of those who want to shoot at BMPTs with something unpleasant for the car.

Then the fun begins. Application.

“The BMPT was designed in the late 1980s, but did not go into production. The return to the topic happened after the catastrophic war of Russia in Chechnya from 1994 to 1995. Russian tank forces suffered heavy losses in battles with Chechen partisans. On New Year's Eve 1994, the offensive of Russian troops on the city of Grozny ended in massacres. Only the 131st Maykop brigade lost 800 people in two days of fighting, 20 of 26 tanks and 102 of 120 other armored vehicles.

One of the important factors that led to heavy losses was the design of Russian tanks.

Soviet and Russian tanks are well known for their low silhouette and sleek appearance. This makes the tank less visually and less visible on the battlefield, but also limits its ability to move the gun barrel up or down.

Moving into a modern urban environment filled with multi-story buildings, Russian tanks were unable to raise their guns high enough to engage in combat with anti-tank crews firing at them from above.

Russian tanks are equipped with 12,7 mm heavy machine guns capable of firing at long distances, including upward. However, the machine guns were intended to destroy helicopters and airplanes, and their manning left the tank commander defenseless against small arms fire. "


In general, I did not expect this from Mizokami. In itself, the situation when a tank will fire from a gun at a grenade launcher that appears above it is nonsense. Yes, the use of tanks in Grozny is not the best of the pages in stories our army, but what was - what was.

And there was, excuse me, the use of unskilled and unprepared soldiers in unusual conditions for them. The stupidity of the command, so to speak, is honest and frank. But the tanks, or rather, the elevation angles of the guns has to do with it?

The elevation angles of the T-72 are from - 6 ° 13 '... + 13 ° 47'. Abrams has from -10 to +20. Yes, higher, but in the conditions of the city it will also not save much from the grenade launcher on the roof of the neighboring building.

The machine gun is the real weapon in this situation. And not a single machine gun on Russian tanks has a sign “Shoot only at helicopters” or “Shoot only at planes”. Accordingly, God himself commanded to fire at fans of RPGs or "Javelins".

Although, I will note that for this it would be better suited not a 12,7 mm, but a 7,62 mm machine gun. And the rate of fire is higher, and there will be more ammunition.

“The BMPT was intended for firing together with Russian tanks in the conditions of Grozny. The BMPT's mission is to search, identify and fire at enemy anti-tank groups. The autocannons, machine guns and grenade launchers of the machine are capable of rising to engage enemy troops in tall buildings without exposing anyone to enemy fire. "

Well, so-so picture. Nothing else can happen in our country except Grozny?

It is very difficult to say where Mizokami got such a picture from. According to him, tanks enter the city (any, not necessarily Grozny), guarded by BMPT. For some reason, not a word about the infantry, but it is the well-trained infantry that is the main danger for grenade launchers and ATGM crews of the Javelin type.

Shooting from a 30-mm cannon on a rooftop - well, it looks absolutely absurd, to be honest. The 30mm round is not for a body with a grenade launcher or a pair with a Javelin. It is still necessary to get there. But a machine gun, or a few assault rifles - and "Houston, we have problems."

But this is in the event that next to the tank and BMPT there is a normally trained and prepared squad of warriors. But for some reason, Mizokami refuses us in this, despite the BUSV and other smart books.

"While US Army tanks fought in the Battle of Fallujah in 2004, they were used much differently — and as a result, more successfully than the Russian army in Grozny."

Here one cannot but agree with this statement, BUT: we are now assessing not the actions of the Russian army in Grozny and do not compare our soldiers with the Marines in Fallujah. We are talking about the tactics of using BMPT, which is still being developed "on the fly."

This, in fact, was the message. On the continuation of tests with the development of tactics of application.

“In Western armies, especially the US Army, there is nothing like BMPTs. This is because NATO armies do not consider them necessary. "

And here I will tell you this: I agree 100%. If gentlemen, the American marines and tankers flew into the Grozny meat grinder, so they would have thought the second assault on Fallujah as a doctrine. Although there, the losses were quite hefty.

Does NATO consider it necessary to have tanks fire support vehicles? No problem. This is because NATO armies have not fought any major army in the world. Libya? Iraq? Afghanistan? Yemen? Somalia? Haiti? Syria?

Well, if I were sitting on the relevant commission of the US Congress, I would also say that "ne teba". Does the list of military operations of the US Army in the 21st century look funny? So really, BMPT in conflicts with such armies is useless.

“The Russian ground forces approved the concept of using BMPTs for use in 2010, but in fact never bought them, declaring them unnecessary on the modern battlefield. Apparently, Moscow has now changed its mind. NATO forces rely heavily on infantry equipped with anti-tank weapons, and a vehicle like the Terminator could eventually come in handy again. ”

It is strange to explain, but it is for this that combat vehicles are being tested, in order to really make sure by experience that the vehicle represents exactly what was expected of it on the battlefield.

Kyle Mizokami asks a good question that in principle echoes the recent topic of Heavy Flamethrower Systems (TOC). How much is this necessary in a modern army?

And nobody knows yet. Someone habitually shouts “Hurray!” Because they can’t do anything else, and someone will thoughtfully study the use of BMPTs in conditions close to combat.

And this is a really reasonable approach - to study the possibilities, develop tactics for use, train crews, check in conditions close to combat.

And only then draw conclusions about whether the army needs this vehicle or not.


Photo: Vitaly V. Kuzmin

In our military history, including the Soviet one, and not only in ours, there have been many cases when the equipment, after approbation, did not go into service. For various reasons, but did not go. It is quite possible that this can happen in our case. Did the Commander-in-Chief cancel the absurd fuss about PAK YES, ordering to build the Tu-160M2? It was, it was ...

So in an amicable way, here you just need to calmly watch the test results and draw conclusions. And then make decisions.

The experience of the US Army, it is undoubtedly rich and interesting, but how seriously it is worth focusing on it is a completely different question. The Americans have a completely different approach to the use of the army, and, most likely, it will not go into open conflict with an army capable of drawing blood.

So, when developing strategies and tactics for using our army, everything should be taken into account. Including the actions of tanks in cities under the cover of infantry and BMPT. And even more so - in an open area, where BMPT will be clearly more useful than in the city.

But I am sure that we will find out everything in due time.
Author:
107 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. lopvlad
    lopvlad 9 December 2020 04: 43
    +20
    Did the Commander-in-Chief cancel the absurd fuss about the PAK YES, ordering to build the Tu-160M2? It was, it was ...


    the PAK DA project is not canceled or frozen, but continues to develop, so it is not worth misleading anyone. The fact that the PAK DA was originally developed as a subsonic one and gave the Tu-160M ​​supersonic aircraft the right to one more life, the military seemed to have little subsonic option to fulfill its tasks ...
    1. _Ugene_
      _Ugene_ 9 December 2020 18: 09
      +1
      The planned dates for the implementation of the main stages of the PAK DA program have become known. It follows from the contract that three experimental bombers will be built for flight tests. Preliminary tests of both all systems and aircraft in general will begin in 2023 and will last until 2025. At the beginning of 2026, state tests will start. If they are successfully completed, serial production may start in 2027.
      1. Jager
        Jager 13 January 2021 12: 46
        0
        then wait no earlier than 2035.
      2. lelik613
        lelik613 21 February 2021 16: 11
        0
        Have the saws already been purchased?
  2. Mykhalych
    Mykhalych 9 December 2020 04: 53
    +4
    And what do we want to expect from Kyle Mizokami - a specialist in the field of defense and national security. Lives and works in San Francisco and has published articles in such publications as Diplomat, Foreign Policy, War is Boring, and the Daily Beast. In 2009, he co-founded the Japan Security Watch blog.
    Certainly not praising the Russian defense industry.
    1. Ross xnumx
      Ross xnumx 9 December 2020 06: 10
      -2
      Quote: Mykhalych
      Certainly not praising the Russian defense industry.

      good That is why, taking this opportunity, he screeches to the whole world:
      The Popular Mechanics: "Terminator", undoubtedly scary, but possible not needed

      They really do not need weapons that can put to flight or sow panic in the "valiant and unrivaled" bodies of NATO soldiers.
    2. yehat2
      yehat2 8 February 2021 10: 47
      +2
      The author's trolling towards Mizokami is not always correct and Mizokami's arguments, although not better, are still relevant.
      In Grozny, it was not the tanks that turned out to be bad, but a tactical set-up caused outside the army.
      As for the tank in the city, the Israelis have the richest experience now.
      What is the author of the article wrong about the cover and weapons with a caliber of 7.62?
      firstly, to cut off the infantry from the tank so as to substitute it for the guidance of a disguised ATGM crew - this will be done by any experienced infantry effortlessly. The Soviet troops stormed the Faustists successfully only because the Faust literally hit point-blank, but it was already sour against the calculations of the Panzershreks, who were beating at 100-200m. Therefore, although the infantry can help the tank, you cannot completely rely on it. The enemy will ALWAYS drive off the infantry if desired.
      the second point is the armament of caliber 7.62 and below.
      How to smoke even a couple of people out of a panel or brick house, firing this caliber?
      In fact, this can only hinder leaning out. And given the number of suitable positions in the city for attack, it is ineffective to simply drive people away with fire - you need to break through the walls.
      And for this you need a larger caliber.
      Further, the roofs and planes are higher. To reach people there, it is beneficial to use grenade launchers, land mines and shrapnel. Shooting with a small shooter is much more profitable for those who are higher. Those. caliber 7.62 is no good again. However, the author did not say anything about other, more important disadvantages of the BMPT - this machine is almost as blind as a tank. The only difference is in the number of observation devices and +1 crew member with a pair of eyes. And if so, then the tank cannot count on much help, because BMPT, in addition to increasing firepower for small targets, in fact, offers nothing.
      Those. this is not a tank support vehicle, this is an infantry support vehicle.
  3. Nazar
    Nazar 9 December 2020 04: 56
    +13
    "The war will show the plan" - in the sense as the author wrote "here you just have to calmly watch the test results and draw conclusions. And then make decisions." - that's right, the car is interesting, but earlier neither we nor "them" had anything like it. They drive the equipment during the exercises, everything will be visible there.
    And in my opinion - this machine is not superfluous, I already wrote here - the same tank but with a different set of weapons, complementing the armament of conventional MBT
    1. venik
      venik 9 December 2020 11: 23
      -1
      Quote: Nazar
      They drive the equipment during the exercises, everything will be visible there.
      And in my opinion - this machine is not superfluous, I already wrote here - the same tank but with a different set of weapons, complementing the armament of conventional MBT

      =========
      good drinks And not just superfluous, but very useful! And not only in the offensive, but also in defense! And about this, just often forget!
      1. Alex777
        Alex777 10 December 2020 19: 00
        +2
        And not just superfluous, but very useful! And not only in the offensive, but also in defense! And about this, just often forget!

        What else they forget is about the KAZ, which appeared on the tanks.
        And about the risks of her own infantry defeat.
        And the Terminator is not afraid of it. hi
        1. venik
          venik 10 December 2020 21: 49
          +3
          Quote: Alex777
          What else they forget is about the KAZ, which appeared on the tanks. And about the risks of hitting her own infantry. And the Terminator, as it were, is not afraid.

          =========
          good Moreover, neither an armored personnel carrier nor an infantry fighting vehicle is also better not to twist under the impact of the striking elements of the KAZ - the armor is thin (something will delay, but something can even pierce!) .......
          PS Interestingly, who is it in you and me "slippers thrown from around the corner"? request hi
          1. Alex777
            Alex777 10 December 2020 22: 02
            +2
            Fans, not otherwise. wink
    2. Simargl
      Simargl 9 December 2020 19: 03
      -2
      Quote: Nazar
      And in my opinion - this machine is not superfluous, I already wrote here - the same tank but with a different set of weapons, complementing the armament of conventional MBT
      Once over Khrushcheyoum (the earth was glass wool) and his rocket tanks were laughing, and if the BMPT concept had been initially worked out, then ...
      1. Barmal
        Barmal 9 December 2020 21: 40
        0
        this mailer wanted to abolish the artillery, emnp. It's good that he could not bring it to the end, as he did with the Stalinist legacy in the economy.
        1. Simargl
          Simargl 9 December 2020 22: 34
          0
          Quote: Barmal
          this mailer wanted to abolish the artillery, emnp.
          Well, in a large fleet, artillery is practically a rudiment without it. And no matter how they try to revive it with a Zumvolto-like nonsense, the rocket is still simpler and more reliable ... or a drone ...
    3. Vk engineer
      Vk engineer 11 December 2020 21: 04
      0
      After the loss of more than 220 heavy armored vehicles in Grozny, and even after Syria, our multi-star generals and most theoretical experts still rely on tanks and very expensive heavy tracked platforms of the Armata type (T-14, T-15, T-16 etc.), as well as BMPT with a 30-mm AP (the aiming range of a 30-mm AP is slightly more than 4 km).
      This strategically outdated Concept of multifunctional "armored monsters" can be attributed to the extreme concept of a multi-tower (multimodular) BMPT: T-18, in the style of the retro concept of the 30s of the last century.
      Most of the generals from the CIS countries (a recent example is Armenia), as well as the military leaders of African and a number of Asian countries can also be attributed to the adherents of a primitive for the 21st century and, moreover, a very costly "tank strategy".
      According to some media reports, only in Syria the losses of the opposing sides, in tanks and other heavy armored vehicles, exceeded 2500 units: mainly in urban development and positional battles!
      Tanks have ceased to be the main effective force and deterrent. can be quickly hit from distances of several kilometers - from ATGMs, and from distances up to 80 km even by relatively inexpensive kamikaze drones.
      And a relative example: a possible large-scale offensive of the conditional enemy, even as part of several mechanized and tank brigades, can actually be quickly stopped at a distance of several tens of kilometers - by the competent use of mobile multiple launch rocket systems (MLRS).
      Numerous examples of the effective use of the Grad installations against armored vehicles are also known in the Donbass, where they clearly demonstrated the high effectiveness of MLRS in real battles.
  4. denis02135
    denis02135 9 December 2020 05: 09
    +20
    Dear author

    I read with interest

    “If gentlemen, the American marines and tankers flew into the Grozny meat grinder, then the second assault on Fallujah would seem like a doctrine to them. Although the losses there were quite hefty. "

    What is the difference between the actions of amers in Fallujah and the actions of Rossi in Grozny? It seems to me that only fools learn from their mistakes. The Americans looked at Grozny and decided to act differently.

    "One of the important factors that led to the heavy losses was the design of the Russian tanks." It was already somewhere we were flying on coffins, the clutches broke, and so on, 1941.

    Or maybe the tactics of using these tanks?

    “Does NATO consider it necessary to have tanks fire support vehicles? No problem. This is because NATO armies have not fought any major army in the world. Libya? Iraq? Afghanistan? Yemen? Somalia? Haiti? Syria"

    And the Russian army fought with any serious army in the world? Chechens, Georgians?


    The example of the Wagnerists in Syria showed whether the Americans need BMPT.
    1. Ross xnumx
      Ross xnumx 9 December 2020 06: 22
      -3
      Quote: denis02135
      And the Russian army fought with any serious army in the world? Chechens, Georgians?

      This is what - SARKAZM?
      Then, mark yourself in the corner. "The war in Chechnya" is a counter-terrorist operation, and the conditions for its implementation are fundamentally different from the war against the civilian population of Yugoslavia, Iraq ... And in Georgia in 2008 Russia did not wage a war (using all the power of the RF Armed Forces).
      Russian warfare and US wars are different in nature. And there is no need to compare them.
      The example of the Wagnerites showed only one thing: all means are good to achieve victory, only you don't need to hide your head in the sand. And it turned out like in life:
      "Victory has a thousand fathers, and defeat is always an orphan."

      Yes ... stop
      Quote: denis02135
      It seems to me that only fools study on your mistakes.

      Study? Yes, there are no such "words" in the Russian language.
      It's never too late to learn. yes (the old man exclaimed while dying wink )
      1. denis02135
        denis02135 9 December 2020 15: 49
        +8
        Thank you for your fair criticism with spelling, I have problems, but in essence, where did the Russian army fight with an adequate enemy?
    2. Good mat
      Good mat 13 December 2020 13: 48
      0
      It is the wise who learn from other people's mistakes, but wisdom comes over the years, and the smart just learn from their own, but fools do not learn at all - they are not capable ...))
  5. Lech from Android.
    Lech from Android. 9 December 2020 05: 53
    0
    They drive the equipment during the exercises, everything will be visible there.

    This is not enough ... fighting is needed to test it in real battles ... then it will be clear. hi
    1. Old tanker
      Old tanker 9 December 2020 06: 46
      +9
      BMPT was run in Syria. The result is positive. But military action with tank attacks by the Russian army can not wait. And thank God! But if it happens, then the technique should already be tested, and the ekimazhi trained in the tactics of its use in conditions close to combat, even those very tank attacks.
      Well, yes, in the course of hostilities, any, even the "most proven" equipment is still subject to changes and improvements. Piemer to that famous T-34.
  6. Catfish
    Catfish 9 December 2020 06: 13
    +14
    The machine gun is the real weapon in this situation. And not a single machine gun on Russian tanks has a sign “Shoot only at helicopters” or “Shoot only at planes”. Accordingly, God himself commanded to fire at fans of RPGs or "Javelins".


    So the American writes that the use of anti-aircraft machine guns in Grozny was tantamount to suicide.

    However, the machine guns were intended to destroy helicopters and airplanes, and their manning left the tank commander defenseless against small arms fire. "


    Here, instead of the word "staffing" you need to write "lack of armor protection", and then everything will fall into place.
    I myself served in a tank, and the machine gun on the turret of the loader's hatch was designed exclusively for engaging air targets. It was possible to shoot at the ground, but the brutal spring in the machine (for instant lifting of the barrel up) made it very difficult to direct the machine gun vertically.

    For the rest, I agree with the author, we must wait for the running-in in the troops, and then draw conclusions.
    1. Old tanker
      Old tanker 9 December 2020 06: 53
      +16
      On the T-72 and T-80, the springs on the NSVT are quite soft and allow quite confidently and accurately to fire at ground targets. And the stopper confidently holds the barrel in the line of sight. Well, the effective firing range and the action power of 12,7mm significantly exceeds 7,62. The first Chechen was my favorite car. I shot more from it than from the PKT. But the lack of armor protection is what killed many of the tank commanders' lives in that war. We always thought, why don't we have a T-90 or T-80UD, or even a T-64 with a closed launcher ?!
      1. Catfish
        Catfish 9 December 2020 18: 19
        +2
        Sergey, good evening. hi I served from 1966 to 69, and at that time, you yourself know what vehicles were in service, so tanks, from T-64 onwards, I saw only in the movies and at the parade. request smile
        1. Old tanker
          Old tanker 9 December 2020 19: 07
          0
          Kind.
          Everything flows, everything changes.
          And it's good that for the better
  7. Mavrikiy
    Mavrikiy 9 December 2020 06: 36
    +7
    Although, I will note that for this it would be better suited not a 12,7 mm, but a 7,62 mm machine gun. And the rate of fire is higher, and there will be more ammunition.
    Also very controversial. Krupnyak will reach behind an easy cover.
    1. Old tanker
      Old tanker 9 December 2020 07: 02
      +7
      This is definitely controversial! B-32 and BZT crumble brickwork at a time. So at the shooter who sticks his head out or the grenade launcher sticking out at the waist, you can even not aim at him for sure, but fire a burst at him and on this the firing point is suppressed. When bricks and concrete crumble around you or logs fly apart, the desire to shoot from this position disappears instantly. The reflex is triggered - to hide. Well, if a complete scumbag gets caught, then after a short time he will be torn by one of the bullets in the queue.
    2. CTABEP
      CTABEP 9 December 2020 09: 22
      +8
      And the range is higher. Here the author ignored the main problem - what to shoot from the Cliff on the T-72 must climb out, under the bullets.
      1. Old tanker
        Old tanker 9 December 2020 19: 11
        +3
        I agree. The T-72 is more dangerous than the T-80. In our 72s, we were looking into the frame of the "TV" under the turret frame, raising our hands above our heads to the flywheel and handle. Substituting only the head and the one covered by the machine gun. On the T-XNUMX, this was not possible at all.
  8. Mikhail m
    Mikhail m 9 December 2020 07: 00
    0
    A fundamentally new instrument has appeared in the army. How effective it will be depends on the intelligence and skill of the commander. They will test the application in exercises and, possibly, in combat conditions, and the machine will take its place in the ranks.
    1. Old tanker
      Old tanker 9 December 2020 19: 35
      0
      Golden words!
  9. Viktor Sergeev
    Viktor Sergeev 9 December 2020 08: 49
    0
    It often turns out that a seemingly unnecessary weapon turns out to be very necessary. Damn, let’s take the Aircobra: it didn’t fit for the USA and England, but for ours it’s just that, especially after a little alteration and adaptation.
    1. tank64rus
      tank64rus 19 December 2020 11: 33
      0
      It's like with Katyusha and Marshal Kulik before the war. One sight of Katyusha annoyed him, she was even hidden from him at shows. If not for the arrival of Tymoshenko, who said, show in action. When, after the show, they were delighted, but the time had already been lost, two days later the war. And that the Americans are concerned about both the Terminator and TOS, we will somehow decide it ourselves. I can say, as a Terminator flamethrower, as a fire support vehicle, for flamethrowers this is both escort and cover for TOS in (Chechnya for this 3-4 tanks or infantry fighting vehicles) and fire support for flamethrowers when entering a position. Kazakhstan has come to this for a long time.
  10. CTABEP
    CTABEP 9 December 2020 09: 21
    +5
    If gentlemen, the American marines and tankers flew into the Grozny meat grinder, so they would see the second assault on Fallujah as a doctrine. Although there, the losses were quite hefty.

    Well, if only with our command, I do not argue. And if it were normal, as they fought in Iraq, the bearded would wash themselves in blood with minimal losses of marines. Because in the end Grozny was taken by non-trained conscripts in tanks without a remote control. And when the officers fought normally, there was a corresponding result.
    1. Bad_gr
      Bad_gr 9 December 2020 11: 26
      +8
      For some reason, when we remember the tanks in Grozny, the first company is remembered. There was also a second one, in which the results differed radically.
      In the first - the illiterate use of soldiers and equipment not prepared for such tasks (tanks without filling in the DZ) + betrayal of the command staff, when successful operations were stopped and the conquered positions surrendered. So, it is not worth drawing conclusions on the technique looking at the results of the first Chechen campaign.
      And I would not consider BMPT only in connection with the protection of tanks. At checkpoints, such a car would not hurt (with good eyesight and a long arm), to guard objects and at junctions of strategically important roads.
      1. PSih2097
        PSih2097 9 December 2020 17: 23
        0
        Quote: Bad_gr
        And I would not consider BMPT only in connection with the protection of tanks. At checkpoints, such a car would not hurt (with good eyesight and a long arm), to guard objects and at junctions of strategically important roads.

        and in conjunction with a pair - three UAVs with a thermal imager at an altitude of 1500-2000 meters at a distance of 5-10 km, a firing point that cannot be killed at all, though only from the ground request... to it would be "Tunguska" / "Shell" in the kit - for protection from the sky ...
        1. Old tanker
          Old tanker 9 December 2020 19: 38
          0
          You can't do anything about every Armor checkpoint ...
          Sorry
          1. PSih2097
            PSih2097 9 December 2020 20: 23
            0
            Quote: Old Tanker
            You can't do anything about every Armor checkpoint ...
            Sorry

            shilku-M / Tunguska is not, but such a tandem is possible ...

            1. DAQ
              DAQ 10 December 2020 18: 20
              +1
              Perverts.
  11. Graz
    Graz 9 December 2020 09: 38
    +5
    for 30ki, you still need a projectile with a programmable detonation, you finally need a bop, when the BR11 gets into the troops, well, different means of detecting ATGM operators, etc. then it will be a modern BMPT
    1. psiho117
      psiho117 9 December 2020 17: 43
      +1
      Quote: Graz
      for 30ki you still need a projectile with programmable detonation

      Leave silly hopes aside: the cost of a programmable detonation in 30mm caliber is not something that our army can afford. There are many other places where you can invest this money, instead of talentless shooting into the void.
      finally need a bops
      Needed. But he is not in the troops.
      As there are many other necessary things that are - but at the same time they are not soldier as, for example, KOEP complexes on helicopters located in hot spots.
  12. Nikolaevich I
    Nikolaevich I 9 December 2020 09: 48
    +2
    Well, here it is again .... "Is there life on Mars, or is there no life on Mars ..." Do the armored (and not only them ...) troops need BMPT? I think it is needed, but not in the form that is being pushed into the troops! Is a 30mm caliber really necessary? Why not agree to a 57-mm gun based on LSHO-57 + 40-mm Abakan grenade launcher? Moreover, this will not be the main weapon! The main armament is missile! Therefore, in this regard, I am impressed by the T-17 of the respected A. Mitrofanov ... Moreover, I do not ask much! Even missiles, similar in design to "mestizo", will be sufficient in many ways, although it is not forbidden to dream about more! But "a la Metis" will be much cheaper! And at the first stage, you can shoot the "accumulated" old "bassoons" and "contests" ... (it is advisable to replace the warheads ...) Anti-aircraft missile armament is highly desirable ... with the ability to fight aircraft anti-tank missiles! You will also need an unmanned copter with modular (quickly replaceable ...) equipment! (By the way, I saw at one of the military exhibitions some kind of modernization of the T-1 ... In this vehicle, you can "build up" weapons by adding modules in the form of "turrets" to the main tower, using "technological" holes on the main tower. 64-mm cannons were added in this way ...) In general, I think: BMPT is needed, but in a different guise!
    1. Xenofont
      Xenofont 9 December 2020 10: 26
      +3
      Only 40mm Balkan, not Abakan.
      1. Nikolaevich I
        Nikolaevich I 9 December 2020 12: 08
        +1
        You suggested correctly ... I'm sorry, considering my age, sclerosis and difficult childhood! recourse
        1. Xenofont
          Xenofont 9 December 2020 12: 09
          +2
          Yes, not as a reproach, just so that people do not get confused.
    2. Glory1974
      Glory1974 9 December 2020 15: 32
      +2
      I think: BMPT is needed, but in a different guise!

      He strains a large number of weapons and a large crew of 5 people.
      The multi-turret tanks did not show themselves. The BMPT is conceptually similar to them.
    3. The comment was deleted.
    4. psiho117
      psiho117 10 December 2020 02: 25
      +1
      Quote: Nikolaevich I
      at the first stage, you can shoot the "accumulated" old "bassoons" and "contests" ... (it is desirable to replace the warhead ...)

      So I see how, with our effective management, the cost of replacing warheads raises the price of these missiles to the cost of Javelin.
      It's funny, but it's laughter through tears ...
      In general, I think: BMPT is needed, but in a different guise

      I agree. But on our Wishlist - UVZ do not care, they made the "Frame", and the rest - from the evil one.
  13. Alexander Vorontsov
    Alexander Vorontsov 9 December 2020 10: 11
    +2
    One of the important factors that led to heavy losses was the design of Russian tanks.

    And here the design - mediocre leadership of the storm was the reason, and no design.
  14. BAI
    BAI 9 December 2020 10: 15
    -3
    Did the Commander-in-Chief cancel the absurd fuss about the PAK YES, ordering to build the Tu-160M2? It was, it was ...

    What do you mean "ridiculous"? The impoverished country did not pull the expensive project. There are brains, but no money. Therefore, a cheap upgrade of the old one. The decision was made not from a great mind, but from despair.
    1. Bersaglieri
      Bersaglieri 9 December 2020 13: 19
      -1
      PAK YES is quite going as a project. But if there is a successful platform available, it's a sin not to upgrade.
    2. Nikolaevich I
      Nikolaevich I 10 December 2020 09: 12
      0
      Quote: BAI
      Therefore, the cheap modernization of the old

      Well, you can't call the Tu-160M2 cheap! It's like another person in his brother's suit ... maybe a cousin! wink
  15. Alexander Vorontsov
    Alexander Vorontsov 9 December 2020 10: 21
    +3
    In general, it seems to me that the dawn of such a technique will occur after the knash finish the 57-mm module with controlled detonation.

    The 57 caliber energy is quite large and putting this module on an BMP chassis is a compromise option.
    30 mm easily fits on the same BMP.
    So 57 mm itself asks for BMPT.
    1. psiho117
      psiho117 9 December 2020 17: 51
      +1
      Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
      So 57 mm itself asks for BMPT.

      No matter how I oppose the 57mm anti-aircraft gun, I agree with you: the 57mm gun is many, many times better than the squalor, originally from the last century, which was put on the "Frame".
      1. Alexander Vorontsov
        Alexander Vorontsov 9 December 2020 18: 00
        -1
        Quote: psiho117
        Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
        So 57 mm itself asks for BMPT.

        No matter how I oppose the 57mm anti-aircraft gun, I agree with you: the 57mm gun is many, many times better than the squalor, originally from the last century, which was put on the "Frame".

        And what, by the way, do not like 57 mm?
        1. psiho117
          psiho117 10 December 2020 03: 22
          +1
          Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
          what by the way do you not like 57 mm?

          The fact that he is shoved out of despair. They started talking about 57mm, and started a massive campaign "57 to the masses", just when our development of a 45mm "telescope" suddenly inexplicably disappeared. As Rogozin was shown in 2011, everything is dull.
          Then, in the 15th year, they remembered the AU220M from the "Petrel", and stuck it to the BMP-3 hull, and called it Derivation. The derivation turned out to be in its current form with a bunch of drawbacks, so they began to develop a new combat module.
          We made several different variations of several different DBMs - here is the export AU 220M, and "Derivation" for the BMP-3, and "Derivation-Air Defense" on the same base, and "Dagger" for the T-15 ...
          But the conceptual and technical flaws have been repeated and repeated since the days of the AU 220m.
          The technical shortcomings, most likely, stemmed from the "sea" theme of the gun, from which the legs of the AU 220m grow. Among them:
          - the incompatibility of the concept of "remotely controlled combat module" with the concept of "ammunition is in the ammunition stowage located in the troop compartment"
          - insufficient reservation of some elements of the module (STANAG 3 - this is just from an armor-piercing bullet 7,62x51 from 30 meters)
          - a small number of shells in the automatic ammunition rack - only 20 pieces, and a small ammo for a coaxial machine gun (500 rounds) - as a result of the large dimensions of both the weapon itself with recoil devices and the hefty shells. My favorite picture bully Illustrates well how big they are.

          Some of the problems were more or less solved on the next generation of the module - on the Dagger arr. 2019 (for "Barbariska") - added a panoramic sight of the commander, ATGMs, and made the module removed. True, it turned out to be huge, and still could not shove more than 80 shells. And there are only 2 ATGMs (which, at the same time, are not ATGMs, for they are thermobaric), and even open to all winds.

          Well, conceptual flaws - only the lazy did not stomp on them:
          - the very first is the dubiousness of the very concept of switching to this caliber
          - excessive power of the projectile and high ballistic weapons, which is of little use in modern combined arms combat, and combat in urban areas in particular
          - the catastrophic obsolescence of the ammunition in service: the shells come from the 60s - it's not even funny. The armor penetration of the UBR-281 blank is several times inferior to any modern 25-30mm half-caliber. The UOR-281 is incomparable with any modern 40 or 57mm HE shell with ready-made semi-finished fragments.
          You don't really need to rely on the Derivation-air defense shell either - it is very doubtful that it will be added to the BMP's ammunition load.
          1. Thomas N.
            Thomas N. 11 December 2020 06: 30
            0
            Quote: psiho117
            The armor penetration of the UBR-281 blank is several times inferior to any modern 25-30mm sub-caliber.

            Armor penetration at 1000 m: 57 mm caliber! BR-281U B / 0 ° = 100 mm, and 30x173 mm BOPS PMC287 B / 0 ° ~ 106 mm. (ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZSU-57-2 and 30mm_x_173 APFSDS-T_PMC_287.pdf) And where is "many times inferior" here? Rather, it is several times superior in terms of armor action with such a difference in caliber and projectile mass: 30-mm BOPS 0,235 kg, and 57-mm projectile 2,8 kg! If you do not set the goal of hitting tanks on the side (a dubious task for an automatic cannon, if the vehicle has an ATGM in its armament), then the 57-mm sub-caliber one is not so necessary, for the rest of the armored vehicles you can do with this "blank".
            1. psiho117
              psiho117 11 December 2020 09: 35
              +1
              Quote: Thomas N.
              Armor penetration at 1000 m

              Um .. when the angle is zero? Really?
              Such heresy is not even worth considering. At zero degrees, even the 25mm sub-caliber has comparable characteristics (80mm per 1000m).
              Armor penetration is considered at 30 ° and 60 ° (most often). For an angle of 60 degrees, there is no information on UBR-281, there is only for an angle of 30 ° - 80mm per 1000m (for 60 ° it will be 55-60mm approximately)
              25mm: M935A2 - 40mm at 60 ° meeting angle at 1000m
              30mm: M928 - armor penetration 60mm, at a meeting angle of 60 degrees, from a distance of 1000 meters
              Newer: 30mm Nammo Mk258: 110 mm rolled armor from 1000 meters at an angle of 30
              As you can see, they are superior by a third, even if not several times. This is despite the incomparable dimensions and mass of shells.
              By the way, let's compare with classmates:
              For example Italian 60x410R from Oto Melara, 40 years ago - at a distance of 2000 m pierced 120 mm of armor at an angle of 60 degrees
              new sub-calibers for 40 × 365R Bofors - 220mm at 60 ° at 1000m (versus 70mm for UBR blank)
              50 × 335 mm Supershort - also 220mm
              40 × 255mm CTAS - 140mm armor at a distance of 1500m, at a meeting angle of 30 °
              35 × 228 mm Oerlikon - 180mm @ 30 °, 130mm @ 60 °
              40 × 180 mm Super 40 - 120 mm at 30 °

              Conclusion - 60-year-old blanks suck.
              several times superior in terms of reservation action

              What? wassat I recommend that you google the mechanism of action of sub-caliber cores, after passing through the armor, and also look for the term "pyrophoricity", which is applicable to depleted uranium cores.
              Maybe you will understand something.
      2. Nikolaevich I
        Nikolaevich I 10 December 2020 09: 32
        0
        It is not at all necessary to install a 57-mm anti-aircraft gun of high ballistics from "Derivation"! In some cases, 57-mm LSHO-57 will be "enough"! And it will even be better, again in some cases, than 30-mm cannons ... There are options ... to make "super modules" ... that is, "replaceable" turrets with different weapons! And this is where the Armata platform "suggests itself"! BMPT based on "Armata" will work for every taste!
  16. The comment was deleted.
    1. Alexander Vorontsov
      Alexander Vorontsov 9 December 2020 14: 24
      0
      In general, there is some truth in your words. In Syria, it was often used just 152 mm Acacia to support tanks - where it was possible to prepare positions for them. They supported the tanks from the 2nd line, leaving the position, firing a couple of shots at the windows and driving away.
      All the same, 152 mm through the window is power ... whatever you say, but the high-explosive effect of this shell is much better than that of a tank shell.
      And it's funny to talk about 30 mm ... (compare with 152)
      1. Elturisto
        Elturisto 9 December 2020 19: 09
        -1
        Yes, thanks for the video. But it's not me, but common sense. With such generals as Shoigu and Chemezov of the RF Armed Forces, nothing good shines.
    2. psiho117
      psiho117 9 December 2020 17: 57
      +1
      Quote: ElTuristo
      We need an assault tank with a 152 mm mortar, with the ability to fire at a mortar.

      152mm is a lot. The already existing 120mm gun from "Nona" is enough - it has a thin-walled projectile, close to 152mm howitzer in power.
      A 152mm mortar will require the development of new shells, it will not be possible to shoot howitzer from it.
      New weapon, new shells ... too much new. You need to be able to use what already exists, otherwise no money will be enough.
      Although ... If Chubais is dispossessed, then ... any of my fantasies will become possible love
      1. Elturisto
        Elturisto 9 December 2020 19: 16
        -1
        Why can't you use howitzer shells all of a sudden? Caliber 152 appeared for a reason. In addition, in caliber 152 it is easier to make a corrected shell, as well as a UAV fired from the barrel.
        1. psiho117
          psiho117 10 December 2020 03: 44
          0
          Quote: ElTuristo
          Why is it suddenly impossible to use howitzer shells?

          with the fact that howitzer shells are too powerful.
          If you use separately howitzer shells, but with new, reduced charges, then this is also not worth the candle. Howitzer ammunition is designed for long range shooting;
          their thick walls are needed to withstand the monstrous acceleration when firing a powerful charge of gunpowder.
          for an assault gun, it's just unnecessary dead weight that you have to carry with you.
          Caliber 152 appeared for a reason

          That's right - the 120mm mortar howitzer cannon also appeared for a reason, and is now successfully replacing the remnants of 122mm howitzers, too, for a reason.
          Thin-walled ammunition with ready-made rifling, in terms of power, is in no way inferior to the classic 152mm projectile, but it weighs and takes up much less space.
          Plus, an assortment of shells and mines.
          In addition, in caliber 152 it is easier to make an adjustable projectile ...

          everything is fine already in the 120mm caliber - a bunch of adjustable and homing mines.
          ... and also fired from the UAV barrel.

          What for? It's simple - what for?
          Why shoot it from somewhere, make a filling resistant to overloads, increase the price and complexity, if all this can be started just like that - with a guide on the machine, or from a UVP in the case? Yes, at least you can run it from your hand.
          1. The comment was deleted.
          2. Nikolaevich I
            Nikolaevich I 10 December 2020 10: 00
            0
            Quote: psiho117
            fired from the UAV barrel.

            What for?

            In fact, the Americans made a UAV in the form factor of a 155-mm artillery round ... But they decided not to accept it for service yet! In general, I agree with you ... "why"? When you can get a UAV in a cheaper way!
            Quote: psiho117
            In addition, in caliber 152 it is easier to make an adjustable projectile ...

            There are adjustable 120-mm shells ... Yes, there is ... And if a 152-mm projectile is really cheaper ... + Is the projectile more powerful? A 120 mm (122 mm) projectile may not be enough in certain cases! (Example: In WWII, during the assault on the fortified cities of Germany, they were not "satisfied", for example, with only 122-mm M-30 howitzers! They also used 203-mm "Stalin's sledgehammers"!)
            If a 152-mm cannon is installed on the "Armata", then this weapon may not only be of high ballistics! If it will be possible to "convert" a tank / anti-tank gun into a "howitzer type" ... even in "field" conditions? (the long barrel is replaced by a shorter one (and cheaper ...) ... appropriate charges are introduced (modular loading and "thin-walled" shells ...)
  17. Jacket in stock
    Jacket in stock 9 December 2020 12: 30
    +6
    As I understand it, the idea of ​​BMPT was born from the inability in real life to ensure the interaction of tanks and infantry.
    When, according to the charter, there should be a pair of BMPs and a platoon of soldiers near the tank, but in fact they are not.
    So the tankers wanted to have their own quasi BMP that would not get lost on the way.
    And there are battles in the city, it is not clear.
    There, indeed, the mortar option seems more appropriate. It is certainly not an ATGM with a range of 10 km that is needed there. But air support is a must. And better in the form of a helicopter, perhaps even a drone that constantly hangs over the battlefield and instantly kills everything that moves.
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 9 December 2020 13: 50
      +5
      Quote: Jacket in stock
      As I understand it, the idea of ​​BMPT was born from the inability in real life to ensure the interaction of tanks and infantry.

      Not only. The main reason for the resumption of work on BMPT in the 90s was the banal absence of infantry: there are headquarters, and the cat cried out for active bayonets. The same marines in the First Chechen barely recruited a combined battalion from four fleets. In the second campaign, the picture was the same: a group of 50 thousand was hardly scraped together from all districts.
      So they decided to replace 10 MSO people with 3 BMPT crew members.
    2. Elturisto
      Elturisto 10 December 2020 09: 26
      -1
      This one was born out of a desire to cut the budget, blowing off naphthalene from the USSR's developments. The machine was then developed for Afgan, having seen enough of the self-made weapon amplifications by installing on armored personnel carriers and BMP -NSV and AGS.
  18. Konnick
    Konnick 9 December 2020 12: 40
    +2
    Quote: Victor Sergeev
    It often turns out that a seemingly unnecessary weapon turns out to be very necessary. Damn, let’s take the Aircobra: it didn’t fit for the USA and England, but for ours it’s just that, especially after a little alteration and adaptation.


    And it did not fit ours, but came to the court only for those pilots who at one time perfectly mastered the I-16, with its rear centering. Therefore, practically only aces flew on Cobras. The youth could not master this fighter. But those who knew how to fly aerocobras had the largest number of victories.
  19. Bersaglieri
    Bersaglieri 9 December 2020 12: 54
    -2
    In the 7.62 niche, it would be better to use GSHG, and not PCT, on such equipment.
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 9 December 2020 14: 09
      +5
      Quote: Bersaglieri
      In the 7.62 niche, it would be better to use GSHG, and not PCT, on such equipment.

      Air cannons and aircraft machine guns take root badly among the army - the operating conditions are not the same. The aircraft armament is designed for a "march" to the battlefield and firing in clean air (dust and dirt - maximum during takeoff and landing), low ammunition consumption (1 ammo for several hours) and servicing by qualified specialists after spending a maximum of 1 ammo.
      And multilateral systems are even more capricious.
  20. iouris
    iouris 9 December 2020 14: 58
    0
    It depends on who is not needed. But it's hard to argue. You have to be an expert, not a marketer.
  21. Vladimir61
    Vladimir61 9 December 2020 15: 17
    +2
    Quite a good and self-sufficient article! Neither "Hurray", nor "everything is lost" - professionals will try and appreciate.
  22. senima56
    senima56 9 December 2020 15: 41
    +1
    For me, one 57mm cannon is much more effective than two 30mm ones!
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 10 December 2020 23: 56
      0
      Russia has already made a 30 mm BOPS for 2A42 and other guns at a distance of 1000 meters, it penetrates 100 mm of armor - a shell made of 30 mm cannons can be left.
      1. psiho117
        psiho117 11 December 2020 09: 41
        0
        Made. It's just that it was not and is not in ammunition.
        Like the earlier Kerner.
  23. tank64rus
    tank64rus 9 December 2020 16: 04
    -5
    Well, if this gentleman vibrated and says the car is not needed, then you need to know, but you do. In general, the Terminator has a great future. And let this gentleman familiarize himself with the RF Patent "Reconnaissance and firing complex of weapons BMOP Patent No. 2658517" and others. The Chinese did not argue, but made a concept of BMPT and presented it at the exhibition. Let's see further. Time is just short, because the world is very disturbing. But there were so many opinions at the very top about Katyusha and T-34 before the war, the same very many were against it, but the war sharply put everything in its place. Just the price. which was paid for the incompetence of some and the stupidity of others was very high.
  24. Ded_Mazay
    Ded_Mazay 9 December 2020 17: 16
    +2
    Over the past six months, there have been so many articles dedicated to BMPT on VO that, frankly, it is no longer interesting.
  25. evgen1221
    evgen1221 9 December 2020 17: 39
    +2
    I alone notice that around the military press and the media work on the principle of rehash from neighboring media of the same and the reaction of their commentators - We looked at what others write - printed on this basis for themselves and in their own words.
    1. psiho117
      psiho117 9 December 2020 18: 00
      +2
      Quote: evgen1221
      We looked at what others are writing, printed on this basis for ourselves

      And then, on VO, Ryabov Kirill came, and developed this idea by another 800 characters laughing
  26. _Ugene_
    _Ugene_ 9 December 2020 18: 12
    +3
    it is wrong to think that the idea of ​​the BMPT appeared due to the unsuccessful assault on Grozny, with such a mediocre command no equipment would have helped, for good reason such commanders had to be imprisoned for life, because they have so many lives on their conscience
    1. WapentakeLokki
      WapentakeLokki 9 December 2020 19: 21
      -1
      .. it is interesting to look at the storming of Grozny by the amers ... most likely they would not bother, but simply ironed it from the air (the B-52 squadron would have turned Grozny into a lunar landscape) ... and, by the way, no one IN THE WORLD there is no experience of storming a modern city by ground forces ... I somehow do not remember the storms in Iraq or Afghanistan ...
  27. Knell wardenheart
    Knell wardenheart 9 December 2020 18: 36
    0
    The machine is certainly good, but the dimensions are the same as the tank. And the permeability will be the same. And the dimensional characteristics will also play against in urban battles. And the turret is too "stuffed" and vulnerable. It is possible that for its task the "Terminator" is too "cool", which makes it a kind of "vanderwaffe" out of a flexible weapon like the "Mouse" tank or the super-duper gun "Dora". Well, yes, cool, solid, performance characteristics are impressive. But the number and combination of parameters may turn out to be an unpleasant surprise, not for the enemy.
    Perhaps a robotic device like "Uranus" with half the power and slightly improved frontal armor - it would be better for these tasks, their losses would be less painful, the series would be larger. And most importantly, it would be possible to saturate the defense / offensive with them more evenly than with small-scale "practically tanks". But all this, of course, is my personal opinion.

    It may turn out that to combat such a plan, it would be better to develop a small UAV (multicopter) powered by a cable and armed with 7.62 and a pair of missiles, with the ability to adjust the fire of automatic mortars integrated with it on tanks. This would be an even more flexible and budgetary solution.
  28. Reserve buildbat
    Reserve buildbat 9 December 2020 18: 48
    +2
    "Although, I note that for this it would be better suited not a 12,7 mm, but a 7,62 mm machine gun. And the rate of fire is higher, and there will be more ammunition."
    I fundamentally disagree with this thesis. It is a short burst from NSV that is the best means of fighting a sniper or grenade launcher. If only because he can knock the spirit out of this shooter along with the wall behind which he was hiding. (This is with regard to urban development)
    1. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 9 December 2020 21: 32
      +2
      It's right. The large-caliber machine gun is both long-range and more accurate.
      And it breaks through the brick easily.
  29. WapentakeLokki
    WapentakeLokki 9 December 2020 19: 17
    -1
    ... as Abdula said ... a dagger is good when it is at hand .. and bad when you do not have it at the right time .. (not literally, but somehow) .. let it be the Terminator rather than use the old Shilka. ..
  30. voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 9 December 2020 21: 29
    +1
    It would be useful to test the Terminator in Syria.
    Transfer it to the Syrian army, and it will check it in Idlib and Der-Zor and in practice.
    1. _Ugene_
      _Ugene_ 9 December 2020 23: 15
      0
      Transfer to the Syrian army
      well, yes, so that Turkish drones would burn them
      1. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh 9 December 2020 23: 27
        +1
        Well, to put the Torah to them for protection.
        1. _Ugene_
          _Ugene_ 10 December 2020 15: 39
          0
          The Syrians will not be trusted with such equipment, this is 100%, and ours are quite risky, BMPT must work at the forefront, you can lose both people and equipment
          And our Torahs should not shoot down Turkish aviation, we have, like, peace is friendship tomatoes
          By the way, Turkish tomatoes are completely tasteless, like grass, like all their other vegetables and fruits, I have not bought it for a long time
    2. tank64rus
      tank64rus 19 December 2020 11: 23
      0
      The Terminator was already tested in Syria, and only after that the military agreed to an experimental batch. The results are positive.
  31. Smirnoff
    Smirnoff 9 December 2020 23: 18
    +13
    Kyle Mizokami can be answered that there is no need to be afraid to try and look for something new. It is worse when the army is preparing for past wars.
  32. Lied71
    Lied71 10 December 2020 11: 36
    0
    \ "BMPT is designed to protect tanks by detecting and destroying anti-tank missile launchers."
    Wouldn't it be easier / cheaper to use drones for this ?, they soar high, see far away, and hit far away.
    \ Standing in service with the US Army "Stryker" with the ATGM complex "Tou-2" is a very target for the 30-mm guns of the "Terminator" \
    Is 27mm penetration enough for 1000m?
    \ And in the event that the armor or protection can withstand (which is doubtful, to be honest), that is ATGM "Attack" \
    Let's suppress weakly armored vehicles with dear poultry? And why would he need guns at all? and then what will we hit the tanks with ?, the number of pturov is limited.
    \ "Attack" is not a pleasant thing for them \
    Come on? The wiki says “M1A2SEP / SEPv2 / M1A1AIMv2 / FEP (2000) tower: ~ 1600mm from the COP, hull: presumably 1100mm from the COP”, and the armor penetration of the attack in the same wiki “Armor penetration of the warhead: 800 (850) -950 mm for DZ” ... And that's not counting KAZ.
    \ we have seen everything, including this: \
    And what do we see here ?, is the Abrams equipped with a power shield in a circle ?, no, tanks are very vulnerable in the city, where they can throw a Molotov cocktail or be fired from a grenade launcher from any window? What we see, namely the defeat in the side \ stern \ mto \ tanks.
    \ "Attack" for a tank or intractable armored personnel carrier, 30-mm shells for lightly armored vehicles, 7,62-mm machine gun for infantry and RPG fans. \
    Ancient ATGM against tanks of third world countries, mostly old before the 2000s, except perhaps against armored personnel carriers / bmp, if they are not equipped with grilles (which gives some chance to avoid destruction by ATGM) and kaz, except that you can hit all sorts of pickups and other artisanal armored vehicles , yes, our BMPs are 1-2, and you most likely won't take brickwork with a machine gun, you will have to shoot from a cannon, for that you need it. He can suppress the calculation of the ATGM, if he himself does not fall under the missile.
    \ This leads to the fact that the tank becomes smaller visually and less visible on the battlefield \
    And suo has something to do with what kind of object is in size?, Besides, it sees in different spectra, not only in optical, but also in thermal. And also, due to the dense layout and small reserve volume, any hit will disable the components and assemblies of our machines.
    \ Russian tanks are equipped with 12,7 mm heavy machine guns, capable of firing at long distances, including upwards. \
    Only for this, the tank commander must get out and sit down at this machine gun, since this machine gun is not remotely controlled, as in 40-45 years.))
    \ The stupidity of the command, so to speak, honestly and frankly. \
    Is it stupid? Did they try to preserve buildings for civilians? And so, it would be possible to simply bomb and raze cities to the ground, no?
    \ Accordingly, God himself commanded to fire at fans of RPGs or "Javelins". \
    Can you see amateurs visually at a distance of more than 1 km ?, even behind obstacles? At this time, enemy snipers will not shoot at you, yes.
    \ Although, I note that for this it would be better suited not a 12,7 mm, but a 7,62 mm machine gun. And the rate of fire is higher, and there will be more ammunition. \
    Only here it does not particularly break through the walls, and it is not a fact that it will kill after hitting, since the power of the cartridge is small.
    \ And here is a machine gun, or several assault rifles \
    Can you smoke ?, 30kA at least breaks through and falls asleep with shrapnel and concussion at close breaks.
    \ This is because NATO armies do not consider them necessary \
    That's right, they just level cities to the ground with aircraft and drones.
    \ Does NATO consider it necessary to have tanks fire support vehicles? \
    Bradley will be enough, the same guns, the same gun, more armor than our BMPs, or, again, they will be suppressed by aviation.
  33. Left shot
    Left shot 10 December 2020 19: 57
    -3
    I totally agree.
    When this product with a name from the American clown factory is promoted everywhere, it begins to give away with what is happening in Ukrostan.
    Drooling around a nedotank or a "tank for the poor", and the troops not only "Armata", but the T-90 are not received practically.
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 11 December 2020 00: 00
      0
      The troops are receiving the upgraded T 90M, a batch of 132 Armata platforms in the Armed Forces for trial operation will arrive next year at Uralvagonzavod it is already assembled in full.
  34. bad
    bad 11 December 2020 08: 17
    +13
    The equipment is new, there is nothing to compare with, it did not participate in battles. In any case, it takes time to evaluate.
  35. Sergey Kulikov_3
    Sergey Kulikov_3 11 December 2020 12: 45
    0
    All the same, the Terminator has a controversial concept, without the infantry, he is also not a tenant in the city, and you cannot send troops with him, the T-15 is more practical.
  36. Vk engineer
    Vk engineer 11 December 2020 21: 02
    0
    After the loss of more than 220 heavy armored vehicles in Grozny, and even after Syria, our multi-star generals and most theoretical experts still rely on tanks and very expensive heavy tracked platforms of the Armata type (T-14, T-15, T-16 etc.), as well as BMPT with a 30-mm AP (the aiming range of a 30-mm AP is slightly more than 4 km).
    This strategically outdated Concept of multifunctional "armored monsters" can be attributed to the extreme concept of a multi-tower (multimodular) BMPT: T-18, in the style of the retro concept of the 30s of the last century.
    Most of the generals from the CIS countries (a recent example is Armenia), as well as the military leaders of African and a number of Asian countries can also be attributed to the adherents of a primitive for the 21st century and, moreover, a very costly "tank strategy".
    According to some media reports, only in Syria the losses of the opposing sides, in tanks and other heavy armored vehicles, exceeded 2500 units: mainly in urban development and positional battles!
    Tanks have ceased to be the main effective force and deterrent. can be quickly hit from distances of several kilometers - from ATGMs, and from distances up to 80 km even by relatively inexpensive kamikaze drones.
    And a relative example: a possible large-scale offensive of the conditional enemy, even as part of several mechanized and tank brigades, can actually be quickly stopped at a distance of several tens of kilometers - by the competent use of mobile multiple launch rocket systems (MLRS).
    Numerous examples of the effective use of the Grad installations against armored vehicles are also known in the Donbass, where they clearly demonstrated the high effectiveness of MLRS in real battles.
  37. Maksim_ok
    Maksim_ok 13 December 2020 23: 14
    +4
    I wonder why this magazine (National Interest) and its articles are so often mentioned in the domestic media? Is it really because it is published by Dmitry Konstantinovich Simis, that he likes to appear on Russian political TV programs and conducts a talk show "Big Game" with Nikonov on Channel One? Is there any connection here?)
    And the Terminator is one of the most ridiculous and useless machines. She has two 30-mm cannons, which cannot fire simultaneously (!) In this sense, how is the Terminator better than the BMP-2/3 where the same weapon is used? There are no remote detonation shells for this cannon, the existing HE shells are ineffective against the TOTs. In addition, two course 30-mm AGSs were installed in the building, each controlled by its own operator. That is, this is not a step back, but a step into the past century! Plus PU ATGM with weak protection (and there is a TUR on the BMP-3, there is on the tanks themselves) As a result, we get a car at the price of a tank, which supposedly should protect the tank. Guys, if the tanks need to be protected, then maybe what's wrong with them? Maybe they need to be finalized? And not to fence a car with five (!) Crew members by vindyurivaya weapons systems into it, what is just at hand? It looks like an attempt by industry to sell to the military What this industry can create, and not what the military needs. The history of this BMPT shows that the military even now do not fully understand why they need this miracle and how to use it.
    1. psiho117
      psiho117 14 December 2020 19: 05
      0
      Quote: Maksim_ok
      than Terminator is better than BMP-2/3

      The only advantage of the existing BMPT project over the BMP is tank observation devices and an MSA. True, the tanks are all the same, and what is there advantage BMPT, just called detect and eliminate threats to tanks - I don't understand at close range.
      Quote: Maksim_ok
      Guys, if the tanks need to be protected, then maybe what's wrong with them? Maybe they need to be finalized?

      Golden words!
  38. tank64rus
    tank64rus 19 December 2020 11: 20
    0
    In 2015, the Vestnik Mordovia published an article about the Terminator's development concept presented as a model. At the Army 2018 I saw a model of a multipurpose robotic combat complex as part of a Terminator and two Uran-9s, since the armament of the complex is already unified, plus the UAV and the central control point for vehicles, etc., by the way, the comrades from the PRC did not waste time on trifles and after three months rolled out their "Chariot of Mars". where the weapons and purpose of the Terminator are much more powerful and these are not small models, but a full-fledged combat vehicle made in metal. By the way, Patents for the Terminator are patented in Russia, but you understand.
  39. obratov
    obratov 29 December 2020 13: 00
    0
    "... This is because the NATO armies have not fought any major army in the world ..."
    And who fought with the "serious" armies?
  40. Dmitry Zabelin
    Dmitry Zabelin 30 December 2020 06: 12
    +1
    It's up to the military, of course, but ...
    A pair of BMPT tanks plus one or two compartments of motorized riflemen prepared for the attack is a huge ramming power. And TOC for burning especially "tough nuts". Agree that pulling the commander of the car and specifically poking your finger at what needs to be burned is much faster than waiting for the attack aircraft to arrive and adjusting them by radio. And vaapsche "yadivan"
  41. Evgeny Seleznev
    Evgeny Seleznev 1 January 2021 21: 08
    0
    There is a sense in criticism. Tanks on the battlefield, especially in urban conditions, must be accompanied by infantry. And the infantry delivery vehicle is an infantry fighting vehicle or an armored personnel carrier. BMPs and armored personnel carriers can also have a large guidance angle in height, they must also chase mujahideen with grenade launchers or javelim. Why this rubbish if there is already a corresponding technique. You need the standard BPM-2 and BTR-80 or heavy Kurgan.
  42. TatarinSSSR
    TatarinSSSR 7 February 2021 19: 05
    0
    My God, what is the author talking about? I read to 1/3 and that's it, I couldn't read this nonsense further. He accuses the foreigner of the blizzard, and he even forgets what he writes, although he himself quotes him. He writes that the tank commander sticking out of the hatch for firing from an anti-aircraft machine gun is vulnerable to small arms, and the author ignores it and scribbles his heresy. The Soviet armored vehicle crews had a problem with the elevation angle back in Afghanistan, in the mountains. Not to mention the city! And a 30 mm projectile is not only an armor-piercing blank, it can also be high-explosive, and even hitting a wall next to a window or a roof will not seem a little to a grenade launcher. Etc. An openly stupid article.
  43. Doliva63
    Doliva63 11 February 2021 15: 54
    0
    For my taste, that the author of the opus, that his commentator - weak experts and, it seems, without a military (especially tank) education. Otherwise, the first would not even raise this topic, and the second would comment. laughing
  44. Phoenix
    Phoenix 12 February 2021 18: 56
    0
    Quotes by Mizokami are all to the point, but the "contribution" of the author, to put it mildly, is extremely stupid. Well, purely a kindergarten. Instead of responding to every word with some kind of fantasies, it would be better to pay attention to the fact that the car is built in complete opposition to the terms of reference. The "designer" Yakovlev himself, in his shameful interview, proudly stated this more than once. The vehicle is not designed to combat infantry, as the chief designer openly says. He made ATGMs with powerful optics and nimble missiles. Hence the choice of guns "to be", and two fools with AGS without aiming angles and without normal optics ... Look at the interview, the designer offers levitating assault vimans ... The fact that the machine still went into a small series suggests that not everyone in MO has a properly functioning head.