The first exercises with the use of BMPT "Terminator" started in the Chelyabinsk region

The first tactical exercise with the use of combat support vehicles started at the Chebarkulsky training ground of the Central Military District in the Chelyabinsk Region tanks BMPT "Terminator". This was reported by the press service of the Ministry of Defense.

A tank battalion on T-72B3 tanks, reinforced by the Terminator BMPT company, was reportedly involved in the exercise. Air support will be provided by two Mi-8 transport and combat helicopters. All in all, about 16 units of military equipment and over 18 servicemen were involved in the exercises, which will last from June 100 to 600.

The exercises will take place in several stages, during which the crews of tanks and BMPT will consistently work out a high-speed march, offensive and defense, as well as repelling an attack by sabotage and reconnaissance groups. All this will be practiced as part of a single unit in the daytime and at night with firing from the entire arsenal of the BMPT.

Recall that the Ministry of Defense took a year to test the BMPT, after which a decision will be made on the supply of equipment to the troops. The first stage of testing, dedicated to the general study of machines, ended in February this year. The second stage is completely devoted to the use of BMPT.

The first batch of eight Terminator BMPTs entered the 90th Panzer Division, stationed in the Chelyabinsk region, for trial operation at the end of November 2020. 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 9M120 guided missiles (Attack complex).

Comments

[credo]

Finally. We are waiting for the results.

[ProkletyiPirat]

Quote: credo

Finally. We are waiting for the results.

there won't be them because
1) in the "presented conditions"(video from the training ground (open, well-viewed area)) BMPT is not really needed and is completely replaced by MBT + ACS + UAV
2) in "classical conditions"(open and / or forest-steppe area with houses and urban settlements) BMPT is not really needed and is completely replaced by MBT + BMP + ACS + UAV (VVPZ (VTOL)), ideally based on MBT / BMP
3) in "difficult urban / mountain / forest conditions" BMPT is generally meaningless because the level of intelligence is equal to MBT, while it is guaranteed "will not be in the right place, at the right time, in the right amount" and if it will (it is technically possible to implement) then there will not be MBT in the required quantity (their place and / or the firing sector will be taken by BMPT)... A vivid and vivid example is the "Syrian streets" watch the video from YouTube and "play tactics" in the end you will get that the most profitable option is not the introduction of BMPT, but the introduction of new additional (in addition to the main weapon) types of weapons on MBT and the operation of these weapons in sequential mode.

[Marachuh]

So weak for me. I see the BMPT as a heavy BMP T15, only instead of the landing - ammunition. The main gun is 57 mm with remote detonation and a wide elevation angle. The presence of a KAZ is a must! 360 panorama with duplication and auto tracking of the target is a must! Technical vision - a transparent cockpit, must provide visibility to the operator through the armor. Of the additional armament, 12,7 is a machine gun on a turret with a 360-degree mode and a supply of at least 1000 rounds of ammunition in one belt. Another 12.7 paired with the main weapon or masked cannon. 30mm AGS on the tower if possible. The presence of an ATGM is possible. Ideally, the presence of a universal ATGM / vertical launch missile with an active homing system. Let there be not a lot of them: 4-6-8 pieces. They are expensive and are only needed for self-defense against aircraft and tanks. The main task of the BMPT is to protect tanks from: infantry and portable ATGM / RPG, the destruction of armored personnel carriers / infantry fighting vehicles, vehicles and light armored vehicles of the enemy, the destruction of UAVs and helicopters. Tanks or infantry must fight against tanks.

[Klingon]

And I agree with you! The absence of OFZ with remote blasting is generally a big mess of the domestic military-industrial complex. All advanced armies have similar ammunition, incl. SOUTH AFRICA! And in general a shame, because even the Germans of the Wehrmacht model of 1943 were armed with 20mm minengeshos! True, they were used mainly in aviation.

[NIKN]

Quote: Marachuh

So weak for me. I see the BMPT as a heavy BMP T15, only instead of the landing - ammunition. The main gun is 57 mm with remote detonation and a wide elevation angle. The presence of a KAZ is a must! 360 panorama with duplication and auto tracking of the target is a must! Technical vision - a transparent cockpit, must provide visibility to the operator through the armor. Of the additional armament, 12,7 is a machine gun on a turret with a 360-degree mode and a supply of at least 1000 rounds of ammunition in one belt. Another 12.7 paired with the main weapon or masked cannon. 30mm AGS on the tower if possible. The presence of an ATGM is possible. Ideally, the presence of a universal ATGM / vertical launch missile with an active homing system. Let there be not a lot of them: 4-6-8 pieces. They are expensive and are only needed for self-defense against aircraft and tanks. The main task of the BMPT is to protect tanks from: infantry and portable ATGM / RPG, the destruction of armored personnel carriers / infantry fighting vehicles, vehicles and light armored vehicles of the enemy, the destruction of UAVs and helicopters. Tanks or infantry must fight against tanks.

Do not argue, only you are describing another car at all not a terminator ...

[Marachuh]

This is how I describe BMPT. And the terminator is generally "a suitcase without a handle!" It does not give any advantages in battle. Yes, there is more choice of weapons, but what's the point of them if you're blind? 30mm spark against modern infantry fighting vehicles no longer pulls, against modern ATGMs, helicopters and UAVs the distance is small, against infantry with RPGs is excessive. AGS-good, but their location ... in the building, the enemy will not wait for you in the forehead. Will sit on the roof or come in from the flank and that's it, we've arrived. The "attack" in the casing is practically unprotected. 1st sniper will damage the tube. KAZ no. Who will the "TERMINATOR" protect the tank from? From the infantry - he will not see! From the UAV and the helicopter, it will not be enough. From a tank - and why tanks then?

[NIKN]

Yes, I completely agree with you !!! However, what you are proposing is probably not even in the TTZ. Not to mention the car. I've changed from the possible at least 30mm to 57mm, and yes with new programmable ammunition. I don’t think it would have risen much in price ... although here we will have to change the entire OMS .. Dead end. Sadness ... :(

[Old tanker]

The new programmable 57mm ammunition is still a problem even for Derivation-Air Defense. And somehow the option of installing a 57mm cannon on the Terminator flashed through, but so far, apart from suggestions, it has not gone.
In principle, BMPT is mainly designed to combat unarmored targets: ATGM and grenade launcher calculations, as well as to destroy enemy manpower. And for this, 30mm cannons are enough. And, if necessary, jump on the armored object - "Attack" to help.
The Terminator is a good car. And I am sure that after comprehensive tests, the military will put forward additional requirements for it. With the embodiment of which she will go to the troops.

[NIKN]

I believe that they ordered it and received it ... Although it seems that this technique was originally developed without TTZ, maybe I'm lying, but there was something ...

[cat Rusich]

Quote: NIKNN

I believe that they ordered it and received it ... Although it seems that this technique was originally developed without TTZ, ...

BMPT "Terminator" in the "project" since 1998 ...
By order and performance characteristics of the GBTU of the Ministry of Defense of Russia.
"Terminator" was born in 2000 - what they could do at this point in time - they did it. (the firstborn was with one barrel 2A42)

[Marachuh]

As if you haven't read it !? How will the "terminator" see the calculation of the ATU? And how will it destroy, if modern ATGMs are already firing more than 5 km, and the maximum range of 30 mm is 3-4, so you also need to hit? And if the enemy is with an RPG in the back? On the roof?

[Old tanker]

The possibilities of 5 pairs of eyes are completely disposed to this.
Moreover, the commander has an independent combined panorama at the highest point of the tower with a 360 ° view, the gunner has an excellent combined sight with a pancratic magnification change, the grenade launchers have the sights of the main Agat-MP tanks, and a mechanic drive with a wide triplex. I can tell you from my practice that a good mechanic often detects targets first. His field of vision is wide and there is less dust in front of him.
Well, if the enemy is behind, then for this the commander and the 360-degree panorama works. And if on the roof, then in the city, armored vehicles go behind the infantry and support them with fire when clearing buildings. This is what the New Year's storm of Grozny taught. Well, if there are now drones in the troops, you can't really hide on the roof. It is more convenient on the upper floors of buildings. Only now to shoot from an RPG in the confined space of a small room is often more expensive for yourself.

[Marachuh]

In triplex ... with eyes ... ATGM from a distance of 2-3-5 km ... hmm ...

[Old tanker]

Have you often seen such distances in the European part, but in the mountains, in the city? It is only Jews and Arabs who are fighting in the deserts. And that recently more and more in cities.
So basically, you have to fight at shorter distances, mainly up to 2 km.
And the line of deployment to the entry columns is assigned at a distance of 2-3 km from the enemy's front edge. And from it to the line of transition to the attack, our artillery fires at the front edge. So no ATGM crew will stick out until the tanks are almost point-blank.

[Marachuh]

Do you all believe in armadas going to the lamanche? Probably I'll tell you a secret, but in Russia there are enough plains with a visibility range of more than 3 km. Not to mention Asia, Africa, the Middle East, etc. Or are we making equipment only for the forest and the city? Although the "terminator" is not a resident in the city.

[Old tanker]

I believe in the reality and tactics of modern combat with the means of reconnaissance and destruction available today. Real modern combat is very far from word-of-tank combat.
PS just think about why, as stated in the article, about 31 people and 2 pieces of equipment were involved in the exercise of a tank battalion, which has 18 tanks, 140 infantry fighting vehicles and 8 vehicles and about 600 personnel, reinforced by 100 BMPTs.

[Marachuh]

The old saying about generals preparing for past wars does not mean anything? And the beginning of 41? And Chad's war with Libya at 86? And the last one in Karabakh? Practice shows that the tactics of modern combat are constantly changing, and if you do not understand this, you will be in the place of the Libyans with their "prepared army", which was defeated by the Papuans on Toyota. And I will repeat once again - the "terminator" in its current form was outdated 20 years ago! He does not solve any set task, except for the 1st - cutting the budget and, fortunately, the Ministry of Defense understands this, so he does not buy this misunderstanding! I won't even comment on the crew of 5 people in the T72 building! Look at the T72 in Syria and multiply the crew losses by 2.

[Old tanker]

The fact of the matter is that modern generals headed by the NGSH Gerasivov are preparing for modern wars. Now the exercises are widely used the Syrian experience, the experience of fighting in the Donbass and even in Karabakh.
The charters for the organization and conduct of hostilities are also constantly changing.
Well, a very diverse tactical group takes part in modern general combat. So the Papuans on Toyota are simply doomed.
And since the military is finally interested in the BMPT, including after their experimental use in Syria, then there is a need for such a machine.

[ProkletyiPirat]

Quote: Old Tankman

Now the exercises are widely used the Syrian experience, the experience of fighting in the Donbass and even in Karabakh.

This is not the first time that generals have said this, and it is not the first time that practice proves the opposite.

Quote: Old Tankman

And since the military is finally interested in the BMPT, including after their experimental use in Syria, then there is a need for such a machine.

There is a need in the form of unsolved or shitty solved problems, but the need for a BMPT in general and / or a BMPT terminator in particular is not yet guaranteed.

[tank64rus]

I agree. For some reason, no one disputes small-caliber guns on foreign infantry fighting vehicles.

[Old tanker]

It is not necessary to get into the calculation of the ATGM. It is enough to suppress it. That is, to make it so that he cannot complete the task. And for this, it will be enough to thoroughly loosen the ground around it even from the PKT, not to mention the gaps around the 30mm OFZ or OT.

[out of habit]

How many years have we been puzzling over how and where to apply this miracle.

[Bad_gr]

Quote: out of habit

How many years have we been puzzling over how and where to apply this miracle.

So after all, the military received a car, made with a departure from the technical assignment. What happened is more suitable for guarding objects, checkpoints, etc., and not for escorting tanks.

[Hermann]

There is a video of really poor quality, where they are already riding in Algeria.

[Dmitry Vladimirovich]

It is necessary to put a 57mm spark plug instead of 30 mm.
The complex must meet the requirements for Derivation-Air Defense 57 mm, only more protected for direct support of tanks from infantry, drones, helicopters and MBT

[garri-lin]

Why is a spark 57 mm? This would be highly redundant. One weapon is enough. A controlled detonation just do it will reduce the rate of fire of even one gun. And so there will be a flurry of fragments. And the ammunition will last for longer.

[Dmitry Vladimirovich]

Quote: garri-lin

Why Spark 57 mm

How will you change the type of ammunition?
For effective air defense, the control system and the density of fire are a priority factor.
And ground targets - the rate of fire is not so critical there.
Why spark? - Because in BMPT tape ammunition is organized as follows: one barrel - armor-piercing, on the second - OFS well, or what type will be equipped.

Who and how will change the type of ammunition in the uninhabited 57mm turret? How fast?

If the 57 mm power supply is of a cassette type, hang it on the breech + ammunition and a feed mechanism with two types of ammunition - a very cumbersome system is obtained, for the operational manipulation of which, very powerful hydraulic drives + a large moment of inertia are required (longer damped vibrations after moving the barrel), reduces the gun's ability to target air targets.

So it logically suggests itself a spark with two types of ammunition

[garri-lin]

The fact of the matter is that one weapon 2v42 initially has a two-tape feed with a choice of ammunition. Why two weapons with reduced capabilities were installed on the terminator is not clear.
To organize the supply of ammunition to 1 barrel with two different types of ammunition through two channels will be easier (in terms of weight) than to fence 2 guns with the same 2 channels of ammunition supply. One for each barrel. Another logical path is a universal shot with programmable detonation with several detonation modes. In addition to BOPS, everything can be fit. Thus, 2 types of shells are enough for a wide variety of targets. Punch holes in armor and extra-strong fortifications with crowbars. A versatile person for all other purposes, choosing the best option for undermining.

[Dmitry Vladimirovich]

Quote: garri-lin

To organize the supply of ammunition to 1 barrel with two different types of ammunition through two channels will be easier (in terms of weight) than to fence 2 guns with the same 2 channels of ammunition supply.

For tape feed - it is rafting, but it is up to 30-35 mm.
And 57 mm or stacking or cage loading - which complicates the feeding system.

"Fencing 2 guns" makes sense for air defense systems.
It all depends on the goals:
57 mm BM Baikal AU-220M has an automated stacking (carousel type) and a choice of two types of BP - two types of BP, this is only on the ground - HE and armor-piercing.

For air defense / transition, it is required with programmable blasting distance - this is a completely different weapon (but in 57 mm caliber and with similar ballistics and barrel), but with a programmer in the breech or barrel to set the blasting distance.
The time for changing the ammunition of 0,5-2 seconds in the AU-220M is quite a lot for an air defense system, where the response time is tenths, hundredths of a second.
Therefore, my opinion is that in a universal complex - surface and air defense - there is a sense of dividing targets by barrels, the barrel with the programmer works with distant detonation ammunition, and the second - with replaceable armor-piercing and HE ammunition.

In the Air Defense Derivation complex, it seems that loading can be performed with several types of programmable ammunition from a carousel-type autoloader

And at least 4-5 pieces of various were offered, but in fact, so far we have information on only two types of ammunition.

[garri-lin]

The infantry needs 2 types of ammunition. BOPS and station wagon with a multi-mode programmable fuse. Contact detonation with and without deceleration. Undermining on the trajectory. At a given point. Covers all needs and shooting at helicopters and UAVs as well. Derivation is a separate story. This is an air defense system. A guided projectile is added there.

[Dmitry Vladimirovich]

Quote: garri-lin

At a given point. Covers all needs and shooting at helicopters and UAVs as well.

You cannot consider a spherical horse in a vacuum :)
There, the air defense control system is priced higher than 3-4 of the cost of the gun, from 30 to 40% of the cost of the complex :)
and is very vulnerable to shrapnel damage and from light hand-held firearms - one additional barrel means a rise in price by 13-14%, and the effectiveness and efficiency of response to threats doubles.

[garri-lin]

Does not grow from the word just do it. But the combat module is becoming massive. And what does the air defense have to do with it? The conversation is about BMPT. And by the way, speaking of 57 mm, I did not mean Baikal. A LSHO 57 mm. Or as it is also called the "Ballistic grenade launcher".

[Dmitry Vladimirovich]

Quote: garri-lin

It will be easier to organize the supply of ammunition to 1 barrel with two different types of ammunition through two channels.

This is true for tape-fed systems - and the 2-round limit excludes work with other targets, especially with remote blasting, where a programmer is needed in the system.

Therefore, the Air Defense Derivation has a carousel-type loading system, from which it is possible to operate several types of ammunition, but such a system sharply reduces the rate of fire compared to tape or clips. This is especially critical for air defense systems.
And since the system is universal, a high rate of change of ammunition is required
Output?
Separating targets by barrels - twin barrels with different feeds, the only known solution.

[garri-lin]

Which was realized in 50 years. Look at the size of the ZSU 57. Now it will be a little smaller. But not much.

[axxmanm]

Quote: Dmitry Vladimirovich

It is necessary to put a 57mm spark plug instead of 30 mm.
The complex must meet the requirements for Derivation-Air Defense 57 mm, only more protected for direct support of tanks from infantry, drones, helicopters and MBT

One 57 mm barrel is enough.

[Marachuh]

1 barrel for the eyes! But remote blasting is a must!

[Yaro Polk]

In Germany, they said that this machine is for urban battles, what they meant is not clear, to disperse the rallies or something, Teran is insidious, poor 5 column, I am so sorry for them that tears in my eyes are welling)

[tank64rus]

We are waiting for the main result that the teachings will give.

[user]

I was not too lazy and read all the reviews, and what insanity I have not read.
There is only one problem, none of the above comments have ever had anything to do with the formation of any kind of financial budget and its natural justification. And immediately after that, problem number two is drawn from it. Which enemy are you going to fight?
So personally, I got the impression that with aliens, well, or at worst with a united army with the rest of the Earth.

If someone disagrees with me, it is useful to look at the amount of the TOTAL BMPT project or heavy BMP T15 with the options that are proposed to be used.
Personally, I doubt that even the United States will pull such a project.