Military Review

"Tanks will not protect from air strikes": the Belgian press on the role of the BMPT "Terminator" on the battlefield

130

The BMPT concept emerged in the 1980s and was actively developed in connection with the war in Afghanistan, and then in Chechnya. It was originally planned to create a combat vehicle with various weapons for the destruction of anti-tank weapons in a single combat formation with tanks... The project was suspended several times, but BMPT supporters managed to resume it each time.


Synthesis of anti-aircraft guns and self-propelled guns


The problem of supporting tanks on the battlefield and on the march is not new. She is at least 80 years old

- writes Army Recognition (Belgium), discussing the role of the Terminators on the battlefield.

During World War II, tanks were given self-propelled anti-aircraft guns, which protected them from air and infantry attacks. With the advent of more powerful machines in the Wehrmacht, the Red Army equipped its combat formations with self-propelled guns. BMPT is a kind of synthesis of anti-aircraft guns and self-propelled artillery working on ground targets, designed to destroy heavy equipment.

Russian "Terminators" must hit armored targets with "Attack" missiles, and infantry and mechanized formations with machine guns and cannons.


However, the BMPT's capabilities to combat aircraft are limited. The vehicle does not have radar or other means of detecting air targets, which reduces the effectiveness of firing. Adequately trained attack helicopter and jet pilots will be able to destroy a tank column with or without BMPTs. Shock drones can play the same role

- writes the Belgian press.

Why are Terminators needed?


As stated, if you look at the anti-tank potential of "Terminators", then these machines will be inferior even to the BMP-2M, which instead of ATGM "Attack" received four newest "Cornets".

BMPT is superior to BMP in protection, but inferior in mobility

- explained on the pages of the publication, which is also critical of the Terminators chassis, made on the chassis of the "obsolete modifications" of the T-72.

In this regard, the developer's statements about the possibility of one BMPT to replace a pair of BMPs and a motorized rifle platoon are questioned.

In addition, the armament available to the tanks allows them to defend themselves without involving BMPTs: MBTs are equipped not with 30-mm Terminator cannons, but with 125-mm guns; ATGM "Reflex" and "Invar" in terms of power are indistinguishable from the "Attack".

In terms of anti-aircraft potential, BMPTs are inferior to "Shilk" and "Tunguska", which are engaged in tank escort. In urban conditions, conventional artillery is better suited to clear paths.

Then what are the advantages of BMPT?

- the edition asks.

As a result, Army Recognition makes a general conclusion that "the BMPT concept does not offer a breakthrough, since combat vehicles are not able to protect tanks from air strikes."

130 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. _Ugene_
    _Ugene_ 20 December 2020 12: 57
    +23
    "The BMPT concept does not offer a breakthrough, so combat vehicles are not able to protect tanks from air strikes"
    and what have the air strikes? BMPT never air defense
    As stated, if you look at the anti-tank potential of "Terminators", then these machines will be inferior even to the BMP-2M, which instead of ATGM "Attack" received four newest "Cornets".

    In my opinion, the Attack will be more powerful, the attack rocket is 42,5 kg, the cornet has 26 kg.
    but since the Belgians say it means it is, why were they silent before?
    1. Insurgent
      Insurgent 20 December 2020 13: 04
      -1
      Who can say that the designation on board the BMPT in the photo and the designation similar to it for the T-62 tank supplied to the army of Marshal Haftar to Libya is some kind of a single designation for transporting equipment by railway transport?



      1. _Ugene_
        _Ugene_ 20 December 2020 13: 11
        +20
        marking of goods for transportation along railways, loading gauge
        1. Insurgent
          Insurgent 20 December 2020 13: 12
          +8
          Quote: _Ugene_
          marking of goods for transportation along railways, loading gauge

          In good , a valuable, enlightening commentary. Thank you !
          1. iouris
            iouris 20 December 2020 13: 47
            +2
            The question is: is this inscription eternal or could it have been erased with the sleeve of a technician before taking a photo?
      2. Avior
        Avior 20 December 2020 13: 18
        +12
        This is an oversize index for transportation by rail

        This means that the cargo is not included in the loading gauge.
        https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Габарит_погрузки
        1. _Ugene_
          _Ugene_ 20 December 2020 13: 33
          +5
          precisely, the T-72 has an oversize of 2 degrees in the area of ​​the lower oversize (at a height of 480 to 1400 mm) and in the area of ​​lateral oversize (at a height of 1400 to 4000 mm)
    2. Bad_gr
      Bad_gr 20 December 2020 13: 39
      +2
      Quote: _Ugene_
      and what have the air strikes? BMPT never air defense

      Not air defense, and is not obliged to cover from danger from the sky, for this "Tunguska" and "Shilki" are intended. But for every fireman, there are air defense missiles for her.
      1. _Ugene_
        _Ugene_ 20 December 2020 13: 50
        +5
        "Tunguska" and "Shilki" are outdated as air defense
        But for every fireman, there are air defense missiles for her.

        what is the point in air defense missiles if there are no means of detection and guidance, moreover, modern means that can effectively work on targets with a small EPR (small drones are mainly made of plastics)
        1. VO3A
          VO3A 20 December 2020 23: 21
          +1
          in a single combat formation with tanks.

          These crazy experts and old men! What is the battle formation of tanks? Tanks against partisans and that's it ... Forget forever ...
          The problem of supporting tanks on the battlefield and on the march is not new. She is at least 80 years old

          What can you talk about with these antiques after this phrase?
          In comments, people only talk about guerrilla warfare ... Tanks in the 3rd echelon, to protect and protect important objects ... There is no battlefield, there are not even company strongpoints, there is no forward - there is a positional combat area ... It's funny read, backward people, you slept through everything ... Whom to cover? Brad!
      2. user1212
        user1212 20 December 2020 16: 10
        +1
        Quote: Bad_gr
        Not air defense, and is not obliged to cover from danger from the sky, for this "Tunguska" and "Shilki"

        Actually, Torm2 at the present stage should deal with this
        1. Bad_gr
          Bad_gr 20 December 2020 16: 25
          +1
          Quote: user1212
          Quote: Bad_gr
          Not air defense, and is not obliged to cover from danger from the sky, for this "Tunguska" and "Shilki"

          Actually, Torm2 at the present stage should deal with this

          What am I talking about? I am writing about this that specially created air defense systems should be engaged in air targets, and not a machine sharpened for detecting ground tank-hazardous targets. Its air defense missiles, like the Attack complex, are for force majeure.
          1. Alex777
            Alex777 20 December 2020 17: 16
            +1
            The Belgians have not heard anything about "Derivation-Air Defense".
            And they did not see her. And she is. bully
            1. JD1979
              JD1979 21 December 2020 12: 59
              -2
              Quote: Alex777
              The Belgians have not heard anything about "Derivation-Air Defense".
              And they did not see her. And she is.

              They also have not heard about the sect of believers that it exists and will appear to the world, and not so and will remain the wet dreams of one KB, eager to cut a little wood.
    3. figwam
      figwam 20 December 2020 14: 37
      +3
      so combat vehicles are not able to protect tanks from air strikes. "

      Anti-drones are developing Air Defense Derivation.

      The Terminator is designed to operate as part of tank formations to destroy enemy anti-tank weapons: to effectively suppress enemy manpower equipped with grenade launchers, anti-tank systems, and small arms; there is also the ability to hit tanks, infantry fighting vehicles, pillboxes, bunkers and other highly protected targets on the move and from the spot.
      1. _Ugene_
        _Ugene_ 20 December 2020 14: 51
        +3
        Anti-drones are developing Air Defense Derivation.
        cannon air defense against modern shock drones is useless, the same bayraktars from 7-8 km. they can attack in height, no derivation will help
        1. figwam
          figwam 20 December 2020 15: 11
          +2
          Quote: _Ugene_
          the same bayraktars from 7-8 km.

          Shell, Thor, Buk will remove from such a height.
      2. Boris Chernikov
        Boris Chernikov 20 December 2020 19: 42
        -2
        eh .. it's a pity that the version in 100 + 30 melon was wrapped in due time .. it would be a bloat
    4. Grits
      Grits 20 December 2020 14: 55
      +4
      Quote: _Ugene_
      but since the Belgians say it means it is

      The great Belgian experts woke up. Apparently, they remembered how long they held out against Hitler and decided to give smart advice.
      1. Dkuznecov
        Dkuznecov 20 December 2020 21: 03
        -1
        And they (Belgium) and did not fight against the German axis,
        staying neutral.
        It was the French who thought that Belgium would fight.
        And then something went wrong with the French.
    5. Stone
      Stone 20 December 2020 15: 46
      -4
      And how does BMPT stand for? So it should cover the tank from all dangers, including shock drones, especially for a kamikaze drone, the tank is the number one target. Today, technologies make it possible to create a combat vehicle, the electronics of which will automatically detect incoming kamikaze drones and ATGMs, aim and shoot them down. I think even the smartphone from which I am writing could do this, just connect the appropriate optics and drives to it, and write a program. The processor power would definitely be enough. And instead of normal electronics, two soldiers were put in a plus. In general, in the tank there are 3 dead from the kamikaze drone, and in the BMPT there will be 5 dead.
      1. OgnennyiKotik
        OgnennyiKotik 20 December 2020 16: 02
        -1
        The BMPT concept appeared in the 80s and met the challenges of that time. Now it is not relevant. RPGs on the battlefield are atavism, ATGMs of the 2nd generation are the main anti-tank weapon, the 3rd generation begins to appear en masse, including kamikaze. Rockets and drones are launched from closed positions that cannot be hit by direct fire.
        In the USA, they launched into a series what the BMPT should become. If you cross BMPT and IM-SHORAD will be what you need.
        1. voyaka uh
          voyaka uh 20 December 2020 17: 12
          0
          The most valuable thing in this car is 4 "plates" on the sides
          MHR. Multi-Mission Hemispheric Radar
          Various rockets and cannons can be connected to these plates.
          1. OgnennyiKotik
            OgnennyiKotik 20 December 2020 17: 13
            -4
            And that's what I mean. Armament on IM-SHORAD is very controversial.
        2. Boris Chernikov
          Boris Chernikov 20 December 2020 19: 50
          -2
          Well, there are KAZs from ATGMs, but the protection scheme simply did not work out from drones .. I personally see it in the form of either a KAZ modification for work on the upper sphere .. let's say in the form a la smoke from T-14 or the Laser + SVU complex from Rati the same .. and the second option, in principle, and "smart" ATGM can shoot down

          1. onstar9
            onstar9 20 December 2020 21: 06
            0
            Well, if KAZs are actively introduced, then non-metallic anti-tank missiles will be developed ... Such a transition is inevitable ...
            1. Boris Chernikov
              Boris Chernikov 20 December 2020 22: 15
              -3
              the sword and shield race, But here the principle of soft power - it is not the body that is affected, but the GOS
      2. _Ugene_
        _Ugene_ 20 December 2020 16: 15
        +2
        And how does BMPT stand for? So it should cover the tank from all dangers
        well, then he still must have access to the network and protect the tank from attacks by "experts" in the network, while not stopping to shoot
      3. Doliva63
        Doliva63 20 December 2020 17: 52
        +4
        Quote: Sten
        And how does BMPT stand for? So it should cover the tank from all dangers, including shock drones, especially for a kamikaze drone, the tank is the number one target. Today, technologies make it possible to create a combat vehicle, the electronics of which will automatically detect incoming kamikaze drones and ATGMs, aim and shoot them down. I think even the smartphone from which I am writing could do this, just connect the appropriate optics and drives to it, and write a program. The processor power would definitely be enough. And instead of normal electronics, two soldiers were put in a plus. In general, in the tank there are 3 dead from the kamikaze drone, and in the BMPT there will be 5 dead.

        The dead will be not 5, but 6 - the NSh of the tank regiment will shoot himself because he bought such an adventure wassat
        1. Hagen
          Hagen 20 December 2020 20: 22
          -1
          Quote: Doliva63
          NSh of the tank regiment will shoot himself because he bought such an adventure

          NSh TP is not authorized to determine the staff of its own regiment and its equipment. So, his conscience will be clear. It seems to me that at present there is no idea in the leadership of the Ministry of Defense about methods of dealing with UAVs and barrage ammunition. Derivation-air defense is frankly weak against UAVs with a ceiling above 6000. It is already clear that MZA needs a firing zone in the range of 10-12 thousand. And this is a caliber of 76-85 mm. Once again, we are adopting the vehicles (both BMPT and Der.-Air Defense) of yesterday. Unfortunately...
          1. Doliva63
            Doliva63 21 December 2020 21: 31
            0
            Quote: Hagen
            Quote: Doliva63
            NSh of the tank regiment will shoot himself because he bought such an adventure

            NSh TP is not authorized to determine the staff of its own regiment and its equipment. So, his conscience will be clear. It seems to me that at present there is no idea in the leadership of the Ministry of Defense about methods of dealing with UAVs and barrage ammunition. Derivation-air defense is frankly weak against UAVs with a ceiling above 6000. It is already clear that MZA needs a firing zone in the range of 10-12 thousand. And this is a caliber of 76-85 mm. Once again, we are adopting the vehicles (both BMPT and Der.-Air Defense) of yesterday. Unfortunately...

            About the military air defense now I do not know, as before, alas. And at the expense of the NSh regiment, you got excited. He can tell the commander - I'm against it! And the commander will have to either change the decision or NSh. Most likely, the commander will change his mind. But then NSh answers. In the case of 118 UTP 20 GvOA GSVG, which a comrade from the GRU mentioned here, it was like NSh who shot himself.
            1. Hagen
              Hagen 22 December 2020 06: 40
              0
              Quote: Doliva63
              In the case of 118 USP 20 GvOA GSVG

              Is this not the case when the tank did not give way to the train? This is fundamentally different. Guilt from personal wrong decisions is one thing. In a combat situation, and the conversation was about those killed by a kamikaze drone, completely different levels of responsibility. And if NSh TP declares that he does not agree with the regiment's staff approved by the General Staff, then this NSh should be driven with a broom. But most likely, not a single NSh will dare to such a "cross-fire" as a manifestation of disagreement with the set of equipment provided in the regiment. And the CP does not have the right to choose which equipment it will have in service. Yet this decision is of a higher level, most likely in the area of ​​the district headquarters and the General Staff.
              1. Doliva63
                Doliva63 22 December 2020 19: 28
                0
                Quote: Hagen
                Quote: Doliva63
                In the case of 118 USP 20 GvOA GSVG

                Is this not the case when the tank did not give way to the train? This is fundamentally different. Guilt from personal wrong decisions is one thing. In a combat situation, and the conversation was about those killed by a kamikaze drone, completely different levels of responsibility. And if NSh TP declares that he does not agree with the regiment's staff approved by the General Staff, then this NSh should be driven with a broom. But most likely, not a single NSh will dare to such a "cross-fire" as a manifestation of disagreement with the set of equipment provided in the regiment. And the CP does not have the right to choose which equipment it will have in service. Yet this decision is of a higher level, most likely in the area of ​​the district headquarters and the General Staff.

                It is clear which "staff" will be lowered from above, that will be - it is, as it were, the army. But at the place of command, I would immediately be replaced by a thread, until they are forced to answer for the results of the innovations. wassat And in the case of 118 USP, this is not one erroneous decision, but a series of violations of all hands. Docs, correctly shot himself. Although it was necessary to start with the regiment. And he was just fired.
  2. garri-lin
    garri-lin 20 December 2020 12: 57
    +20
    It's strange. The army kitchen and mine detector also cannot protect tanks from air attacks. Maybe because they were not intended for that? Although the BMPT is not a warrior in its current form, the concept itself is sensible. And if it is implemented correctly, it will be able to fight with kamikaze drones and small scouts. Through optics and external target designation.
    1. Stone
      Stone 20 December 2020 16: 43
      +2
      The kitchen and mine detector are not meant to support the tank, they are meant for something else. And the BMPT, judging by the name, is exactly what is needed - to protect the tank from everyone who shoots at it and everything flying at it. And I am not saying that the BMPT is not necessary garbage, but I am saying that it needs to create a combat vehicle that meets modern threats. And in this case, the developer approached the implementation rather hacky. Probably, they just took an awl (which was relevant in the mountains 40 years ago) and added armor to it, that's all. And we need a machine that constantly scanned the space around itself, in the IC. and from above, at least in the optical range, she even noticed a flash from the launch of an ATGM, aimed and knocked it down, and most importantly, knocked down kamikaze drones, tk. this is the number 1 threat to the tank in the modern world.
      1. garri-lin
        garri-lin 20 December 2020 18: 49
        +1
        Impossible to cram something unpushable. The BMPT's share is tank-hazardous targets on the ground. And in the air there are targets for Derivation. And Pines / Birder. Otherwise it will be too difficult and expensive.
  3. Mavrikiy
    Mavrikiy 20 December 2020 12: 57
    +1
    "Tanks will not protect from air strikes": the Belgian press on the role of the BMPT "Terminator" on the battlefield
    Well if the Belgians said hi then who will go their way, those fool
  4. Cartalon
    Cartalon 20 December 2020 12: 58
    0
    Well, in general, that's all right.
    1. Insurgent
      Insurgent 20 December 2020 13: 06
      -2
      Quote: Cartalon
      Well, in general, that's all right.


      Right yes BMPTs do not fly. No.

      And should they also fly, in addition to all their other qualities?
      1. Obliterator
        Obliterator 20 December 2020 13: 17
        +7
        Quote: Insurgent
        And should they also fly, in addition to all their other qualities?

        They must hang in orbit, and from there pour fire at least Bayraktars, even at ground vermin, otherwise it’s not serious.
        1. Insurgent
          Insurgent 20 December 2020 13: 21
          -1
          Quote: Obliterator
          They must hang in orbit, and from there pour fire at least Bayraktars, even at ground vermin, otherwise it’s not serious.

          Orbit? Hmm what There is a possibility that the BMPT will have to confront Tesla Mask there ...
          Will it do?

          1. Obliterator
            Obliterator 20 December 2020 13: 37
            +3
            Quote: Insurgent
            Orbit? Hmm, there is a possibility that the BMPT will have to resist there Tesla Mask ...
            Will it do?

            No, no need to, Tesla from the Mask revolves around the Sun. We are still adequate people, we will not send the BMPT so far - it will have enough near-earth orbit to support the troops.
        2. Grits
          Grits 20 December 2020 14: 59
          -2
          Quote: Obliterator
          They must hang in orbit, and from there pour fire at least Bayraktars, even at ground vermin, otherwise it’s not serious.

          And also must be protected from submarine torpedo attacks. The Belgians somehow did not notice this.
      2. Cartalon
        Cartalon 20 December 2020 13: 42
        +1
        After all, tanks from the air do not threaten anything
      3. Doliva63
        Doliva63 20 December 2020 17: 55
        +2
        Quote: Insurgent
        Quote: Cartalon
        Well, in general, that's all right.


        Right yes BMPTs do not fly. No.

        And should they also fly, in addition to all their other qualities?

        Due to the absence of any qualities at all, flying would be an option! laughing
  5. Nikolaevich I
    Nikolaevich I 20 December 2020 13: 03
    +6
    In this case, I largely agree with the "foreigners"! I have repeatedly said that modern BMPTs must protect tanks from air threats! It is possible that 2 types of BMPT are needed for tank units!
    1. OgnennyiKotik
      OgnennyiKotik 20 December 2020 13: 07
      -2
      Quote: Nikolaevich I
      It is possible that 2 types of BMPT are needed for tank units.

      It is logical. One type of road with radar and optoelectronic systems, with a developed CIUS. The second is simpler and cheaper. But both need guided blast shells.
    2. garri-lin
      garri-lin 20 December 2020 13: 18
      +3
      Why two types? There is a derivation. Everyone should mind their own business.
      1. Nikolaevich I
        Nikolaevich I 20 December 2020 16: 47
        +4
        Quote: garri-lin
        Why two types? There is a derivation.

        Yes "Derivation" was given to you! For some, this "vesch" is perceived as "The Miracle of the Great Monitu"! Only "humans" who have a vague idea of ​​the organization and capabilities of air defense can rely on the Enta Derivation as a "wunderwaffe"! To be honest, I'm tired of listening to unwarranted "enthusiasm" about Derivation! A BMPT is needed to perform the functions of a "group" ("collective") KAZ with air defense capabilities! The tasks of such an BMPT are to protect tanks in the area of ​​responsibility of the BMPT from anti-tank missiles and aircraft with "suitable" performance characteristics! For some reason, the "inhabitants of the VO" are sure that the tank KAZ is a kind of "device designed to protect tanks near MBT, but no more than a few tens of meters! Nonsense! The concept of self-defense of tanks is" designed "for different levels of tank protection! there is a KAZ!), providing for the defense of tanks at a distance of up to 2 km! And how many people know this? And how can I argue with such ... "gifted"? How can I calmly listen to nonsense? Therefore, I say that 2 different types of BMPT are needed! One type for supporting tanks in the operational space during a breakthrough of defense or after ...! The second type - during combat operations in the city! This type has the main armament, as: 1.PT- and assault missiles ... 57-mm guns (high or low ballistics - I will not disassemble!), 40-mm automatic grenade launchers, electromagnetic trawls, necessarily short-range KAZ, anti-cumulative grilles! It is highly desirable that the platform for BMPT was modular! Perhaps the Armata platform will do! platform,so that it was possible to hang various equipment and weapons on it, and thus, it is easier and cheaper to "get 2 types of BMPT!" Hurray, comrades!
        1. OgnennyiKotik
          OgnennyiKotik 20 December 2020 17: 11
          0
          If we talk about the caliber, then we need to revive the 37 mm. ZSU-37-2 "Yenisei" in a new version is what you need.

          1. Nikolaevich I
            Nikolaevich I 20 December 2020 18: 12
            +2
            The 37mm caliber is practically a thing of the past! 35 mm and 40 mm calibers are popular in the "world"! There is no need to revive the Yenisei ... there is a suitable eenitic cannon (!) - the Tunguska missile system! You can re-equip the Tunguska with a 40-mm caliber ... In addition, for the complex, zurs with a range of up to 10 km and a reach of up to 6 km have been developed! True, these zurs were not adopted for service; because. “Tunguska” was decided to be “omitted” ... but it's a matter of everyday life!
        2. SpbGenn
          SpbGenn 20 December 2020 18: 54
          +3
          Reasoned.
        3. garri-lin
          garri-lin 20 December 2020 18: 59
          -2
          You are contradicting yourself. Your second type, capable of shooting down a drone, definitely needs smart projectiles. With these projectiles, Derivation becomes a prodigy. The last step remains. Adequate landing gear for the first line. And the sky will be occupied by Derivation. And ground targets BMPT. 57 mm low ballistics. ATGM vertical launch. 12,7 + 40 mm in an independent DUM. The main feature is very cool surveillance equipment. And controlled demolition. Howitzers are now shooting down the CD. 57 mm low ballistic will also be able to fire at slow and low-flying targets. But only as an option. The BMPT will not be able to monitor the sky on its own. It's too hard.
          1. Nikolaevich I
            Nikolaevich I 20 December 2020 21: 36
            +1
            Quote: garri-lin
            You contradict yourself

            In fact, the contradiction is apparent! Due to lack of "space" and time, I could not "paint a picture in paints and varnish", but I clearly "see" from your comment that you misunderstood what I wanted to say ... is it really time for me to write an article "on the organization of self-defense of a tank unit in the 21st century"? And by the way, about ... "The BMPT will not be able to monitor the sky on its own ..." Well, how to look at this thing! There is such a bourgeois concept ... "the unification of units and weapons in a single information field"! And you will not believe (! ), but some helicopter behind the bushes on the sidelines can inspect the "battlefield" with radar or ECO and transmit information to tanks, that BMPT in such a way that these "combat units" will see targets as if there are radars on MBT and BMPT! And if the helicopter does not seem comfortable there, or it turns out that the officer from the MTO did not add fuel to the tank, it will "wash off", passing the "baton ... for example, to a drone ... etc.!
            1. garri-lin
              garri-lin 20 December 2020 22: 33
              0
              One of the advantages of the same network centricity. Only a helicopter is not optimal for this. A military air defense vehicle. From the second line. And different Dereviations and Poultry Catchers will regularly hit the enemy's means of destruction. Covering Tanks and BMPTs. And Torah and Buki will work on carriers of weapons. Everyone will mind their own business.
              1. Nikolaevich I
                Nikolaevich I 20 December 2020 22: 53
                +1
                And there may not be enough different "Trees and Fowlers" for everyone ... and therefore they may not be in the right place at the right time! And on the "other side" - the regular (that is, the units located in the structure ...) specialized BMPT-I and BMPT-II will be in battle formations next to the tanks! And "Torah and Buki" are not assigned only to tanks!
                1. garri-lin
                  garri-lin 21 December 2020 01: 15
                  +1
                  Derivation may not be possible? And specialized BMPTs, especially of two types, will always be there where they are always needed? An under-the-ear argument. Both Torah and Buki are assigned to subdivisions. Tanks without air defense are the same sacrifice as tanks without Infantry.
    3. Graz
      Graz 20 December 2020 13: 37
      +3
      write garbage, for this there is a military air defense escorting the shell and the torus
      1. Nikolaevich I
        Nikolaevich I 20 December 2020 16: 57
        +5
        Quote: Graz
        write bullshit

        You write garbage, so I will not answer your garbage individually! If anything, I gave a suitable answer garri-lin ! By the way, the military air defense is the military air defense! It's time for tank units to have their own (!) Countering air threats! Previously, it was a good practice when tank units were accompanied by anti-aircraft self-propelled guns (ZSU-57-2 and ZSU-23-4)! They fit perfectly into the concept of "tank BMPT"! But ... "everything flows and changes!"
        1. garri-lin
          garri-lin 20 December 2020 22: 35
          0
          Will tanks work separately from the rest of the military? Or will there be several independent air defense units in the theater of operations? Diverse subjects? Too many cooks spoil the broth.
          1. Nikolaevich I
            Nikolaevich I 20 December 2020 23: 31
            +1
            Quote: garri-lin
            Will tanks work separately from the rest of the military?

            Such situations may arise ... and they have already arisen in past conflicts! Syria can be cited as an example. I hope you can find similar videos on the internet!
            Quote: garri-lin
            there will be several independent air defense units in the theater of operations? Diverse subjects?

            Yes ... in the theater of operations there will be air defense units performing different tasks ... those tasks that are assigned to them "individually" (!) By the Unified Command ... they may have their own "zones of responsibility", which, without an order, the air defense personnel cannot may be left, but the order may be late! Air defense units can be "assigned" to certain, but different formations ... Air defense units may face the need for "self-defense"! Air defense means may not have time to transfer to "the right place and the right time"! Air defense systems on the march may be subject to fire raids and delay ...
            1. garri-lin
              garri-lin 21 December 2020 01: 18
              0
              All this can apply to absolutely any subdivision in the war. But to complicate the structure by creating several differently subordinate, duplicating each other, I think it's not worth it.
    4. Doliva63
      Doliva63 20 December 2020 17: 58
      +2
      Quote: Nikolaevich I
      In this case, I largely agree with the "foreigners"! I have repeatedly said that modern BMPTs must protect tanks from air threats! It is possible that 2 types of BMPT are needed for tank units!

      You forgot about the third - which will protect these 3 types! laughing
      1. Nikolaevich I
        Nikolaevich I 20 December 2020 18: 05
        +2
        Quote: Doliva63
        forgot about the third - which will protect these 3 types!

        From what?
        1. Doliva63
          Doliva63 20 December 2020 19: 37
          +1
          Quote: Nikolaevich I
          Quote: Doliva63
          forgot about the third - which will protect these 3 types!

          From what?

          From an artillery attack, for example laughing
          1. Nikolaevich I
            Nikolaevich I 20 December 2020 23: 00
            +2
            Quote: Doliva63
            forgot about the third - which will protect these 3 types!

            From what?

            From an artillery attack, for example

            From an art raid? belay Well, that's Argument! recourse There is nothing to argue here! request(about attack UAVs, assault aircraft, artillery units allocated for counter-battery warfare; MLRS ... I won't say anything out of fright!)
            1. Doliva63
              Doliva63 20 December 2020 23: 36
              +2
              Quote: Nikolaevich I
              Quote: Doliva63
              forgot about the third - which will protect these 3 types!

              From what?

              From an artillery attack, for example

              From an art raid? belay Well, that's Argument! recourse There is nothing to argue here! request(about attack UAVs, assault aircraft, artillery units allocated for counter-battery warfare; MLRS ... I won't say anything out of fright!)

              My friend, I wrote an artillery attack offhand. And so you're right, of course, Terminacher has no chance on the battlefield. drinks
              1. Nikolaevich I
                Nikolaevich I 21 December 2020 07: 48
                +2
                Quote: Doliva63
                I wrote an artillery attack offhand

                Yes, and I kind of sarcastically! I hope I did not offend you in the "heat of controversy"? hi
                1. Doliva63
                  Doliva63 21 December 2020 20: 12
                  +1
                  Quote: Nikolaevich I
                  Quote: Doliva63
                  I wrote an artillery attack offhand

                  Yes, and I kind of sarcastically! I hope I did not offend you in the "heat of controversy"? hi

                  No, what are you, it was nice to talk hi
    5. Boris Chernikov
      Boris Chernikov 20 December 2020 19: 52
      -3
      you need to ensure the detection of air threats and shells with remote detonation .. + put a normal remote control of the ZPU on the panormanic
    6. riwas
      riwas 21 December 2020 06: 56
      +1
      I have repeatedly said that modern BMPTs must protect tanks from air threats!

      I agree. Back in 1999, the Sentry Tank was proposed.
      http://www.sinor.ru/~bukren/tank_21.htm
      And his equipment is universal - suitable for both ground targets and air targets. Missiles can be: ATGM, SAM or universal. The 57mm cannon can fire at small UAVs or intercept air-to-ground missiles. "Pantsir-S1", "Tor", "Tunguska" are not intended to provide protection from an air enemy directly on the battlefield in tank ranks.
  6. Artyom1979
    Artyom1979 20 December 2020 13: 04
    +12
    I don't even know what to say. As the saying goes, if my grandmother had a ch..n, she would be a grandfather. A propeller should be attached to him so that he could fly and all the n ... l.
  7. iouris
    iouris 20 December 2020 13: 10
    -2
    Nothing will protect you from air strikes. But for combat operations in an airless space, it is suitable.
    By the way, what is the function of the mysterious chalk and in-line lettering on board?
    1. Insurgent
      Insurgent 20 December 2020 13: 14
      +1
      Quote: iouris
      By the way, what is the function of the mysterious chalk and in-line lettering on board?

      I asked about the same a little higher. I was answered briefly but informatively.
  8. parkello
    parkello 20 December 2020 13: 11
    0
    and from impacts from orbits)))
  9. Reserve buildbat
    Reserve buildbat 20 December 2020 13: 11
    +1
    laughing The Belgian press speaks great truth!
    BMPT will not be able to cover tanks from air strikes. For this we have "Tunguska", "Torah", "Buki", etc.
    But I liked about "no radar". I immediately thought that the BMPT could not launch missile strikes, since it did not carry cruise and ballistic missiles, and could not hit the territory of the United States. Not a single ICBM in ammunition. In short, an absolutely useless product. wassat
    1. iouris
      iouris 20 December 2020 13: 17
      -8
      Quote: Stroibat stock
      For this we have "Tunguska", "Torah", "Buki", etc.

      The conclusions of the air defense academy experts - they are useless. The incredible became apparent in October this year. even for them.
    2. Incvizitor
      Incvizitor 20 December 2020 20: 59
      0
      Yes, you need to do this

      And air defense and MLRS more
  10. Klingon
    Klingon 20 December 2020 13: 12
    0
    that's after all .... !!, but first it was necessary to speculate whether the same Puma, Lynx, Marder or striker could defend against Drones and then crow about the Terminator wassat
  11. tralflot1832
    tralflot1832 20 December 2020 13: 20
    0
    In general, their opinion. They have a problem with tank building, they work for Uncle Sam! If they don't have a trace of this, this does not mean that the enemy cannot have this. Algeria is not going to buy a Terminator by chance, they know a lot about Russian armored vehicles, although like France is closer or for a long time remembered how to be a French colony.
  12. alex aircraft
    alex aircraft 20 December 2020 13: 23
    +2
    To escort the BMPT columns, the most is. How much can you fight by putting a 23/2 on a truck? And here there is armor and a caliber more. But the fact that the road-life of soldiers is cheaper? And for air defense there are other means. You do not need to make a wunderwaffe out of everything.
  13. Jacket in stock
    Jacket in stock 20 December 2020 13: 25
    +3
    , 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 - BMPT, if the infantry did not come to hit targets easier and closer with a small cannon, 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.
    1. garri-lin
      garri-lin 20 December 2020 13: 49
      +9
      Forgot the teplushka segment in your armored train. That was where the cavalry detachment to place.
      1. Jacket in stock
        Jacket in stock 20 December 2020 16: 26
        +2
        Quote: garri-lin
        Forgotten segment

        I forgot, thanks for reminding me.
        Soldiers often forget about everyday things, but they are not people. They also need to live somehow. So the teplushka in the standard kit is the most it. They can't sleep in a tank.
        1. Doliva63
          Doliva63 21 December 2020 20: 21
          +1
          Quote: Jacket in stock
          Quote: garri-lin
          Forgotten segment

          I forgot, thanks for reminding me.
          Soldiers often forget about everyday things, but they are not people. They also need to live somehow. So the teplushka in the standard kit is the most it. They can't sleep in a tank.

          By the way, about sleeping in a tank. You may not know, but the tanks had cutlets - you plug in the cord from the overalls and sleep in any weather. And sometimes they slept on the transmission - while the engine was hot, covered with an awning - Africa! But when it cools down, it remains to run around the car. As you get warm - under the awning. And so all night. The romance is unforgettable! laughing I love tank troops drinks
    2. Doliva63
      Doliva63 20 December 2020 18: 02
      +3
      "The second link - BMPT, if the infantry did not come ..."
      You will be a noble humorist, try it! laughing good
      1. A1845
        A1845 21 December 2020 13: 06
        0
        when optimized, the tank can be removed and the termchter with the heater can be left
  14. rotmistr60
    rotmistr60 20 December 2020 13: 26
    +2
    The Belgians also decided to contribute to the criticism of Russian weapons, but in their own way. For some reason they began to compare the tank support combat vehicle with the Shilka, the BMP-2, with an emphasis on air defense. This machine was not created for this.
    1. Doliva63
      Doliva63 20 December 2020 19: 05
      -1
      Quote: rotmistr60
      The Belgians also decided to contribute to the criticism of Russian weapons, but in their own way. For some reason they began to compare the tank support combat vehicle with the Shilka, the BMP-2, with an emphasis on air defense. This machine was not created for this.

      Of course, not for this - she created the dough to cut down for UVZ, nothing more. In 2006, in Tagil, I talked with the designer of this "miracle", he said so: no one needed tanks, and the plant had to sell something, so they did it on their own initiative.
      1. A1845
        A1845 21 December 2020 13: 09
        +1
        Quote: Doliva63
        with the constructor of this "miracle", he said so:

        do not divulge the secret about unparalleled in the world sad
        1. Doliva63
          Doliva63 21 December 2020 20: 22
          +1
          Quote: A1845
          Quote: Doliva63
          with the constructor of this "miracle", he said so:

          do not divulge the secret about unparalleled in the world sad

          Oh, damn, got excited, yeah laughing
  15. JD1979
    JD1979 20 December 2020 13: 35
    +1
    Experts are becoming more and more expert ... Naturally, a machine whose main task is to defeat targets that are not at all airborne cannot provide full protection against enemy air weapons. Although 30mm will bring a lot of "pleasant" impressions to any helicopter that inadvertently flew into the affected area, it is foolish to consider this aircraft as a full-fledged air defense system. The experts apparently did not know and forgot that the RF Armed Forces have military air defense quite diversely represented (at least no one has this, neither in quantity nor in composition), the tasks of which, for some reason, are trying to pull on the BMPT.
  16. Zomanus
    Zomanus 20 December 2020 13: 50
    0
    BMPT is a type of add-on to a tank. A supplement that carries the weapons that the tank lacks.
    1. Doliva63
      Doliva63 20 December 2020 19: 06
      +1
      Quote: Zomanus
      BMPT is a type of add-on to a tank. A supplement that carries the weapons that the tank lacks.

      What kind of weapons is the tank missing? belay
      1. Kote Pan Kokhanka
        Kote Pan Kokhanka 20 December 2020 20: 03
        +1
        Quote: Doliva63
        Quote: Zomanus
        BMPT is a type of add-on to a tank. A supplement that carries the weapons that the tank lacks.

        What kind of weapons is the tank missing? belay

        Lookout slots to shoot back from the revolver! laughing
        The Terminator was riveted to counter enemy infantry with the ability to simultaneously fire at multiple targets. Such a car would not be bad in Avgan and Chechnya.
        If, of course, the performance characteristics correspond to the real ones and she can take the first blow on herself, and then suppress the enemy's firing points. Or at least open them up for your infantry.
        1. Doliva63
          Doliva63 20 December 2020 23: 19
          0
          Quote: Kote Pan Kokhanka
          Quote: Doliva63
          Quote: Zomanus
          BMPT is a type of add-on to a tank. A supplement that carries the weapons that the tank lacks.

          What kind of weapons is the tank missing? belay

          Lookout slots to shoot back from the revolver! laughing
          The Terminator was riveted to counter enemy infantry with the ability to simultaneously fire at multiple targets. Such a car would not be bad in Avgan and Chechnya.
          If, of course, the performance characteristics correspond to the real ones and she can take the first blow on herself, and then suppress the enemy's firing points. Or at least open them up for your infantry.

          The Terminator was riveted to make money. Dot. drinks
      2. Zomanus
        Zomanus 21 December 2020 23: 44
        0
        But the one that the BMPT carries with it.
  17. rudolff
    rudolff 20 December 2020 13: 51
    +1
    If a heavy infantry fighting vehicle based on Armata is adopted, the meaning of the Terminators is largely lost. Some of the proposed BMs have virtually identical armament, and the protection of the vehicle itself is better.
    The Terminator is good not only for protecting tanks, but as a "janitor" for clearing settlements where the use of tanks is occasional or impractical at all.
    1. cat Rusich
      cat Rusich 20 December 2020 14: 20
      -3
      Quote: rudolff
      If a heavy infantry fighting vehicle based on Armata is adopted, the meaning of the Terminators is largely lost.
      If accepted ...
      Until then ...? - The BMPT Terminator is needed to fight against the enemy's "light armored vehicles" (BMP Bradley M-2) - you can't penetrate a small-caliber automatic cannon, and the Terminator itself can come closer. A MBT (Abrams) will appear to use ATGM. But only support their MBT, and not fight in their place.
      1. rudolff
        rudolff 20 December 2020 14: 40
        +4
        Firstly, the Terminator is not yet in combat units. From acceptance to service to saturation of units in the state there is not a quick way. It was possible to wait for the T-15, and not again fence the zoo with a very controversial technique. By the way, the T-15 with Baikal and for air targets can work well, including UAVs.
        Secondly, enemy infantry fighting vehicles are also tasty prey for a tank, here you don't mind a shell.
    2. Grits
      Grits 20 December 2020 15: 07
      -1
      Quote: rudolff
      If a heavy infantry fighting vehicle based on Armata is adopted, the meaning of the Terminators is largely lost. Some of the proposed BMs have virtually identical armament, and the protection of the vehicle itself is better.

      The T-15 has no grenade launchers. And one cannon. In addition, if it is not 57 mm, then the BMPT will have more firepower.
      1. rudolff
        rudolff 20 December 2020 16: 11
        +3
        As the Ministry of Defense determines in the TK, so it will be. Not a problem from a technical point of view. You can also put grenade launchers, you can put 57-mm Baikal, you can also have a pair of 30 and 100 mm, as on the BMP-3. Whether it makes sense in just two 30-mm, I'm not sure. The T-15 will not yield to the Terminator, but at the same time, there is also a detachment of riflemen, and with Baikal or another variation of 57-mm there is also some kind of near-zone air defense.
        1. Doliva63
          Doliva63 20 December 2020 19: 09
          +1
          Quote: rudolff
          As the Ministry of Defense determines in the TK, so it will be. Not a problem from a technical point of view. You can also put grenade launchers, you can put 57-mm Baikal, you can also have a pair of 30 and 100 mm, as on the BMP-3. Whether it makes sense in just two 30-mm, I'm not sure. The T-15 will not yield to the Terminator, but at the same time, there is also a detachment of riflemen, and with Baikal or another variation of 57-mm there is also some kind of near-zone air defense.

          The Ministry of Defense has never had any technical assignment regarding this rattle - this is an initiative development of UVZ, as far as I am aware.
          1. rudolff
            rudolff 20 December 2020 19: 29
            +1
            Are you calling a T-15 rattle or a Terminator? As for the latter, I will believe, but as for the T-15, the vehicle has not been accepted for service, the TK can be issued ten times and changed along the way.
            1. Doliva63
              Doliva63 20 December 2020 19: 45
              0
              Quote: rudolff
              Are you calling a T-15 rattle or a Terminator? As for the latter, I will believe, but as for the T-15, the vehicle has not been accepted for service, the TK can be issued ten times and changed along the way.

              I'm talking about fucking, of course drinks
              1. rudolff
                rudolff 20 December 2020 20: 23
                +2
                Well ... that the adoption of the Terminator was simply pushed through by the "interested parties", there is no doubt. The Ministry of Defense denied it as best it could. Initially, UVZ counted on export, but the project did not work.
                request
  18. rocket757
    rocket757 20 December 2020 13: 57
    -1
    "Tanks will not protect from air strikes": the Belgian press on the role of the BMPT "Terminator" on the battlefield

    If you try to create a "pepelats" that can do anything and everything, it will turn out to be unviable CHIMERA !!!
    Universal, not effective enough at all, for most indicators, it has been proven many, many times.
    1. rudolff
      rudolff 20 December 2020 14: 45
      +1
      Is not a fact. The T-15 with 57-mm Baikal can quite fulfill the functions of short-range air defense. For all other performance characteristics, the T-15 also conceals the Terminator.
      1. rocket757
        rocket757 20 December 2020 15: 43
        +1
        You won't check, you won't know.
        You can compare it with what has been denied or proven ... but what will happen next, then it will be possible to discuss.
      2. garri-lin
        garri-lin 20 December 2020 16: 22
        0
        More precisely, the T 15 is an excellent platform for creating a new generation BMPT. Plenty of space and good armor. Well, a single platform of the new generation.
        1. rudolff
          rudolff 20 December 2020 16: 39
          +1
          Not really. To make BMPT on the basis of Armata, this is again a zoo to fence with equipment with limited functionality. It's about combining the capabilities of both BMP and BMPT in one vehicle. The T-15 will be an expensive toy and it is unlikely that the series will be very massive. So why not consider empowering it to tackle a broader range of challenges? Moreover, this does not require too much effort. Just take a responsible approach to the composition of weapons on BM.
          1. garri-lin
            garri-lin 20 December 2020 18: 43
            -1
            No zoo needed. Two platforms. T 90 medium. Armata is heavy. And on every platform the entire lineup. Well, you can add ArcticVersion to the T 80.
            1. rudolff
              rudolff 20 December 2020 19: 15
              +1
              What other heavy platform? Armata, T-90, and T-80 are all MBT. T-72 forgot to mention. Given their number, they will still serve at least the T-90.
              1. garri-lin
                garri-lin 20 December 2020 19: 32
                0
                T 72 and T 90 are essentially variations of one platform. They can be considered as one multivariate branch. Armata is definitely a heavy platform. Not MBT. And it's not even about weight, but about the level of stubbornness and possible applications. Differences from m 90 like Battleship and Cruiser. Armata will be able to survive where t 90 / t72 will definitely die.
                1. rudolff
                  rudolff 20 December 2020 20: 13
                  +1
                  Your approach to tank classification is a bit strange. Yes, the crew is somewhat better protected. First of all, due to the KAZ and the armored partition, which may save the crew from the ignition of ammunition. From fire, not from detonation. As for the combat stability of the Armata as a whole, this is the question. DU BM does not have the same level of armor as an inhabited tower. Accordingly, the probability of weapon failure is higher.
                  1. garri-lin
                    garri-lin 20 December 2020 20: 23
                    0
                    The dimensions of such a tower are much smaller. The probability of getting into the mechanisms is also much less. Classification is usual. Quite conditional.
                    1. rudolff
                      rudolff 20 December 2020 20: 31
                      0
                      Is the Armata BM smaller than the T-90 tower? Are you joking? When they just started talking about the Armata project, everyone expected that the module would be smaller. Less space for two crew members, less booking. On the Armata model that Putin was shown, the BM was generally flat. But they did what they did.
                      1. garri-lin
                        garri-lin 20 December 2020 22: 27
                        -1
                        The casing is large. Much less without a cover. Directly what is responsible for the operation of the tool. The only thing that is not clear is the sights.
  19. wow
    wow 20 December 2020 14: 24
    +1
    Well, of course, the Belgian press is in the know how to protect tanks - in 1940 they showed ...
  20. Machete
    Machete 20 December 2020 15: 31
    0
    how annoying these Xsperds were.
    They don't read the scope of the weapon, but they start screaming about air defense.
  21. svoit
    svoit 20 December 2020 15: 50
    +1
    Quote: rudolff
    how much as a "janitor" for cleaning settlements,

    The tanks have a KAZ, or rather, it should be, but there are no terminators like him, they may end earlier
  22. orionvitt
    orionvitt 20 December 2020 16: 30
    0
    "Tanks will not protect against air strikes"
    Get out. And if you think carefully, then from the impact of aliens from space, in general nothing. laughing
  23. Old tanker
    Old tanker 20 December 2020 17: 38
    0
    Something VO is increasingly publishing expert materials from the word "layman".
    Our tank units have long been covered from air strikes, first with ZSU-57-2, then with Shilkami, and now with Tunguska. These installations were created specifically for actions in the marching and combat formations of tank and motorized rifle units. "It is long overdue. And the adoption of" Derivation-Air Defense "in service does not fully solve it.
    BMPT solves completely different tasks.
  24. SpbGenn
    SpbGenn 20 December 2020 19: 02
    +1
    T62 Excellent chassis. Will act as the PU of the drone articles covering the compound. Here is your protection. And additionally crumble what he is supposed to.
  25. konstantin68
    konstantin68 20 December 2020 20: 21
    0
    Well, in principle, BMPT must be taught to finish off what remains after the "operation" of military air defense systems, for that it is support, including air protection.
  26. tralflot1832
    tralflot1832 20 December 2020 21: 07
    0
    The tank has four "eyes", the Terminator's four eyes will not be superfluous in battle! hi
  27. tarackanovaleksei
    tarackanovaleksei 20 December 2020 21: 37
    0
    In general, for MODERN, air targets, the modern family of air defense systems works.
  28. Ilya098
    Ilya098 21 December 2020 11: 54
    +1
    "Tanks will not protect against air strikes":
    The Belgian press is burning, I can add that they will not yet protect tanks from torpedoes, nuclear explosions, hunger, lack of fuel and bad weather. He even fly at a speed of 2 km / h as a fighter, dive to 000 meters as a submarine and cannot. What do they think BMPT should do? Intercept ICBMs? Maintain air superiority? Or cook porridge for the personnel yourself? laughing
  29. Krasnoyarsk
    Krasnoyarsk 21 December 2020 14: 01
    0
    .

    = In terms of anti-aircraft potential, BMPTs are inferior to "Shilk" and "Tunguska", =
    And they are also inferior to corvettes because they cannot swim, to planes because they cannot fly, to Topol because it does not have a vigorous head. Yes, much else is inferior to what.
    Well, nobody offers it to you, Belgians.
  30. Growlers
    Growlers 22 December 2020 14: 21
    +1
    Belgium is one more warriors from the word no ..... So talk and hide, for Hitler, for the USA