BMPT "Terminator" and T-72B3 tanks for the first time worked out interaction in the offensive

The Ministry of Defense has begun the second phase of testing support combat vehicles tanks (BMPT) Terminator. According to the press service of the military department, the military for the first time worked out the interaction of support vehicles with T-72B3 tanks.

As explained in the Ministry of Defense, BMPT "Terminator" for the first time operated in battle formations with tanks, providing cover for the T-72B3 in the offensive. At the same time, the entire arsenal of weapons of support vehicles was used: 30-mm 2A42 automatic cannons, 7,62-mm Kalashnikov machine gun, AG-17D automatic grenade launchers and Kornet ATGM launchers.

For the first time, the crews performed the tasks of supporting and covering tank crews in the offensive, acting in a single combat formation

- said in a statement.

On the eve of the BMPT crews conducted the first regular shooting.

At the beginning of February this year, the military department announced the completion of the first stage of BMPT testing, dedicated to the study of support vehicles. At the same time it was reported that the second stage of the experiment would be devoted to the use of BMPTs in the battle formations of tank units. Shooting will also be practiced in various tactical situations.

Recall that the first batch of eight BMPT "Terminator" entered the 90th Tank Division, stationed in the Chelyabinsk region, for trial operation at the end of November 2020. Prior to that, BMPT was checked during the "Kavkaz-2020" command-and-control system.

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

Comments

[Doccor18]

BMPT "Terminator" for the first time operated in battle formations with tanks, providing cover for the T-72B3 in the offensive.

These machines for thirty years should already support tanks on the battlefield ...
And today unmanned BMPTs should be engaged in this, under the strict guidance of a tank ...

[mojohed2012]

In the field - the cover of tanks is not so important as in the cleansing of settlements. I think it is in the cities and settlements that the BMPT will show itself.

[Doccor18]

Quote: mojohed2012

I think it is in the cities and settlements that the BMPT will show itself.

Certainly.
However, somehow it was a little embarrassing all the time when tank columns entered the city streets. A powerful weapon, but not very urban. The vulnerability is very serious.

[FrankyStein]

How can they prove themselves better than a tank, if their capabilities in detecting manpower are no better than the same tank? We need additional detection means, a wide high-quality thermal imaging survey, acoustic direction finders, radio, optical detection means, connect with a network. And if this is the same T 72, only with a smaller caliber, then it will also receive an ATGM head-on, there are a lot of examples from Syria, when the tank's crew is not able to detect the ATGM crew directly along the course.

[Old tanker]

The calculation of the ATGM, as well as the machine gun, as well as the grenade launcher, is very difficult for anyone and by any means of detection until they start shooting.

[Romario_Argo]

I think it is in the cities and settlements that the BMPT will show itself.

Flimsy combat module on BMPT for street fighting. I think it will be reworked and a welded turret from the T-90M with a "diamond" composite filler in a circular one will be installed.
For 2 automatic 30-mm cannons, on top of the AGS, on the panoramic sight a module with Kord, on the sides of the ATGM turret, and in the corners of the KAZ Arena-M turret, and on the mortar body itself with KAZ Afganit

[Bad_gr]

Quote: Romario_Argo

Flimsy combat module on BMPT for street fighting. I think it will be reworked and a welded turret from the T-90M with a "diamond" composite filler in a circular one will be installed.

The creators of the BMPT were given the task, including the maximum protection of the crew. And this task was solved only with the use of external weapons. The crew sits inside, covered with double armor on top. And the armament taken out is covered with splinterproof armor. If we compare the armament of the first variants of the BMPT and what went into the troops, it is noticeable that this protection has been improved.

And the optics there are decently stuck, in comparison with the tank, the crew is much more informed about what is happening around.

[Romario_Argo]

that's exactly the anti-splinter protection, which is not ice for urban use
survivability is not enough from RPGs from the upper floors
a welded reduced tower from the T-90M with a boron carbide filler with a rhombus on 4 sides and a cover in a circular DZ Relikt and even better the top of the tower would be optimal
need BMPT with excess booking, so to speak, for growth

[abc_alex]

Quote: mojohed2012

I think it is in the cities and settlements that the BMPT will show itself.

On the contrary. This machine is more vulnerable. I do not know how artillery weapons, but the missile will definitely be damaged during the city battle. Not just like that, in rocket tanks of the 60s and BM Chrysanthemum, missiles and sights are removed behind the armor.

[lucul]

On the contrary. This machine is more vulnerable. I do not know how artillery weapons, but the missile will definitely be damaged during the city battle. Not just like that, in rocket tanks of the 60s and BM Chrysanthemum, missiles and sights are removed behind the armor

Like little children. This technique is primarily for urban battles, and there it is better than a tank.
What is the main jamb of urban battles with tanks? Inappropriate use of the tank. What does it look like? Yes, simply - tanks are sent to the city, in the hope that the enemy will scatter at the sight of them. Conclusion - a commander doing this is a fool.
The intended use of the tank in urban battles is the first, the infantry ALWAYS goes to the city, it comes into direct contact with the enemy, reveals its location, firing points, transfers them to the tank commander. And as for the tank, when the firing points are identified, it is much easier to suppress them than for the infantry.
Just do not forget that a tank is just a cannon covered with armor, and then the tank can bring much more benefit on the battlefield.

[cat Rusich]

Quote: lucul

Like little children. This technique is primarily for urban battles, and there it is better than a tank.
.

Then maybe "Nona" and "Vienna" (as a type of equipment) - a weapon with a large elevation angle, sufficient caliber (120mm), you can aim at windows in a high-rise building or work out a "target" on a nearby street, through several buildings, shooting like a mortar ...
The armor is thin, but there is no need to be exposed to enemy fire - to work from closed positions, according to target designations of assault groups or UAVs.

[abc_alex]

Substitute "BMPT" instead of "tank" in your text and you will get the correct reason why this miracle is not accepted by the RF Armed Forces. Tell me, pliz, is this car better protected? On the contrary, due to the fact that the entire "store" is outside, it is more vulnerable than the tank.
If a tank is a cannon covered armor, then BMPT are guns NOT covered with armor. The missile system of this cadaver will fail after the first round from the KK machine gun. TPK "Arena", you know, NOT armored.
Perhaps the tank has nothing to do in the city. But this monster has no place there either. It will not have any fundamental advantage in the city.
You must understand, this thing was supposed to replace the INFANTRY, not the tank. It should be a "platoon of motorized riflemen on tracks" and not a strange tank. She is just as useless without infantry cover and without reconnaissance, she is just as blind and deaf. And the tank will perform better on a reconnoitered target, its cannon will do more with one shot than an BMPT with an "onboard salvo".

[Profiler]

Quote: Doccor18

These machines for thirty years should already support tanks on the battlefield ...

Thirty years ... But before the BMPT was there then the USSR, torn to pieces?
And a little later, and "independent Russia", fortunately, they thought of canceling the absurd "holiday" ...

It's good that even now, the state is getting it right.

[Nikolaevich I]

Quote: Doccor18

this should already be done by unmanned BMPTs, under the strict guidance of a tank ..

Well, then the tankers will have to recruit residents of the Black Sea coast of Russia, living in a one-room apartment and to whom every year 20 relatives, acquaintances, acquaintances of relatives, relatives of familiar relatives come to them ... they are used to it!

[yehat2]

Quote: Doccor18

These machines for thirty years should already support tanks on the battlefield ...

if you watched the documentary from the teachings of the Warsaw Pact, then earlier this work was carried out by the Mi-24 and did it better.
Now the Russian Federation is not able to maintain enough helicopters and aviation in general - that's cheap BMPT and covers the hole. The Banana Republic is forced to fight not the best, but the cheapest.

[Sailor]

I think they will soon be tested in the Donbass in real conditions.

[Proton]

The title is about interaction with tanks. The video is just shooting with 30mm cannons.
Where is the interaction?
Simple regular shooting has been shown before.

[max702]

One thing is not clear to me, when in Afghanistan they faced the problem of small lifting angles of weapons on armored vehicles, why were they not taken from storage ZSU-57 and after the simplest refinement were not massively delivered to the troops, if Shilki did for these purposes, then the 57s would be much the power of the projectile is more effective, and especially the range of destruction of 57mm is much higher than that of 23mm .. How many lives would be saved ..

[Sancho_SP]

Strange as it may seem, carts are not an imperial affair. It was necessary to first admit that the army was not ready for something, and then admit that a hastily cobbled together ersatz is more effective than standard equipment.

And all this is rooted not even in the technique, but in the approach. In Afghanistan, it would have been much easier to act with someone else's hands, but they did not think.

[mitroha]

Quote: Sancho_SP

It would be much easier for Afghanistan to act with someone else's hands, but they did not think.

What other hands? By the DRA army? Yes, they themselves would not have lasted a year without us.
What other hands could you use there?
Another thing is that the OVD coalition had to enter in order for the "allies" to work too.

[cat Rusich]

Quote: Mitroha

Quote: Sancho_SP

It would be much easier for Afghanistan to act with someone else's hands, but they did not think.

What other hands? By the DRA army? Yes, they themselves would not have lasted a year without us.
What other hands could you use there?
Another thing is that the OVD coalition had to enter in order for the "allies" to work too.

Maybe so...
In the areas inhabited by PUSHTUNS, carry out sweeps by the forces of the DRA units consisting of TAJIKS and UBEKS - in the provinces inhabited by UZBEKS and TAJIKS, use the DRA units consisting of PUSHTUNS, the same thing - against the spirits-TAJIKS, units from the UZBEKS, against the spirits-UZBEKOV, units from the TAJIKS ... But about the use of parts of the ATS countries - I am against - I WOULD COME TO PROTECT the "allies" - and in a combat situation, the ATS units are only INTERFERENCE.

[mitroha]

Quote: cat Rusich

But about the use of parts of the ATS countries - I am against - I WOULD COME TO PROTECT the "allies" - and in a combat situation, the ATS units are only INTERFERENCE.

The GDR army, for example, was one of the most efficient armies in the world after the SA. With proper organization of management and subordination, I think that this option would normally work. Of course, all sorts of Romanians, Hungarians and others like them would hardly be needed there. But, nevertheless, it was necessary to use at least in auxiliary units.

[cat Rusich]

Quote: Mitroha

The army of the GDR, for example, was one of the most efficient armies in the world after the SA .. Of course, all sorts of Romanians, Hungarians and others like them would hardly be needed there. But, nevertheless, it was necessary to use at least in auxiliary units.

The army of the GDR is a normal option with the correct organization of hostilities - for example, the protection of objects, etc., etc. (I will not go deeper into praising the "East Germans").
But the rest ... in the NDP martial law 1981-83... In the Hungarian People's Republic, the USSR put things in order in 1956 ... In Czechoslovakia, the Warsaw Pact put things in order in 1968 ... The army of Romania or Bulgaria ... - what is their combat capability and "morale" in 1980-88 I do not know (special articles do not read). Here in Angola and Ethiopia real combat assistance have rendered CUBINS, but I don't think that F. Castro would want to "cover the USSR's bottom" in Afghanistan as well ...

[max702]

At that time, the military wanted to wave a sword, and the KGB also thought about medals, and so they pushed this scam ... But in fact it was possible (if such a fortune happened) if the United States pushed on to Afghanistan to arrange Vietnam 2.0 for them .. But orders and medals are more important. ...

[Old tanker]

Firstly, it is not a fact that the ZU-57-2 had survived in storage by that time. And if p have survived, then obviously in very small quantities and it is not clear in what state. Well, the turret open from above is not the best option for the crew, considering how deftly they handled the "Boers" and SVD.

[max702]

They are still in storage, but about armor it is not a problem of desire and nothing more, besides, it is just such an ersatz that would push you to understand what an BMPT and its niche in the troops are ... otherwise they came up with a vehicle for covering tanks .. Yeah, and the infantry with a naked jo ... oh, as always ..

[Old tanker]

They are still in storage,

Why do you think so?
Do you propose to completely redesign and replace the turret with the ZU-57-2, but with the old barrels?
Is it worth it? Moreover, on an outdated base in all respects. Not even having a hint of a groove.
Brad.

[max702]

There is no need to design anything, you need to get it out of storage, throw out all the air defense of the pribluda, install a roof, an FCS with a thermal imager, well, you can slightly strengthen the tower's armor with screens .. That's it! As a result, we will get a vehicle for escorting columns, reinforcing checkpoints, and a good unit for maintaining a database in urbanized and mountainous areas .. All this for a penny! Do you know that the PT-76 was highly valued in Chechnya? And not at all because it is a "tank", but because the 76mm gun, which allowed at the same checkpoints to reach the enemy much farther than 30mm from the BMP-2 .. Old barrels, well, it doesn’t matter at all;

[Old tanker]

Who appreciated the PT-76 in Chechnya? Our neighbors VVshniki, who had them, oh, how upset they were. Preferred BMP-2 just. Due to a much higher rate of fire and therefore a greater impact on the enemy. A 76mm cannon more effectively replaces an 82mm mortar in terms of range, rate of fire and ammunition power. This is how it really was in Chechnya.
Well, to put a roof on the ZSU-57-2 without redesigning the tower will not work. The trunks cannot be raised to a sufficient height. There is practically nothing air defense there. An outdated base for which neither engines nor spare parts have been produced for a long time is a burden. The thin-armored turret has a very low defense. Here "Dirivatsiya" will be more effective. Although a loss in firepower, it is much better in all other technical parameters. Yes BMPT is only slightly inferior. And then in terms of the total mass of the salvo, it is not worse than the ZSU-57-2.
By the way, they did not answer how many and where are they in storage?

[Alex_You]

Why this BMPT? What tasks can it solve that the tank is unable to solve? Why does this machine need an ATGM? Is the car capable of firing in dense urban areas up to the level of at least the 2nd floor?

[Doliva63]

Quote: Alex_You

Why this BMPT? What tasks can it solve that the tank is unable to solve? Why does this machine need an ATGM? Is the car capable of firing in dense urban areas up to the level of at least the 2nd floor?

BMPT is very necessary - to support a domestic manufacturer, it's obvious! That's why she's in the army - I don't know

[Kaw]

Why this BMPT? What tasks can it solve that the tank is unable to solve? Why does this machine need an ATGM?

She can solve almost all tank tasks. Modern ATGMs have much higher armor penetration than any 125 mm armor-piercing projectile. IMHO

[mvg]

Modern ATGM armor penetration is much higher than that of any armor-piercing projectile of 125 mm caliber

Only there are only 4 of them and they are powerless against KAZ ... And look at biathlon, how they shoot from ATGMs with high quality

[Roma 1977]

KAZ is relatively effective against subsonic ammunition. For ammunition with a speed of over 400 m / s, the efficiency of the KAZ sharply decreases.

[mvg]

KAZ is relatively effective against subsonic ammunition

And Afganit is announced as capable of shooting down BOPS ... there the speed is 1800 m / s. Do you think the Jews are worse? Are there many supersonic ATGMs in the world? At the same time, there are still a lot of options against the ATGM: a smoke screen, dipoles, to blind the gunner with a laser, etc.

[mitroha]

Quote: Alex_You

to the level of at least the 2nd floor?

UVN 45 °. It depends on how far you are from the building.
But if I had to choose whether to enter a residential area only with tanks or with tanks and BMPTs, I would choose the latter.
And in any case, without infantry, as always, there is nothing to do in the city

[Old tanker]

In the field too. Without the mother of the infantry - nowhere. As long as the infantryman's boot is not hovering over the head of the enemy, the territory is not considered conquered.

[abc_alex]

Quote: Alex_You

Why this BMPT? What tasks can it solve that the tank is unable to solve? Why does this machine need an ATGM? Is the car capable of firing in dense urban areas up to the level of at least the 2nd floor?

THIS machine cannot solve any special tasks. It completely duplicates the tasks of the tank. She was supposed to remove the infantry from the battlefield. It can fire on the second floor, the "Attack" can be launched even on the second, even on the third floor, and the thermobaric warhead decides. But what will happen to her after a rupture on the armor of an ordinary hand grenade is a QUESTION.

[venik]

Quote: Alex_You

What tasks can it solve that the tank is unable to solve?

========
For example, suppress firing points where grenade launchers and ATGM crews can be located, destroy infantry in an offensive and enemy light equipment (tank shells are very expensive), etc.
---------

Quote: Alex_You

Is the car capable of firing in dense urban areas up to the level of at least the 2nd floor?

========
The vertical angle of the cannons and machine gun guidance: from -5 to +45 degrees. Count it yourself! If it's difficult, I can tell you: from 20 meters it can fire on the upper floors of a 7-storey building.

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

Should cover the tank from grenade launchers and snipers at the time of reloading the gun and when the dust raised after the tank gun fired blocks visibility. In the city and in the mountains, it must fire on the upper floors of buildings when the barrel of a tank gun cannot rise to the required angle. It must fire at detectable ATGM crews and air targets, have a high turret traverse and target guidance.
In my opinion, the 30 mm 2A42 automatic cannon does a poor job with the assigned tasks due to its short aiming range and low ammunition power. The effectiveness of an automatic grenade launcher with a small caliber of 30 mm is also questionable.

[Flooding]

Still, the troops have a version with grenade launchers. Apparently on the T-90 chassis.
Who understands let him tell me.
And then the journalists manage to mention in one article about the shooting from the AG-17 and immediately forget to write about them as part of the armament.
Initially, production was planned for the T-90 chassis.
The version on the T-72 chassis was shown later as an example of the use of seventy-two from storage. And just she was without grenade launchers and with a crew reduced to 3 people.

[Sancho_SP]

And the T-90 is in storage.

[Old tanker]

"Terminators" with AG-17 in the troops. But the ATGM is not clear. Either with "Attack", or with "Cornet" were presented at exhibitions. Both options. The author mentioned both in the article. Most likely to trust the text of the article. The author most likely dumbfounded the description of the BMPT without hesitation.

[Free wind]

Does it ever occur to anyone that such wonderful machines have not been adopted by the military for 20 years? In case of hit, there are 4-5 clients in the morgue. It's almost impossible to evacuate. But 20 years trying to shove in guano ??? Well, the designers would get into the car and go to war. And not to drive the soldiers.

[Azimuth]

The same opinion. In modern conditions "Terminator" is already a useless cart.

The same BMP with a 57mm gun and projectiles with a programmable fuse will be more effective.

[Doliva63]

Quote: Free Wind

Does it ever occur to anyone that such wonderful machines have not been adopted by the military for 20 years? In case of hit, there are 4-5 clients in the morgue. It's almost impossible to evacuate. But 20 years trying to shove in guano ??? Well, the designers would get into the car and go to war. And not to drive the soldiers.

It was created on an initiative basis, when there were no orders for tanks - like, somehow the plant needed to survive, and they were forced somewhere abroad. The army does not need it, and it did not order it. I think they will buy it for the ceremonial calculation, ride around Red Square once a year, and that's it. But on the other hand, UVZ will have a legitimate reason for advertising - they say, is in service with the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, which means - a thing!

[abc_alex]

Quote: Doliva63

It was created on an initiative basis, when there were no orders for tanks - like, somehow the plant needed to survive, and they were forced somewhere abroad.

No, it was created by the decree of the "party and government",

Work on the creation of a tank support combat vehicle (BMPT), starting with the elaboration of the very idea of ​​its creation, began in the mid-1980s at GSKB-2 of the Chelyabinsk Tractor Plant with the active participation of the Main Armored Directorate and the Military Academy of Armored Forces. Since 1998, they have been continued by the Nizhny Tagil UKBTM according to the terms of reference (TOR) for the design of a new machine, issued by the Customer - GABTU of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation, under the index "Object 199" ("Frame-99").

[Doliva63]

Quote: abc_alex

Quote: Doliva63

It was created on an initiative basis, when there were no orders for tanks - like, somehow the plant needed to survive, and they were forced somewhere abroad.

No, it was created by the decree of the "party and government",

Work on the creation of a tank support combat vehicle (BMPT), starting with the elaboration of the very idea of ​​its creation, began in the mid-1980s at GSKB-2 of the Chelyabinsk Tractor Plant with the active participation of the Main Armored Directorate and the Military Academy of Armored Forces. Since 1998, they have been continued by the Nizhny Tagil UKBTM according to the terms of reference (TOR) for the design of a new machine, issued by the Customer - GABTU of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation, under the index "Object 199" ("Frame-99").

For what I bought, for what I sold - this is how the designer of this "miracle" told me at an exhibition in N. Tagil 15 years ago. Why would he come up with something?

[abc_alex]

Quote: Doliva63

For what I bought, for what I sold - this is how the designer of this "miracle" told me at an exhibition in N. Tagil 15 years ago. Why would he come up with something?

Ah, got it. The story there is this: the topic "Frame" itself is a state program, in its course a scientifically grounded concept of BMPT was created and performance characteristics were developed for it. But in N. Tagil at some point they decided that they knew better how to do it and, on their own initiative, did this miracle, presenting it as a result of the program. They were not understood by the military. And therefore, for 20 years they have not been able to properly attach a car to the troops.
So decide for yourself which of us is right ...

[Doliva63]

Quote: abc_alex

Quote: Doliva63

For what I bought, for what I sold - this is how the designer of this "miracle" told me at an exhibition in N. Tagil 15 years ago. Why would he come up with something?

Ah, got it. The story there is this: the topic "Frame" itself is a state program, in its course a scientifically grounded concept of BMPT was created and performance characteristics were developed for it. But in N. Tagil at some point they decided that they knew better how to do it and, on their own initiative, did this miracle, presenting it as a result of the program. They were not understood by the military. And therefore, for 20 years they have not been able to properly attach a car to the troops.
So decide for yourself which of us is right ...

Duc we're talking about the same thing, it seems. I then studied the stands around the car for a long time, watched the firing from the onboard weapons, but then I returned to the designer and asked - here I am, a tanker, I don't understand why this is necessary? He answered something like - it means that it is not your mind's business. Wo how. In order for the tank to complete the task, it needs to know what lies ahead (this means that someone must conduct continuous reconnaissance), it must be supported by infantry and artillery, and it must be covered by army aviation. No BMPT can replace all this. But at UVZ they think differently. I have not met a well-grounded concept, maybe there was something reasonable. In the USSR, no fools were engaged in military topics. So if we both deny this "miracle" then we are both right

[abc_alex]

Quote: Doliva63

I have not met a substantiated concept, maybe there was something reasonable

In a nutshell: the abundance of anti-tank fire weapons among the infantry, the extraordinary power of anti-tank weapons and new fire control systems left the tank on the battlefield with essentially one means of defense: maneuver and speed. As soon as possible to slip through the zone of dense fire and in the immediate vicinity have already dealt with those who did not have time. But the infantry cannot move across the battlefield faster than 12 km / h. Do whatever to her. And in the BMP there is no sense in it. And the likelihood of surviving the dismounted infantry also became low. Therefore, it was proposed to introduce into the front line, conventionally speaking, the T-28 "on transistors", that is, a combat vehicle on a tank chassis with several firing points and a range of weapons close to an infantry platoon on an infantry fighting vehicle and extended surveillance equipment.
By the way, the first prototypes of the BMPT were two-turret.

[Doliva63]

Quote: abc_alex

Quote: Doliva63

I have not met a substantiated concept, maybe there was something reasonable

In a nutshell: the abundance of anti-tank fire weapons among the infantry, the extraordinary power of anti-tank weapons and new fire control systems left the tank on the battlefield with essentially one means of defense: maneuver and speed. As soon as possible to slip through the zone of dense fire and in the immediate vicinity have already dealt with those who did not have time. But the infantry cannot move across the battlefield faster than 12 km / h. Do whatever to her. And in the BMP there is no sense in it. And the likelihood of surviving the dismounted infantry also became low. Therefore, it was proposed to introduce into the front line, conventionally speaking, the T-28 "on transistors", that is, a combat vehicle on a tank chassis with several firing points and a range of weapons close to an infantry platoon on an infantry fighting vehicle and extended surveillance equipment.
By the way, the first prototypes of the BMPT were two-turret.

Hmm. I never thought about it. Here is a tank with 1-2 crew members - yes, yes. And this car you are talking about is not clear what. Nedotank and nedobmp at the same time. Because, probably, it did not take root.

[abc_alex]

Quote: Doliva63

Here is a tank with 1-2 crew members - yes, yes. And this car you are talking about is not clear what. Nedotank and nedobmp at the same time. Because, probably, it did not take root.

Yeah. This was not supposed to be an infantry fighting vehicle or a tank. Namely, the tank support vehicle. Equivalent to an infantry platoon, but armored and tracked. Replacement of infantrymen in the tank line.
And it didn’t take root because it was NOT MADE. The Terminator is not a BMPT. It cannot perform tank support functions. She is as blind as a tank and has one firing point. In addition, the design "all the guts out" ... the familiar "rocket men" who were engaged in ATGMs, without any irony, said that if they were Terminator operators, they would not have fired ATGMs for sure. You never know how it will be damaged by close breaks. God forbid it explodes right on the armor ...

[Doliva63]

Quote: abc_alex

Quote: Doliva63

Here is a tank with 1-2 crew members - yes, yes. And this car you are talking about is not clear what. Nedotank and nedobmp at the same time. Because, probably, it did not take root.

Yeah. This was not supposed to be an infantry fighting vehicle or a tank. Namely, the tank support vehicle. Equivalent to an infantry platoon, but armored and tracked. Replacement of infantrymen in the tank line.
And it didn’t take root because it was NOT MADE. The Terminator is not a BMPT. It cannot perform tank support functions. She is as blind as a tank and has one firing point. In addition, the design "all the guts out" ... the familiar "rocket men" who were engaged in ATGMs, without any irony, said that if they were Terminator operators, they would not have fired ATGMs for sure. You never know how it will be damaged by close breaks. God forbid it explodes right on the armor ...

Well, we agreed on one thing - a worthless car
And whether a tank support vehicle is needed - I'm not sure. In a "elementary" combined-arms battle, tanks have enough support - infantry, artillery, aviation, reconnaissance, and so on. No BMPT will replace all this, it will only get confused underfoot. In any case, with the current tactics and staffing structure.

[abc_alex]

Quote: Doliva63

In a "basic" combined arms battle, tanks have enough support - infantry, artillery, and aviation.

That's right, but since the 70s, the infantry has received weapons of destruction for both aircraft and tanks. ATGM and MANPADS significantly impede the actions of tanks and aircraft. After all, modern technology still "sees poorly". It is for this reason that in 7 cases out of 10 the MANPADS operator wins the attack helicopter. Not because he is better armed. But because the helicopter "does not see" it. It's the same with tanks. These machines were as blind as they were. Especially if they are opposed by infantry in prepared positions.
Not a panacea and dismounted infantry. In conditions when all enemy fighters are armed with automatic weapons, hand grenade launchers and machine guns, the very existence of the infantry in the same line with the tanks is questionable. After all, the logic "cut off the infantry from the tanks" has been known since WW2, and "cutoffs" are now no match for magazine rifles.
The idea of ​​the BMPT appeared after the realization by military scientists of the fact that the infantry cover simply could not follow along with the tanks. Will not survive. And the tank cannot crawl across the battlefield with the speed of an infantryman. For the same reason. The BMPT did not cancel the support of aviation and artillery, but it had to remove the infantry from the front line.

[Doliva63]

Quote: abc_alex

Quote: Doliva63

In a "basic" combined arms battle, tanks have enough support - infantry, artillery, and aviation.

That's right, but since the 70s, the infantry has received weapons of destruction for both aircraft and tanks. ATGM and MANPADS significantly impede the actions of tanks and aircraft. After all, modern technology still "sees poorly". It is for this reason that in 7 cases out of 10 the MANPADS operator wins the attack helicopter. Not because he is better armed. But because the helicopter "does not see" it. It's the same with tanks. These machines were as blind as they were. Especially if they are opposed by infantry in prepared positions.
Not a panacea and dismounted infantry. In conditions when all enemy fighters are armed with automatic weapons, hand grenade launchers and machine guns, the very existence of the infantry in the same line with the tanks is questionable. After all, the logic "cut off the infantry from the tanks" has been known since WW2, and "cutoffs" are now no match for magazine rifles.
The idea of ​​the BMPT appeared after the realization by military scientists of the fact that the infantry cover simply could not follow along with the tanks. Will not survive. And the tank cannot crawl across the battlefield with the speed of an infantryman. For the same reason. The BMPT did not cancel the support of aviation and artillery, but it had to remove the infantry from the front line.

With a "prescribed" approach to the organization of the battle, no infantry (and not only) will not be able to create a significant threat to tanks - in the classic version, the offensive zone should be "ironed" by an army artillery group, divisional, regimental - these are all types of cannon artillery and MLRS, front-line and army aviation will also work, which will also accompany. If something remains, then these will be isolated foci, which no longer mean anything. These are all elementary truths. Another thing is how these truths are applied in practice. But even here, no BMPT will save you from the stupidity of the commanders. I suspect that you are not a military man by training?

[abc_alex]

Quote: Doliva63

in the classic version, the offensive zone should be "ironed" by an army artillery group, divisional, regimental - these are all types of cannon artillery and MLRS, front-line and army aviation will also work, which will also accompany.

You know as well as I do that back in WW1, the Germans learned to quickly leave the art strip. preparation and return to position. They consolidated this experience during WW2.
I do not argue that with the correct interaction of the combat arms, everything seems to work out, but after all, in life it does not always work out.
In any case, I describe the logic of those who created the BMPT concept, and the reasons for its development. Whether this is the correct logic or not, I don't know. I know for sure that the Terminator is not a BMPT.

[Doliva63]

Quote: abc_alex

Quote: Doliva63

in the classic version, the offensive zone should be "ironed" by an army artillery group, divisional, regimental - these are all types of cannon artillery and MLRS, front-line and army aviation will also work, which will also accompany.

You know as well as I do that back in WW1, the Germans learned to quickly leave the art strip. preparation and return to position. They consolidated this experience during WW2.
I do not argue that with the correct interaction of the combat arms, everything seems to work out, but after all, in life it does not always work out.
In any case, I describe the logic of those who created the BMPT concept, and the reasons for its development. Whether this is the correct logic or not, I don't know. I know for sure that the Terminator is not a BMPT.

The artillery preparation is carried out to a sufficient depth, hell where you run away. And you have forgotten about the fire support, when a movable fire shaft is created in front of the attackers. And the assault aircraft "hangs" over the head. And self-propelled guns in battle formations. The intensity of the fire is colossal. And the spotters are right there. In the breakthrough zone, the defense has no chance. And when, as you say, “it doesn’t work,” well, there is nothing in the army to do to the illiterate, stupid and lack of initiative! And no "miracle weapon" will save them. Would it save you in Chechnya? No. There, the would-be commanders themselves set up under fire what they could, would set up the BMPT as well, no? And I see no reason to single out the support of tanks as a separate type of weapon. I studied at a tank school, made a decision to fight as a tank commander, platoon commander and company commander - sometimes the infantry was not required to solve the problem. Well, if everything is in mind, of course. And if something goes wrong, no BMPT will help anymore - only the support of artillery or aviation. It's in the field. Well, in the city there are assault groups, of course. But they are formed according to the task. The task is completed - they are not. And in the presence of BMPT - there is. And where are they now? In general, according to the state of the tactics of using tanks in combined arms combat today, I do not see any need for them. Sorry for "a lot of bukff", the mood is cognac

[abc_alex]

I wish you health and good luck!

[Doliva63]

Quote: abc_alex

I wish you health and good luck!

Mutually!

[Kaw]

This vehicle has at least a higher survivability, since there is no flammable ammunition inside and the DZ covers a large area. IMHO

[Old tanker]

Is it not possible for five to evacuate through five hatches? What are you talking about? But their tank, mechanized water is often a cannon above the hatch prevents evacuation.

[Doliva63]

Quote: Old Tanker

Is it not possible for five to evacuate through five hatches? What are you talking about? But their tank, mechanized water is often a cannon above the hatch prevents evacuation.

And the landing hatch? And through the fighting compartment?

[Old tanker]

It is not immediately visible the tank's mechanic drive. The landing hatch is for an excuse. You won't seep out of it into the mud and sand along the very bottom, and getting to it under the seat in the cramped control compartment will quickly burn or burn out. Throwing two trays through the combat in the T-80, again you will not have time. The T-72 is more comfortable, but again it’s time, you burn or burn out. Well, if there is a fire in the tower, you will not climb into the fire, you will burn. We called mehsnov death row.

[Doliva63]

Quote: Old Tanker

It is not immediately visible the tank's mechanic drive. The landing hatch is for an excuse. You won't seep out of it into the mud and sand along the very bottom, and getting to it under the seat in the cramped control compartment will quickly burn or burn out. Throwing two trays through the combat in the T-80, again you will not have time. The T-72 is more comfortable, but again it’s time, you burn or burn out. Well, if there is a fire in the tower, you will not climb into the fire, you will burn. We called mehsnov death row.

By the way, what about the buttons on the control levers (I completely forgot about them)? Pressed - the cannon at 15 degrees., It seems, turned, making it possible to crawl out through the hatch. Have you picked it up? And so the blue crusts of fur-water are stored somewhere.

[Old tanker]

On the control levers there is a button for holding the brake and the GPO of the observation device. Emergency turning button of the cap on the instrument panel. But if the machine is de-energized due to a hit and a fire (which often happens), then, accordingly, the electric motor for turning the tower will not work.

[Doliva63]

Quote: Old Tanker

On the control levers there is a button for holding the brake and the GPO of the observation device. Emergency turning button of the cap on the instrument panel. But if the machine is de-energized due to a hit and a fire (which often happens), then, accordingly, the electric motor for turning the tower will not work.

Not while the batteries are alive, why not? Here's how it jumped on the tower, and immediately pressed. And what kind of tank are you talking about? Curious.

[Old tanker]

T-64 / T-72 / T-80 / T-90.

[Doliva63]

Quote: Old Tanker

On the control levers there is a button for holding the brake and the GPO of the observation device. Emergency turning button of the cap on the instrument panel. But if the machine is de-energized due to a hit and a fire (which often happens), then, accordingly, the electric motor for turning the tower will not work.

Just after the lapse of time, since the tanks then did not "use", of course, I forgot something. But from memory, on the T-72, the tower was dropped on the levers. But I do not argue, because here I am definitely not a Master.

[Old tanker]

On the levers, the emergency turn of the cap was never installed in order to prevent it from being thrown over by accidentally pressing the button.

[Doliva63]

Quote: Old Tanker

On the levers, the emergency turn of the cap was never installed in order to prevent it from being thrown over by accidentally pressing the button.

Well, it sounds logical - the gunner just took aim, and here the mechanic accidentally presses a button on a pothole, for example ... I agree. But you will agree that not everything is so bad with leaving the tank for the mechanic drive. Another thing is when the ammunition detonates, no one will have time to get out anywhere. And if you have time and shoot in the forehead, then you can dig under the tank with a shovel. The rest of the crew will also follow. But this is all true, fabrications, because I do not know the statistics on this score - who, when, how and under what circumstances left the car.

[Old tanker]

Digging in a burning tank with a shovel ?! Oh well.
In order for the mechanic to reach the drapery under the seat, he needs to recline the back of the seat, move it as far forward as possible, fold the back and push it forward to the pedals. Then throw the hatch cover to the ground and try to squeeze between the bottom and the ground. If it is necessary to dig for this, then all this will have to be done in the position of the embryo in the cramped control compartment. And this is in a burning tank? Yes, you will suffocate from the smoke while you fiddle with the seat. And on the T-64, the drape hatch generally opens inward on the hinges, he still has a hemorrhoid to perform this operation.
To join the evacuation through the escape hatch for the commander on the T-72 / T-90, you need to turn around in the cramped fighting compartment head first, squeeze into the control compartment in a narrow passage above the AZ drum and seep through the drape hatch. It is difficult even during training, and not like in a burning car. On T_64 / T-80 this is not possible at all. Since in order to crawl into the control compartment, you need to throw off 2 of them through the tray feed window, manually overtake the conveyor with the resulting gap forward and repeat the balancing act of the T-72 commander. It makes no sense to talk about the tips, because until his turn reaches him, he will already get burned or burned. But he still needs to raise the cannon as high as possible in order to get over the cannon fence and the pallet trap lever to the commander's place and along his way ...
But all this makes sense if the cannon is turned forward within about +/- 00-15. If you sideways or back, then you can't move to the control department at all.
So the main standard for a tanker is "Disembarking from the tank" through the main hatches of the crew - 7 seconds for "Excellent". This is enough so that they do not have time to overwhelm you while you are jumping on the armor. Although the enemy may have nimble arrows

[Doliva63]

Quote: Old Tanker

Digging in a burning tank with a shovel ?! Oh well.
In order for the mechanic to reach the drapery under the seat, he needs to recline the back of the seat, move it as far forward as possible, fold the back and push it forward to the pedals. Then throw the hatch cover to the ground and try to squeeze between the bottom and the ground. If it is necessary to dig for this, then all this will have to be done in the position of the embryo in the cramped control compartment. And this is in a burning tank? Yes, you will suffocate from the smoke while you fiddle with the seat. And on the T-64, the drape hatch generally opens inward on the hinges, he still has a hemorrhoid to perform this operation.
To join the evacuation through the escape hatch for the commander on the T-72 / T-90, you need to turn around in the cramped fighting compartment head first, squeeze into the control compartment in a narrow passage above the AZ drum and seep through the drape hatch. It is difficult even during training, and not like in a burning car. On T_64 / T-80 this is not possible at all. Since in order to crawl into the control compartment, you need to throw off 2 of them through the tray feed window, manually overtake the conveyor with the resulting gap forward and repeat the balancing act of the T-72 commander. It makes no sense to talk about the tips, because until his turn reaches him, he will already get burned or burned. But he still needs to raise the cannon as high as possible in order to get over the cannon fence and the pallet trap lever to the commander's place and along his way ...
But all this makes sense if the cannon is turned forward within about +/- 00-15. If you sideways or back, then you can't move to the control department at all.
So the main standard for a tanker is "Disembarking from the tank" through the main hatches of the crew - 7 seconds for "Excellent". This is enough so that they do not have time to overwhelm you while you are jumping on the armor. Although the enemy may have nimble arrows

And if you consider that after hitting the armor, not everyone will quickly come to their senses? They slammed into the practical school in the T-64 - no one could get out on his own. We hit the tower. In general, tankers are hostages of commander's wisdom and sagacity, and also hostages of good luck. From school I remembered: a course in the 3rd, something like RTU, suddenly I was seasick on the march. I was in favor of the gunner on the T-72. I decided to get some air. He opened the hatch, pushed, but was not convinced that he stood on the stopper, rushed upward, and towards the hatch. Although I was wearing a helmet, it didn't seem enough. But no more motion sickness in the tank

[abc_alex]

Quote: Free Wind

Does it ever occur to anyone that such wonderful machines have not been adopted by the military for 20 years? In case of hit, there are 4-5 clients in the morgue. It's almost impossible to evacuate. But 20 years trying to shove in guano ??? Well, the designers would get into the car and go to war. And not to drive the soldiers.

It is not accepted because it is not a BMPT. This is a tracked gun shop. The military ordered a BM with several firing points capable of controlling several directions AT THE SAME TIME. And we got a "strange tank", in which everything is not clear why.

[Emil Azeri]

The footage on the video, they are going in a column, they are shooting well, well done, but it has nothing to do with the real war today. They will simply be destroyed one by one from the air with precision-guided munitions. It’s not a column against the Germans, it’s not 45 years old, in reality it doesn’t happen today. In their imagination, the scribes are still fighting in columns of equipment moving calmly forward.) If, of course, the enemy is the isis, then it is possible.

And another example, if, for example, a duel, one enemy let this BMPT into the front of the tank, from the opposite side the enemy let one or two such vehicles, until they came out in direct line of sight to each other, there is a hunt

how do you think the duel will end? Is it not because the former will be destroyed even before they find the enemy and come out on line of sight for shooting?
These tanks and BMPTs in their convoy will be easily destroyed if they go up against a high-tech enemy. Beautiful videos with effective shooting are good only for contemplation.

[Sancho_SP]

According to the mind in that column, a pair of shells and tori should go.

[Hermit21]

only has nothing to do with today's real war

Whether or not it does depends on many factors.

They will simply be destroyed one by one from the air with high-precision ammunition.

After all, there will be no air defense systems in the convoy, no electronic warfare systems, no aviation cover. I love these wet fantasies "Some type of technique against everything that the opponent has"

[Emil Azeri]

Hermit21 If you think that tanks are always covered by electronic warfare, air defense systems, and an air force, then your idea of ​​the DB is also so-so.)
And in general, today's "Non Line Of Sight System" ammunition doesn't give a damn about electronic warfare and air defense systems), but they destroy them themselves.)

[Hermit21]

Normal people hide behind. And normal people also have intelligence and a wide range of means of fire destruction, against which this cart with ATGM (I mean with missiles, you can not mirror) does not channel from the word at all.

today's "Non Line Of Sight System" ammunition does not care about electronic warfare and air defense systems) they destroy them themselves

This is food for "Thors" and "Shells", no more

[Emil Azeri]

This is food for "Thors" and "Shells", no more

So far, only the Torah and Shells themselves have become the fodder of these ammunition.))

[Hermit21]

You mean "Torah" and "Armor", which destroyed hundreds, if not already for a thousand, KAB, UR, KR, OTR, UAVs in several theaters? I don't know, maybe there are some others

[Old tanker]

Is it not possible to destroy "such" vehicles with high-precision ammunition from the air? Or is the WTO only on the opposite side?
Well, even if the OFS bursts next to such a machine, the Arctic fox will come to this machine.

[Emil Azeri]

Quote: Old Tanker

Is it not possible to destroy "such" vehicles with high-precision ammunition from the air? Or is the WTO only on the opposite side?

That's right, as long as only the "opposite" side.
When the "Non-Opposite" side also has it, then you will bring this argument.

[Old tanker]

We have an abundance of high-precision air weapons (attacks in the terminology adopted in the RF Armed Forces) and on various carriers, and not only aviation, but also MLRS and OTR. So the argument is just right.

[Hermit21]

He believes that since the militias in Karabakh were beaten, then the RF Armed Forces will be the same

[Alexander Seklitsky]

Precision ammunition, high-tech enemy ... blah blah blah ... They also found a wunderwaffe for me. And in 41, the Junkers dived ironed with such precision and density that your unmanned wunderwalks never dreamed of. However, where did the war end? That then, that now who controls the sky, he wins the war. The one with the most resources wins the war, and the war is not waged in a spherical vacuum with any single weapon of any arbitrary choice. War is a complex of measures. Strategy and tactics, logistics and supply. Any high-tech weapon can be crumbled by a primitive projectile or an aerial bomb, if left without cover. Without fuel, without food, you can't fight too much.

[Ros 56]

I thought they had been in the army for a long time and were working out interaction, but there, as they say, the horse did not roll. It is necessary to accelerate, comrades in the military or the lessons of 1941 are not for the future.

[Sancho_SP]

The question is purely economic: is there a situation that there are many more T-72 hulls available than towers?

[Jacket in stock]

The idea of ​​the BMPT was born not from a good life, but from a mess and an inability to establish combat interaction between tanks and motorized infantry. When the tank in battle was covered only with the foul language of the higher command.
So the tankers decided to have their own ersatz BMP as part of units to solve problems that a tank gun is not in caliber.
Otherwise, yes, if you do everything according to your mind, so that the tank does not go by itself, but accompanied by a pair of BMP, Derivation, Thor and a squadron of helicopters / UAVs, then BMPT becomes unnecessary.

[abc_alex]

Quote: Jacket in stock

The idea of ​​the BMPT was born not from a good life, but from a mess and an inability to establish combat interaction between tanks and motorized infantry. When the tank in battle was covered only with the foul language of the higher command.

From impossibilities, not from inability. The motorized infantry simply does not live long enough on the battlefield to cover the tanks. The fire capabilities of a modern infantryman have increased many times since the time of WW2, polls with automatic weapons, hand and easel grenade launchers, and light machine guns. The infantry simply cannot support the tanks on foot. IFVs and those that long will not live against prepared infantry positions ...

[Pavel57]

Quote: Alex_You

Why this BMPT? What tasks can it solve that the tank is unable to solve? Why does this machine need an ATGM? Is the car capable of firing in dense urban areas up to the level of at least the 2nd floor?

These questions were asked by the military, so for 30 years the Terminator was not accepted into service. In addition, it is painful for the military to rewrite the regulations, the Terminator is a tank or art. system?

[Victorio]

to Syria, and 5 years ago, for urban battles. and then according to the results

[Aag]

Quote: Victorio

to Syria, and 5 years ago, for urban battles. and then according to the results

And in the crew you?

[accordionist]

the crews are alive and happy and therefore have adopted

[accordionist]

in syria were

[Victorio]

Quote: garmonist

in syria were

===
yes there were, but did not find information about participation in battles in urban development

[Pavel57]

Quote: Pavel57

Terminator is a tank or art. system?

Who put me downsides, answer this question?

[Doliva63]

Quote: Pavel57

Quote: Pavel57

Terminator is a tank or art. system?

Who put me downsides, answer this question?

They give a fuck, if only there were no analogues