Why does Russia need "Terminators"

83
BMPT "Terminator"
BMPT "Terminator"

Recently, the Zvezda TV channel reported on the first tactical exercises in Russia, in which the Terminator BMPT took part.

Teachings


During these exercises tank The battalion, with the support of an experimental company of tank support combat vehicles (abbreviated BMPT) "Terminator", solved tasks in conditions close to combat.



Traditionally, when solving such problems, tank units interact with motorized infantry.

For only the infantry so far could more or less effectively protect their tanks from the anti-tank weapons of the enemy infantrymen.

Enemy infantryman with Javelin anti-tank missile system
Enemy infantryman with Javelin anti-tank missile system

And the problem here is not even that it is difficult for massive tanks to detect insidious and stealthy enemy infantrymen. After all, tanks can be fitted with additional cameras and various clever sensors.

The problem is that the infantrymen know how to spread out and turn into small single targets, for the destruction of which the tanks that rotate too slowly by the turrets may not have enough life time allotted to them in battle.

It is good if such sectors of the enemy's defense are detected by reconnaissance in a timely manner. Then it is possible to strike at them, for example, with heavy flame-throwing systems (TOS) "Buratino" or "Solntsepek", which destroy everything in large areas.

TPS "Solntsepek".
TPS "Solntsepek"

But what if the enemy was discovered suddenly?

Until the "Solntsepeki" receive an order, until they pull up, they will take up a position to strike ...

So the infantrymen have to accompany their tanks with their legs in the fire, smoke and roar of battle, extinguishing them from the rifle weapons enemy grenade launchers and operators of anti-tank complexes.

Tactical exercises to develop the interaction of infantry with tanks
Tactical exercises to develop the interaction of infantry with tanks

It is very similar to how it happened in the now distant years of the Great Patriotic War.

It is clear that such conduct of hostilities is fraught with losses among its infantry. In the ratio of attackers to defenders: three to one.

But, besides this, the pace of the offensive is also significantly reduced, because, with all the desire, the dismounted infantryman moves much slower than the tanks, and the tanks are forced to slow down. Which again leads to losses already among the tankers.

Now let's get back to the exercises that took place.

Their feature was that the tanks acted there together not with motorized infantry, but with tank support combat vehicles. That is, a tactic was tested in which the infantry is not needed.

For effective target detection, "Terminators" have a developed surveillance system and various sensors combined with sights.

And to destroy them - a coaxial 30-mm automatic cannon, a machine gun, guided missiles and two automatic grenade launchers. Almost all of this arsenal, except for grenade launchers installed in the fenders, is a warhead placed on top, which has a significantly faster aiming of weapons at a target than tanks.

Combat unit BMPT "Terminator"
Combat unit BMPT "Terminator"

In addition to ground targets, Terminators can also extinguish air targets such as helicopters, and possibly some drones.

And, of course, "Terminators" can move at the same speed as tanks, which opens up wide tactical and even strategic opportunities for those who have them in service.

Robotization


Disputes about whether Russia needs BMPTs, whether Russia needs BMPTs, have been going on for a very long time.

The prototypes of the "Terminator" began to be developed back in the Soviet Union.

The idea of ​​installing a warhead with a rapid-fire cannon, machine gun and anti-tank missiles on a tank instead of a turret seemed very tempting even then. The main problem was that for a long time it was not clear how to use such a machine. They even wanted to release it as a "tank for border guards".

In the end, the point of view won out that it should be a tank support combat vehicle.

But until now, the "Terminators" in Russia, as it were, are not quite accepted into service.

There is only an experimental company that is involved in these exercises. Yes, individual vehicles were tested in Syria.

Nevertheless, the concept of using BMPTs instead of infantry seems to me personally extremely promising. And, apparently, not only to me, since the Terminators still continue to slowly but surely move towards being in a single formation with the main Russian tanks.

And this trend is becoming more and more pronounced.

I think this is due to the course towards robotization of the Russian army.

BMPT "Terminator", of course, is not a robot. But this is a machine on which you can work out technical and tactical solutions, which will then be used on similar machines -robots.

By the way, I do not exclude that this is precisely why the terms of mass production and adoption of the Terminators are being postponed. It is more economically profitable to launch BMPT robots into mass production right away.

For those who believe that Russia does not need the Terminator BMPT at all, I want to remind historical the facts when Russia refused promising types of weapons that had already been put into service, only because the military could not develop an effective tactics for their use.

Drama of Drzewiecki's submarines;
Why "Muromtsy" did not become the "Weapon of victory" of Russia in the First World War.

I hope this will not happen with the BMPT.
  • Dmitry Savostin
  • https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Тяжёлая_огнемётная_система
Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

83 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +19
    23 June 2021 11: 10
    So the infantrymen have to accompany their tanks with their legs in the fire, smoke and roar of battle, extinguishing enemy grenade launchers and operators of anti-tank complexes from small arms.

    Will not work. request
    Now the range of anti-tank weapons is such that no small arms can fend off this threat. These are not WWII "faust cartridges". The maximum you can fend off with RPG-7, so it is not a fact that the tank will be beaten, if only within the urban area.
    1. -1
      23 June 2021 12: 19
      Quote: K-50

      Now the range of anti-tank weapons is such that no small arms can fend off this threat.

      Isn't it possible to search for camouflaged infantry with hand grenade launchers and ATGMs in the field, and even in the city, with the help of SPECIALIZED UAVs? Which have more than one camera, depending on the task, but several? Down at an angle, to the sides. And such devices do not need a long range and many hours of hovering, i.e. it can be quite small. And in the presence of several cameras, an attempt to shoot him down is guaranteed to be given by the shooter. Yes, and the anti-tankers are more likely to find and indicate.
    2. +10
      23 June 2021 17: 15
      Quote: K-50
      ...
      Now the range of anti-tank weapons is such that no small arms can fend off this threat ...

      There have always been such PTSs. But the greater the distance, the less the likelihood of defeat. "Javelin" from 4,5 km. flies to the target for as much as 13 seconds. And the tanks are equipped with appropriate means of protection, which have time to react during this time. Therefore, the destruction of PTS at a distance of effective action of small arms is still relevant.
      1. -1
        23 June 2021 19: 22
        Quote: The Time Traveler
        Therefore, the destruction of PTS at a distance of effective action of small arms is still relevant.

        What is it like? Small arms at the range of MANPADS? Or do you mean to shoot down MANPADS missiles from Kalash?
        1. +1
          23 June 2021 19: 49
          And he wrote that the tanks themselves, which have active and passive protection for this, may well cope with MANPADS firing from long distances.
          I mean the fight against PTS at effective ranges of small arms fire.
          Or do you think that hostilities are being conducted only over kilometers?
          1. +4
            23 June 2021 20: 11
            Urban combat is a separate tactic, of course, tanks must be used specifically here, and even here small arms against ATGMs ..., well ...
            Quote: The Time Traveler
            firing from long distances, the tanks themselves may well cope, on which there is active and passive protection for this.

            It is possible, of course, that someone will try to use Molotov cocktails, but I don’t think it’s so reckless. Let's think, a shot at a tank is hardly fired before the shooter is detected. As a result, security is ensured only after the territory is cleared, and here you yourself said that the only hope is for Kaz and other technologies.
      2. +3
        24 June 2021 13: 52
        And tanks are equipped with appropriate protective equipment.

        The author did not mention a word about KAZ.
        After all, if the tank goes along with the infantry, then the KAZ cannot be used, so as not to cut your infantry with shrapnel. And if the tank goes together with BMPT (without infantry), then all of them can be equipped with KAZ to the very top))).
        Also, the author did not mention the thermal imagers of a circular view on the equipment, against which the visual means of camouflaging the infantry are useless.
        Well, in general, a good article.
      3. +1
        24 June 2021 19: 53
        Quote: The Time Traveler
        "Javelin" from 4,5 km. flies to the target for as much as 13 seconds.

        This is, to put it mildly, not so. The maximum launch range of the serial missile of the FGM-148 complex does not exceed 3000 m at the highest speed on the trajectory of about 190 m / s. The flight to the maximum range takes 18-20 s.
      4. 0
        26 June 2021 18: 54
        Does Jewelin know that he is flying 4,5 km? But the Cornet is 5 km away. beats, and countermeasures are unlikely to help, especially if firing several missiles.
    3. 0
      23 June 2021 17: 36
      Why does Russia need "Terminators"

      So that American John Connor has nothing to do at our borders))
  2. +2
    23 June 2021 11: 18
    Let's just say, does the tank need a "bodyguard"?
    1. +16
      23 June 2021 11: 32
      Quote: knn54
      Let's just say, does the tank need a "bodyguard"?

      Hello.

      This is one of the main mistakes.
      The tank is not pants, it does not need to be supported.
      The "Framework" concept - automatic weapons of "small" caliber protected by TANK armor.
      Such a vehicle has many other tasks besides joint interaction with tanks.
      ........
      You can't say much in the comments, I am writing an article about BMPT as a practitioner.
      Over time, the blockage, and the hand still does not obey.))
      .......
      In BTGr. this car will not be superfluous, and not only there.
      I would find a use for it in the Caucasus ...
      1. +7
        23 June 2021 12: 00
        Good day, Alexey
        I said EXACTLY "bodyguard", Exactly from THOSE threats that PT funds carry in the hands of the defenders.
        Support is completely different. They are DIFFERENT concepts.
        And not only in the Caucasus or even in the mountains.
        For example, against "jihad pickups" is also suitable.
        Syria, Sahara (in particular "Sohel").
      2. +4
        23 June 2021 12: 03
        Quote: Aleks tv
        Let's just say, does the tank need a "bodyguard"?




        The tank is not pants, it does not need to be supported

        In this aspect, we can agree with you! After all, it may turn out that this concept (tank support combat vehicle) is ABSURD! MBT cannot cope with a combat mission alone, but BMPT can !? If BMPT can independently cope with the assigned combat mission, then why let tanks go there? But why then call a combat vehicle a "support" for tanks? Isn't it more expedient to call such an armored vehicle BMPP or BMPP (infantry support combat vehicle or infantry escort ...) It is possible to adopt an assault gun (assault tank) to help tanks, which was done before ... back in the years of WW2! If you create an BMPT, then as a "group" KAZ, that is, an armored vehicle with a missile, for example, an installation capable of shooting down helicopters, UAVs, anti-tank missiles launched from these helicopters and UAVs ... capable of destroying ground targets such as positions ATGM, anti-tank guns, grenade launchers ...
      3. +6
        23 June 2021 13: 01
        The tank is not pants, it does not need to be supported.

        A tank without support is a half-blind and deaf cart with a cannon, which everyone strives to offend.
        EMNIP BMPT was conceived as a replacement for the infantry "landing". Of course, there are many questions regarding the advantages and disadvantages of this concept. So we are waiting for your article!
        1. +11
          23 June 2021 15: 59
          Quote: dzvero
          A tank without support is a half-blind and deaf cart with a cannon, which everyone strives to offend.

          "- Tank - it looks very formidable,
          but in reality - deaf and blind!
          - That's why you are blind ... You lie in a ditch,
          And in my heart - a pendulum,
          Well, how will he crush blindly?
          After all, he does not see a damn thing .... "(c)
          1. +6
            23 June 2021 20: 52
            ... - Tank - it looks very formidable,
            but in reality - deaf and blind!
            - That's why you are blind ... You lie in a ditch,
            And in my heart - a pendulum,
            Well, how will he crush blindly?
            After all, he does not see a damn thing .... "

            laughing
            Hello Andrey!
            hi
            Vasily Terkin "Sabantuy" !!!
            Favorite verse .....))

            - So you went ahead of schedule,
            He looked - in sweat and shiver:
            Rod of German thousand tanks ...
            - A thousand tanks? Well, brother, you're lying.

            “Why should I lie, buddy?”
            Reason - what calculation?
            - But why immediately - a thousand?
            - Good. Let five hundred.

            “Well, five hundred.” Honor me
            Do not scare like old women.
            - Okay. What is there three hundred, two hundred -
            Meet one though b ...
            ..........
            1. +7
              24 June 2021 06: 02
              My respect, Aleksey! hi drinks
              Quote: Aleks tv
              Meet one though b ...

              That's for sure ... I remember how, when I was young, I talked with a colonel, he then talked about China, in relation to the military power of the latter. I ask him, they say, what do we need this China, his armored vehicles are ancient. He looked at me with pity and said: "You see, when you are sitting in a trench and a tank is rushing at you, you don't care what model it is, even a T-34. The bottom line is that a tank is coming at you, but you don't have a tank. "
              1. +2
                25 June 2021 01: 29
                Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
                My respect, Aleksey! hi drinks
                Quote: Aleks tv
                Meet one though b ...

                That's for sure ... I remember how, when I was young, I talked with a colonel, he then talked about China, in relation to the military power of the latter. I ask him, they say, what do we need this China, his armored vehicles are ancient. He looked at me with pity and said: "You see, when you are sitting in a trench and a tank is rushing at you, you don't care what model it is, even a T-34. The bottom line is that a tank is coming at you, but you don't have a tank. "

                Absolutely right! When these "innovators" got it, they all write that "a tank lives on the battlefield for 3 minutes, a tank is a target," etc. But you are sitting like that, and next to it is an enemy tank. And javelins are not always there, and RPGs are not a fact that will help. Also, the "innovators" all want to take away the cannon from the fighters and put "stealth" instead of super-maneuverability, like now only a missile battle. We swam, we know, in the 50s they said so, and in the 60s, only then they began to rivet the F-15/16 and MiG-29 and Su-27. And now they are praying for the UAV. Only UAVs were used against irregulars and all sorts of "rebels".
                1. +3
                  25 June 2021 13: 09
                  Quote: Usher
                  And here you are sitting, and next to an enemy tank. And javelins are not always there, and RPGs are not a fact that will help.

                  As I understand it, "javelin" will not always help. It's easy to knock out tanks from the sofa, "pysch-pysch" and you're done ... Of course, a tank is not an absolute, and you can knock it out, including from an RPG, if the tank is set up. Well, in the good old days, a tank could be knocked out with a Molotov cocktail. Only now, for one who knocked out, how many people died trying to do it? The question, of course, is not for you, but a rhetorical one drinks
                  Quote: Usher
                  Also, the "innovators" all want to take away the cannon from the fighters and put "stealth" instead of super-maneuverability, like now only a missile battle

                  I totally agree. This is in conditions when the cases of shooting down AMRAAM aircraft (that is, by a medium-range missile) can be counted on the fingers of the hands, and even then some of them were fired closely (simultaneously with the sidewinder), and American pilots in the same Tempest in a Glass preferred visually identify the enemy ... There is no need to recall the situation when, under the conditions of absolute domination of the USA and the MNF in the air, Iraqi fighters still reached the range of short-range missile launchers.
                  All these stealth are, of course, useful, but the priority of long-range air combat is nothing more than an element of information warfare (our stealthy fighters will shoot yours without entering close combat, and no super-maneuverability will help). Yeah, schazzz ...
                  Quote: Usher
                  And now they are praying for the UAV.

                  It's a good thing, but, like any tool, it has a limited scope. What, in fact, are you writing about hi
      4. +2
        24 June 2021 06: 42
        The concept of "Frames" - an automatic weapon of "small" caliber protected by TANK armor

        Finally. It is the weapons under protection, and not these "combat modules" with splinterproof armor and cost as the carrier itself, with which it is impossible to approach the enemy at the distance of a machine-gun shot, otherwise you can be left without huge super-expensive optical systems, protected only by shrapnel curtains. Instead of these exercises, they would give this correspondent Zvezda with a mentor's pronunciation, a machine gun and let the tape be released from 100 meters into the "combat module", and then showed how this, stuffed with expensive weapons, the wunderwaffe could shoot accurately.
        Maybe someone has data on tests for firing small arms of these terminators and armatures?
        It seems to me that it is only because of the low resistance to small arms that the army does not accept these types of weapons.
      5. +1
        24 June 2021 13: 37
        I am writing an article about BMPT as a practitioner.

        Alexey, I am waiting for your article, the opinion of the practitioner is interesting. I saw only from the side at 227 OP, to be honest, not impressed. The fire was conducted from a trench, from one barrel, then an ATGM was launched. It was quite a shooting from BMP - 2.
        1. +1
          24 June 2021 14: 13
          ... I only saw from the side at 227 OP,

          Good day.

          I remembered for a long time ...
          Belarus?))

          And about "not impressed" - this car is not a "wunderwaffle".
          It gives dense small-caliber fire under the protection of TANK armor.
          This is her salt rockets only as extra. option.
          ...........
          Although when it works from two barrels (alternately) in motion, the target field "impresses" well.))
          wink
          1. +1
            24 June 2021 15: 50
            Belarus?)

            Yes, Alexey, Belarus, Borisov.
    2. 0
      24 June 2021 14: 10
      It seems to me that BMPTs are good for the city and 30s with good aiming angles on the windows and missiles including 9M120-1F and 4 at once and booking, of course all this hardware in urban battles can damage, but I think there will be much more sense than from MBT.
  3. +6
    23 June 2021 11: 29
    The question is different: they are needed in large quantities, as a standard unit in a tank platoon (are they needed, how much?) ... or are they needed only for local specific operations (such as the assault of settlements, maybe somewhere else). The weight of the armor and the caliber of the autocannon and additional armament to the guns will depend on this ... but for now it is 3 in 1 bottle ... and for helicopters and for tanks and for infantry, etc. (this is both the price and the composition of the crew). And another question - why make them on new chassis, and not on old ones? This tower, even on the T-62, can be installed.
    1. +6
      23 June 2021 11: 48
      ... they were needed en masse, as a standard unit in a tank platoon (are they needed, how much?

      Hello Zaurbek.
      hi
      This is unlikely to be.
      But a separate unit within the TB is possible.
      That is, the concept of "attached" equipment for solving certain problems.
      As a means of strengthening - and this is a common practice.
      1. +3
        23 June 2021 12: 09
        Simply, in some cases, it is necessary to produce this technique in multiples of tanks ... in others - a certain number of pieces for battles in urban conditions (And maybe ATGMs are not needed there).
    2. +4
      23 June 2021 17: 34
      The chassis of the T-62 has long been anochronism both in the chassis, and in the engine, and even more so in the transmission. Yes, and the booking is rather weak .. but on the chassis of the T-72 it is quite. What they are doing. And for the Arctic on the T-80.
      I think if the decision on mass deliveries to the troops will be done, they will. After all, they did just that with the deliveries of the T-90M. Some are new, some are alterations.
      1. 0
        23 June 2021 18: 52
        There are T64, T72 ....
        1. +6
          23 June 2021 20: 16
          I have already written about the T-72. And the T-64 into the furnace with its unsuccessful engine and a crumbling running room. And now it is a foreign car. Let the zealous neighbors pick them up.
      2. +2
        23 June 2021 20: 58
        ... but on the chassis of the T-72 is quite. What they are doing. And for the Arctic on the T-80.
        I think if the decision on mass deliveries to the troops will be done, they will.


        Good evening.
        hi
        To the very point.
  4. +9
    23 June 2021 11: 30
    The author is mistaken about the "low" rotation speed of the tank turret, but the vertical guidance angles let us down, yes.
    1. +3
      23 June 2021 17: 36
      The author probably wrote about this under the impression of watching the film "T-34".
  5. 0
    23 June 2021 11: 37
    as in nf, on the one hand, the infantry will work with all sorts of flying, ground and underground mini-vehicles. on the other, tanks hung with armor and weapons.
    1. The comment was deleted.
  6. +6
    23 June 2021 12: 01
    I would like to know what were the results of the exercises conducted with the "Terminators", but for now we can only deal with theory.
    1. +3
      23 June 2021 12: 10
      The generals are reading, tomorrow the article will be from the General Staff of the Russian Federation
  7. +3
    23 June 2021 12: 11
    The car seems to be good, but perhaps in the near. In the future, it will be possible to shift the task of combating enemy infantry to quadrocopters or UAVs. There, the coverage is wider and the speed is higher, and the dimensions are smaller. Of course, there are also disadvantages - small ammunition load, low autonomy, etc. On the other hand, these devices will do much better with the functions of collecting information and they will have much more tactical capabilities than the same tank but with machine guns.
    1. 0
      25 June 2021 01: 34
      Quote: Knell Wardenheart
      The car seems to be good, but perhaps in the near. In the future, it will be possible to shift the task of combating enemy infantry to quadrocopters or UAVs. There, the coverage is wider and the speed is higher, and the dimensions are smaller. Of course, there are also disadvantages - small ammunition load, low autonomy, etc. On the other hand, these devices will do much better with the functions of collecting information and they will have much more tactical capabilities than the same tank but with machine guns.

      I don't understand how a quadrocopter or a UAV can fight the infantry? Dive and fire from small machine gunners? The fact that some quadrocopters throw off homemade grenades, then this is the enemy gouging, who does not see, hears nothing (they always hit the Taliban who in the mountains from a distance of 1-2 km do not hear the helicopter, and then he then like in a shooting range. Are they deaf-blind? The helicopter is excellent audible, especially in the mountains).
      1. 0
        25 June 2021 11: 41
        I imagine a number of the following options - which of these is more applicable is decided by an in-depth study of each or the implementation of a pair on one device.
        1) Non-automatic weapons with a low starting projectile velocity + laser sight. This is a modification for a light and cheap "drone" - the task of which is to find and eliminate individual targets.
        2) Variants of a recoilless smoothbore gun with small ammunition on larger models.
        3) Variants of NURSs - either specially created for the line of models, or modified old models from warehouses, if there are any.
        4) Planning bombs
        5) Modified options for grenade launcher shots

        Machine gunners and, in general, automatic weapons on small-medium drones, I consider an excess - the advantage of a small drone is relative invisibility, therefore, it should be as compact and invisible as possible, it should also be cheap and there will be massive losses. However, due to the greater cross-country ability and greater capabilities of the machine response-sensing in comparison with human ones, such a device will respond faster to the detection of point targets than a large ground bandurina, which has much less passability, awareness and less variability of angles of attack.
        Of course, this is just a general idea, there is something to think about.
  8. +10
    23 June 2021 12: 39
    Such a vehicle cannot be a complete replacement for infantry support, if only because the calculation of the ATGM is easy to disguise, and the launch point of modern complexes for the robot
    not track with sufficient accuracy, because the trajectory of the projectile changes arbitrarily. Several calculations are therefore not equivalent to one such machine. On the other hand, it expands the firepower of the mobile group, i.e. frees the infantry from carrying heavy equipment. By adding drones with their scanners, sensors and weapons, you can get a full blown fist. The infantry will include gunner operators, security guards and other groups according to their combat mission. Robots are just robots, they cannot fight people. Rebuilding tactics is easier than getting a new car, no matter how great it is.
    1. +1
      24 June 2021 13: 46
      Such a vehicle cannot be a complete replacement for infantry support, if only because the ATGM calculation is easy to disguise

      Well, mask the calculation of the ATGM from the BMPT with a thermal imager, or a UAV with a thermal imager)))
      1. 0
        25 June 2021 08: 54
        Camouflage can consist not only of concealment, but also of jamming - heaps of scattered radiation sources nearby. Both are quite achievable and can be monitored on site with appropriate equipment. There are no universal remedies or methods for anything. This is the beauty of an endless struggle.
        1. -2
          25 June 2021 09: 30
          Camouflage can consist not only of concealment, but also of jamming - heaps of scattered radiation sources nearby.

          The beauty of a thermal imager is that it allows you to visually distinguish a moving target from a stationary one, as well as the dimensions and contours of the target))))
          As an example, I found a UAV with a thermal imager of the target (people) and transmitted the coordinates to the arte - and it worked on the target.
  9. BAI
    +4
    23 June 2021 13: 23
    But until now, the "Terminators" in Russia, as it were, are not quite accepted into service.

    Actually, the MoE initially gave up on the Terminators. Obviously there were reasons. What has changed? What's so conceptual happened in Syria?
    1. +5
      23 June 2021 21: 10
      Quote: BAI
      But until now, the "Terminators" in Russia, as it were, are not quite accepted into service.

      Actually, the MoE initially gave up on the Terminators. Obviously there were reasons. What has changed? What's so conceptual happened in Syria?

      Nothing. The UVZ lobby presses, and the PR, again, before the elections.
    2. 0
      24 June 2021 06: 52
      What's so conceptual happened in Syria?

      Low resistance to shelling from conventional small arms, optical systems and weapons unprotected by tank armor quickly fail. Therefore, there is no photo of this equipment from Syria, they do not show vulnerabilities.
    3. 0
      24 June 2021 13: 47
      Actually, the MoE initially gave up on the Terminators. Obviously there were reasons. What has changed? What's so conceptual happened in Syria?

      The losses are less.
  10. +9
    23 June 2021 16: 17
    Let's start with this.
    The concept of a tank support combat vehicle (BMPT) appeared in the early 80s in the USSR.

    Has passed 40 years.
    Everything has changed so much that this car in this form is, to put it mildly, practically useless against the background of alternatives.

    To begin with, the vehicle competes with tanks in all respects. I'm talking about logistics. For example, both a tank and this thing cannot be dropped.
    Instead of a terminator, another tank can be delivered to the combat area.
    The question arises, which is more effective?
    2 tanks + 2 terminators or 2 tanks + 2 tanks that cover?
    What can the former be able to do that the latter cannot?


    Urban conditions? The Syrian experience has shown that today, as well as in 1945, there is nothing better than a 152-mm land mine through a window.

    A relatively open space? UAV, Mortars, artillery.

    In Syria, the shots, the devils got out, fired into the building and ran.
    The drone illuminated, with 10 KM of art Krasnopol fired - a shell through the roof into the house = tripe flies out of the windows.
    Where is the BMPT?
    And if the turntables are connected? Here is who has a royal review there.


    And as for putting 30 mm on a tank, this is generally a perversion.
    Much better BMPT will look if you put 57 mm
    1. +8
      23 June 2021 20: 01
      Guys! Well, I'm old and already tired of writing. BMPT appeared THANKS TO STUDYING THE COMBAT EXPERIENCE OF THE Afghan War! Well, you at least read the story. We studied the experience of the war! As a result, conclusions appeared, and from them the requirements for the presence of a protected machine with a sea of ​​fire. In the mountains, settlements, greenery, deserts. So it was developed. I am sure that any competent officer, a tanker or motorized rifleman, will only be glad to see such "threshers" in the donated funds or in his staff! If you use them wisely, this is a cool thing! And he makes his way slowly in the troops, since there is no one at the top who has his own personal experience of Afgan. But there is understanding. Already good
      1. 0
        25 June 2021 07: 39
        Quote: Saboteur
        Guys! Well, I'm old and already tired of writing. BMPT appeared THANKS TO STUDYING THE COMBAT EXPERIENCE OF THE Afghan War!

        There was an interview with the BMPT designer, where he said that the BMPT is a long-range sniper. That is logical for the fight against partisans in the mountains. But not to support the tanks, which the Ministry of Defense wanted.
    2. 0
      24 June 2021 13: 48
      To begin with, the vehicle competes with tanks in all respects.

      You then did not understand the essence at all.)))
  11. +2
    23 June 2021 18: 59
    Quote: Old Tanker
    The author probably wrote about this under the impression of watching the film "T-34".

    Well, for some reason, immediately get personal ... :(
    The author wrote about this based on the difference in the mass of the tank turret and the Terminator warhead.
    A lighter warhead can be aimed at a target more quickly and accurately. Nothing personal, just physics.
    I am still silent about the length and caliber of the tank gun and BMPT cannons, which, from the physical point of view. also matter.
  12. +2
    23 June 2021 19: 08
    Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
    The drone illuminated, with 10 KM of art Krasnopol fired - a shell through the roof into the house = tripe flies out of the windows.

    First, UAVs are not yet all-weather.
    Secondly, time. Even if the arty fires immediately after the arrival of target designation from the UAV, then a 152-mm projectile, for example, an MSTA self-propelled gun at a speed of 810 m / s will fly 10 km. about 12 sec. During this time, the barmaley (or whoever else is there) will have time to shoot.
    1. +1
      23 June 2021 20: 26
      Quote: The Time Traveler
      Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
      The drone illuminated, with 10 KM of art Krasnopol fired - a shell through the roof into the house = tripe flies out of the windows.

      First, UAVs are not yet all-weather.
      Secondly, time. Even if the arty fires immediately after the arrival of target designation from the UAV, then a 152-mm projectile, for example, an MSTA self-propelled gun at a speed of 810 m / s will fly 10 km. about 12 sec. During this time, the barmaley (or whoever else is there) will have time to shoot.

      Who will they have time to shoot at? How and from what distance?

      And how can the terminator help in this case, in a fundamentally different way than the second tank?
      The 1 situation
      Tank A is driving and behind it at a distance of 30 meters Tank B

      The 2 situation
      Tank A is driving and behind it at a distance of 30 meters Terminator
      How will the fundamental difference be expressed?
      1. +1
        23 June 2021 21: 52
        The 1 situation
        Tank A is driving and behind it at a distance of 30 meters Tank B

        The 2 situation
        Tank A is driving and behind it at a distance of 30 meters Terminator
        How will the fundamental difference be expressed?

        In the current line-up of the terminator, there really is no difference, at least fundamentally important.
        For me, the lineup of the terminator as a vehicle covering tanks raises significant doubts.
        And to destroy them - a coaxial 30-mm automatic cannon, a machine gun, guided missiles and two automatic grenade launchers.

        If the terminator is only support for the MBT, then his targets cannot be armored with them, the MBT must fight, because otherwise what will the MBT be busy with on the battlefield?
        The first thing that comes to mind is to replace the 30mm cannon, however, if you change what? If we take the MBT support concept as a basis, then the best option may not be cannons or one cannon (for an amateur) of 57 mm caliber, but two additional grenade launchers, probably the best option for infantry. The ammunition load of the grenade launchers will obviously be larger than that of the 57mm, this will save less money and you can hit everything that even just seems suspicious. The only and most important disadvantage is the range of the spawn and the speed of destruction (the grenade flies much slower). So perhaps the best option would even be to replace two 30 mm guns with one 1 mm caliber and one automatic grenade launcher. Within the framework of the same concept (MBT support on the battlefield), it is necessary to get rid of at least two existing missiles by replacing them with a miniature reconnaissance UAV (there is always an MBT nearby, which in turn should destroy enemy MBT, BMP pillboxes), possibly on a wire, but of course it is better on radio control. From a reconnaissance UAV in a network-centric concept, everyone who is connected to the network will benefit, namely MBT and terminators, and even art and infantry. I honestly don't see any sense in the terminator's ability to fight air targets, the effectiveness will be practically zero, at least without radar, and its presence, when turned on, gives an excellent signal to the enemy for target designation, replace two of the four missiles from anti-tank missiles with an air defense option without a radar there is no. In addition, the radar itself is extremely vulnerable even to small arms, and we want to support MBT attacks going at their peak. So, air defense and aviation must deal with enemy UAVs and helicopters.
        1. 0
          23 June 2021 23: 26
          There is no point in changing the Attack to the UAV. Better is a kamikaze drone with a vertical launch in the rear of the hull.
        2. -1
          24 June 2021 11: 38
          My opinion completely coincides with yours on the cannon, grenade launcher, drone and ATGM.
          I think the capabilities and abilities of BMPT work in full can be manifested only by the introduction of network centricity in MBT and BMPT.
        3. 0
          25 June 2021 01: 37
          And that only the radar gives guidance? There are optical passive guidance systems
    2. +1
      23 June 2021 21: 19
      Quote: The Time Traveler
      Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
      The drone illuminated, with 10 KM of art Krasnopol fired - a shell through the roof into the house = tripe flies out of the windows.

      First, UAVs are not yet all-weather.
      Secondly, time. Even if the arty fires immediately after the arrival of target designation from the UAV, then a 152-mm projectile, for example, an MSTA self-propelled gun at a speed of 810 m / s will fly 10 km. about 12 sec. During this time, the barmaley (or whoever else is there) will have time to shoot.

      And if "Msta" fires in a timely manner at reconnoitered targets, then what kind of barmale are we talking about? Well, if there is any "surprise", that is, the infantry. What's the point in reinventing the wheel?
  13. 0
    23 June 2021 19: 52
    my deep couch opinion is this: each tank should be accompanied by two BMPTs (obtained by CWR and alteration of old tanks).
  14. +4
    23 June 2021 21: 09
    Quote: NIKNN
    Urban combat is a separate tactic ...

    Not necessarily urban. You can get closer to the distance of the effective work of the shooter using the terrain, or you can find yourself at such a distance when the attack is carried out during artillery preparation, when the incomplete calculations of the PTS will crawl out of the shelters. Typical situation ...
  15. +2
    23 June 2021 21: 36
    Quote: Alexander Vorontsov

    Who will they have time to shoot at? How and from what distance?

    On the tank. From ATGM, from RPG. From 300 meters.
    Quote: Alexander Vorontsov

    And how can the terminator help in this case, in a fundamentally different way than the second tank?
    The 1 situation
    Tank A is driving and behind it at a distance of 30 meters Tank B

    The 2 situation
    Tank A is driving and behind it at a distance of 30 meters Terminator
    How will the fundamental difference be expressed?

    First, the Terminator has a higher chance of detecting an enemy because he has better vision.
    Secondly, it will open fire faster, because the tank gun takes longer to aim.
    Thirdly, its 30-mm spark and two AGS are capable of hitting manpower over a larger area (moreover, even simply shelling a suspicious area of ​​the terrain) than, for example, the 125-mm T-90 tank gun, which also takes longer to reload.
    And, fourthly, why should the BMPT go 30 meters behind the tank?
    1. 0
      24 June 2021 10: 40
      Quote: The Time Traveler
      First, the Terminator has a higher chance of detecting an enemy because he has better vision.

      And where did you get the idea that the review from the Terminator is higher? What such detection and guidance systems are there on the BMPT and not on the tanks?
      Quote: The Time Traveler
      Secondly, it will open fire faster, because the tank gun takes longer to aim.

      Again, on what basis are you making this inference? What numbers (characteristics) confirm this? There is no need to repeat about physics at school - give the numbers, if you have them. And yes, do not forget that a remote-controlled module can be installed on a tank on a turret with a 12,7mm machine gun and / or an automatic grenade launcher of 30 ... 40mm with any technically possible targeting speed and large declination / lifting angles of the barrels.
      Quote: The Time Traveler
      Thirdly, its 30-mm spark and two AGS are capable of hitting manpower over a larger area (moreover, even simply shelling a suspicious area of ​​the terrain) than, for example, the 125-mm T-90 tank gun, which also takes longer to reload.

      What prevents the shelling of a large area from a remote module on the turret of the tank and a machine gun paired with a 125mm cannon? What are the advantages of BMPT in this regard?
      Quote: The Time Traveler
      And, fourthly, why should the BMPT go 30 meters behind the tank?

      The person brought a hypothetical situation, and you cling to the details. Tactics are developed during exercises and refined in battle. Maybe 300m, as, for example, self-propelled guns went after tanks in the Second World War. Or maybe it is worth letting the BMPT forward, so that using its mass reserve for thicker armor, the Terminator eliminated the infantry and cleared the way for the tanks.
  16. +5
    23 June 2021 21: 43
    The idea has been in the air for a long time, and the first developments did not meet with understanding. A 40-year-old viper after restoration.
  17. +1
    23 June 2021 22: 54
    "BMPT instead of infantry seems to me personally extremely promising."
    I support! It all depends on the training of the crew. Russia has always fought against superior enemy forces. And this Terminator, the infantry company, can replace.
  18. +2
    23 June 2021 23: 09
    Not an article, a collection of pearls however laughing

    infantrymen know how to spread out and turn into small-sized single targets, for the destruction of which the tanks rotating too slowly by the turrets may not have enough life time allotted to them in battle.

    The author, apparently under the impression of the sluggish German Tiger tanks, blurted it out. And take and see how the modern T-72 \ T-90 is rapidly turning the turret weakly? Even in commercials ..

    The idea of ​​installing a warhead with a rapid-fire cannon, machine gun and anti-tank missiles on a tank instead of a turret seemed very tempting even then. The main problem was that for a long time it was not clear how to use such a machine.

    Generally brilliant! It is clear that the idea of ​​trying to stick everything that fits in there regularly overpowers the military. They are curious what will happen. However, the result was always the same, the same one honestly reflected by the author - "it is not clear how to use such a machine"! wassat

    Exactly this stage is all this fuss with the Terminator and takes place today. They knocked out the money, planted samples, and now they are painfully trying to figure out what to do with them. Apparently, nothing ingenious has yet been born. That the tank is helpless against ATGMs and UAVs, that the Terminator is just as helpless. That the tank is blind, exactly the same and the "Terminator" is blind. The concept of "not understanding what" is again at a dead end. wink
  19. 0
    24 June 2021 01: 33
    Quote: Doliva63
    And if "Msta" fires in a timely manner at reconnoitered targets, then what kind of barmale are we talking about? Well, if there is any "surprise", that is, the infantry. What's the point in reinventing the wheel?

    These options are analyzed in the text. Only there it is not about the ACS, but about the TOC. And about the infantry - when it works with tanks on foot, the pace of the offensive is lost, and therefore losses increase, both among the infantry and tanks.
  20. 0
    24 June 2021 01: 37
    Quote: Saxahorse
    Not an article, a collection of pearls however laughing

    infantrymen know how to spread out and turn into small-sized single targets, for the destruction of which the tanks rotating too slowly by the turrets may not have enough life time allotted to them in battle.

    The author, apparently under the impression of the sluggish German Tiger tanks, blurted it out. And take and see how the modern T-72 \ T-90 is rapidly turning the turret weakly? Even in the rollers.

    You, apparently, did not read the author's comment that he proceeded from the fact that the mass of the BMTP warhead is less than the mass of the tank turret, so it turns faster.
    1. 0
      24 June 2021 10: 46
      Quote: The Time Traveler
      You, apparently, did not read the author's comment that he proceeded from the fact that the mass of the BMTP warhead is less than the mass of the tank turret, so it turns faster.

      Yes, the members of the forum have read your post. Only one small question remains: do you know that a more powerful drive can be installed for a heavier tank turret?
  21. 0
    24 June 2021 01: 46
    Quote: Saxahorse

    The idea of ​​installing a warhead with a rapid-fire cannon, machine gun and anti-tank missiles on a tank instead of a turret seemed very tempting even then. The main problem was that for a long time it was not clear how to use such a machine.

    Generally brilliant! It is clear that the idea of ​​trying to stick everything that fits in there regularly overpowers the military. They are curious what will happen. However, the result was always the same, the same one honestly reflected by the author - "it is not clear how to use such a machine"! wassat

    Throughout human history, new weapons have defined new tactics.
    The text contains links to articles that describe how Russia flew with submarines and heavy bombers, which have already begun to enter service because the military could not develop adequate tactics for their use.
    This is a serious problem that the author was not the first to raise. (I read somewhere that Marshal Baghramyan, being a student of the Academy of the General Staff, was tasked with writing a paper on the topic "How new tactics determine new types of weapons." he was allowed),
  22. +2
    24 June 2021 06: 23
    As the combat experience of recent conflicts suggests, a more universal BMPT "Terminator" is needed. It must protect not only from infantry, but also from attack UAVs, combat helicopters and attack aircraft. To do this, a missile defense system must be included in the combat kit, and instead of 30-mm cannons, a 57-mm cannon with large elevation angles and shells with remote detonation is needed. In the meantime, the proposed BMPT will do.
  23. 0
    24 June 2021 12: 11
    Back in 2004, there were reflections on how to use the BMP-T, and now almost 20 years have passed since we began to practically use these machines. In the offensive of the MSD on the BMP or TD, such a machine has always been lacking since the advent of highly mobile ATGMs, and even more so UAVs now. Well, we are partially returning to divisional tactics, not just brigades.
    One vehicle attached to the TV would be very useful and will add firepower, both for ground and low-flying targets.
  24. 0
    24 June 2021 15: 16
    Quote: DesToeR

    And where did you get the idea that the review from the Terminator is higher?

    I compared the height of the Terminator with the height of the tanks.
    At Terminator, the commander's panoramic sight is installed at a height of over three meters.
  25. 0
    24 June 2021 16: 58
    it is only necessary to put 30 mm instead of 40 mm ags and hang a 23 mm cannon to the panoramic sight
  26. 0
    24 June 2021 22: 48
    Quote: DesToeR
    Quote: The Time Traveler
    You, apparently, did not read the author's comment that he proceeded from the fact that the mass of the BMTP warhead is less than the mass of the tank turret, so it turns faster.

    Yes, the members of the forum have read your post. Only one small question remains: do you know that a more powerful drive can be installed for a heavier tank turret?

    Tell the forum users :) what is theoretically possible. Both on the tank and on the Terminator. Only it is not clear why. Because the Terminator is made on the basis of the T-72, so the "drive" there is the same as on the tank. But the combat module is lighter than the tower.
    1. 0
      25 June 2021 16: 21
      Quote: The Time Traveler
      Tell the forum users :)

      There is a button under each comment - "Reply" - this is to send a notification to me about your reply.
      Quote: The Time Traveler
      theoretically it is possible. Both on the tank and on the Terminator. Only it is not clear why.

      In order not to produce essences unless absolutely necessary.
      Quote: The Time Traveler
      Because the Terminator is made on the basis of the T-72, so the "drive" there is the same as on the tank.

      Are you sure?
      Quote: The Time Traveler
      But the combat module is lighter than the tower

      Horizon guidance is limited not only by the drive power, but also by the presence of such a fragile creature as a person in the tower.
      Quote: The Time Traveler
      At Terminator, the commander's panoramic sight is installed at a height of over three meters.

      Masterpiece! And what advantage does this installation give to the calculation of BMPT when detecting camouflaged infantry with ATGM and RPG? Improving visibility through building walls and trenches? Once again: what DEVICES and detection / guidance systems are there on the BMPT and not on the tank? If the question is in three and a half meters, is it not easier to install the overscope on a tank, or a UAV on a wire?
      1. +1
        25 June 2021 19: 15
        Masterpiece! And what advantage does this installation give to the calculation of BMPT when detecting camouflaged infantry with ATGM and RPG?

        The Terminator commander's sight is a panoramic sight with a thermal imaging channel and a laser rangefinder.
        The T-72 and T-90 have commander sights without thermal imagers.
        I will immediately answer your next question - what if the commander's sight of the Terminator is installed on a tank.
        Then the range will be shorter, because the tank is lower.
        - And if the tank is made higher?
        - Then the tank will be easier to surround.
        _________________
        But, in principle, you are right. You have to experiment.
  27. 0
    24 June 2021 23: 04
    Quote: Doliva63

    And if "Msta" fires in a timely manner at reconnoitered targets, then what kind of barmale are we talking about? Well, if there is any "surprise", that is, the infantry. What's the point in reinventing the wheel?

    If the reconnaissance begins to 100% identify all targets, and the art also suppresses them 100%, then the tanks will not be needed.
    Nice thing - they gouged the enemy with art, and then they brought up the infantry on buses to indicate their presence.
    Only, alas, this does not happen in real life. (sadness). :)
  28. 0
    25 June 2021 06: 41
    if such sectors of the enemy's defense are discovered by reconnaissance in a timely manner. Then it is possible to strike at them, for example, with heavy flame-throwing systems (TOS) "Buratino" or "Solntsepek", which destroy everything in large areas.

    Dear author! "Buratino" or "Solntsepek" is not a weapon for the front line. the line of safe removal of its troops from the fire of such products reaches 2-3 km. And the "Terminator" is a means of supporting tanks and, in fact, the tank itself without a cannon and the line of safe distance from the explosions of its shells is up to 200m. Up to this distance, our artillery carries out artillery accompaniment of the attack, when at least 6 shells per hectare per minute fall on the attacked strongpoint and the enemy cannot fire, and therefore sits in the dugouts, leaving observers. So that's it. The place of the "Terminator" in the attack consists in suppressing the enemy's firepower in a short period of time, when our artillery finished artillery accompaniment of the attack while advancing our tanks to the front edge at a speed of 6 km / h at a distance of 200m, BMP (armored personnel carriers) 300m, infantry 400m. Then our artillery transfers fire into the depths of the enemy's defenses. Tanks, infantry fighting vehicles, armored personnel carriers add gas to 10-12 km, h, infantry at a run. Here "Terminators" must suppress everything that got out of the enemy's dugouts and is trying to fire until the genitals of our first soldier hang over the first trench of the enemy.
    1. 0
      25 June 2021 07: 47
      Quote: maykl8
      Here "Terminators" must suppress everything that got out of the enemy dugouts and is trying to fire,

      Will they cope? Better than a tank?
      1. 0
        27 June 2021 22: 59
        Here "Terminators" must suppress everything that got out of the enemy dugouts and is trying to fire,

        From a distance of 200-300m, out of two automatic cannons and one AGS-17 is definitely better.
  29. 0
    25 June 2021 09: 42
    The structure of the article resembles an advertisement: first scare, and then offer a solution. Whether the Terminator is a solution, especially in a robotic version, is not yet clear.

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar people (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned), Kirill Budanov (included to the Rosfinmonitoring list of terrorists and extremists)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev Lev; Ponomarev Ilya; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; Mikhail Kasyanov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"