The first company of the BMPT "Terminator" will reinforce the tank regiment of the 90th Guards Tank Division of the Central Military District

The Ministry of Defense has decided to adopt the first batch of support combat vehicles tanks (BMPT) Terminator. The decision was made based on the results of the tests that took place this year.

A BMPT company in the amount of 9 vehicles will strengthen one of the tank regiments of the 90th Guards Tank Division of the Central Military District, stationed in the Urals. Putting into service will take place until December 1 of this year.

All nine BMPTs entered the division at the end of November last year for trial operation and testing together with tank units. The testing task was to determine the place of the tank support vehicle in battle formations and the tasks that it can perform in combat conditions. The tests were carried out during this year, they were recognized as successful.

However, the final decision on BMPT has not yet been made. Next year, on the basis of the division, BMPT tests will continue. According to the commander of the Central Military District, Colonel-General Alexander Lapin, in 2022, the Terminator BMPT battalion will begin testing. Tests will begin in June, which means that before that time the division will receive another batch of tank support combat vehicles.

According to Lapin's statement, larger-scale tests of the BMPT will be carried out both as part of tank units and motorized rifle units.

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

[Ingvar 72]

Oh really?
They dragged on for a long time, then they could not decide on the concept of application, then there were questions with weapons.
Now I would also like to decide on the Armata family.

[SKVichyakow]

Quote: Ingvar 72

Oh really?
They dragged on for a long time, then they could not decide on the concept of application, then there were questions with weapons.
Now I would also like to decide on the Armata family.

They have not yet decided on anything, neither with the quantity, nor with the use, nor in any units, I even think about its armament.

[YOUR]

The only advantage of BMPT over BMP-3, BMP-4 is its reservation. For all other parameters, even one BMP wins. Plus the landing.

[Bad_gr]

Quote: SKVichyakow

They have not yet decided on anything, neither with the quantity, nor with the use, nor in any units, I even think about its armament.

The concept was: to cover the tank from tank-hazardous threats. They mainly started talking about it after the use of tanks in the city, where the danger could be from both basements and upper floors of buildings. Based on this, we set the task: the equipment should be well protected, very big-eyed and with the ability to work on several objects at once. Of all the BMPT objects presented, the military liked the Chelyabinsk "object 781" more.

Ordered (but not them). And those made the car to the best of their understanding. As they said, it turned out to be a large sniper rifle. It is, perhaps, good for covering some objects, checkpoints, but not for covering tanks. Hence the delay in adopting it into service.

[Flooding]

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).

IMHO
the idea of ​​a tank support vehicle is relevant
but its implementation will undergo a change in the near future
this has been discussed for a long time and is already becoming obvious and inevitable
one barrel of a larger caliber instead of two 30mm
and hopefully supplement AG

[Mountain shooter]

Quote: Flood

one barrel of a larger caliber
and hopefully supplement AG

Well, yes, a 57 mm barrel and an AG of the "Balkan" type, plus the function of combating "loitering ammunition" ...

[Flooding]

Quote: Mountain Shooter

Well yes, 57mm barrel

45mm was mentioned today for a reason on VO
this is a sign from above

[Mountain shooter]

Quote: Flood

45mm was mentioned today for a reason on VO

So there are no such barrels yet, but 57 already exist.

[Flooding]

Quote: Mountain Shooter

So there are no such barrels yet, but 57 already exist

I agree, if I was in a hurry
and 45mm as a sample has already been demonstrated

[hagen]

Quote: Flood

45mm was mentioned today for a reason on VO

I think a 45mm assault rifle can only be used to replace the 2A42 / 2A72 when upgrading the existing fleet of BMP / BTR. (with armored personnel carriers, difficulties may arise in the installation site of the combat module). The cartridge 30x165 is clearly outdated ...

[Popandos]

its implementation will undergo a change in the near future
it is already becoming obvious

It's almost certain

one barrel of a larger caliber

but about one barrel, I doubt, now the tank needs to be protected from attacks from above, and here the rate of fire is important. The increase in caliber will most likely be, it is not for nothing that they talked about the 45mm caliber.

[Flooding]

Quote: Popandos

but about one barrel, I doubt, now the tank needs to be protected from an attack from above, but here the rate of fire is important

the need to cover the tank from air attacks did not arise today
but to assign air defense tasks to BMPT is frank voluntarizi

[ProkletyiPirat]

Quote: Flood

to assign air defense tasks to BMPT - frank voluntarizi

you just do not understand what exactly is meant by "anti-aircraft functions", here we are talking about shooting down "infantry-portable guided weapons with VVPZ (VTOL)" for example multicopters armed with PTABs and NARs or conventional mortar mines, or RPG-7 shots or hand grenades. That is, we are talking about those areas that are not overlapped by either Tunguska or Shilka or derivations.

But my personal opinion is that it is better to arm the MBT with an additional one paired with the main weapon and use this additional weapon consistently, depending on the current target.

[Flooding]

Quote: ProkletyiPirat

you just do not understand what exactly is meant by "anti-aircraft functions"

you just write in detail what new meaning you put into the old terminology

Quote: ProkletyiPirat

here we are talking about shooting down "infantry-portable guided weapons with VVPZ (VTOL)" for example multicopters armed with PTABs and NARs or conventional mortar mines, or RPG-7 shots or hand grenades

how will BMPT detect these threats?
stop fantasizing

[hagen]

Quote: Popandos

the tank needs to be protected from an attack from above, and here the rate of fire is important.

And what kind of attack from above do you plan to repel with the 45-koy? Its height reach will be no more than 3500 meters. Predators already in 2010 could comfortably work from 3000-4000 meters. Today, the quality of means of observation, guidance and target tracking has stepped forward. Perhaps today and with 6000 UAVs can attack a ground object with sufficient accuracy. I think the 45 will become obsolete even before it is put into service as a combat module on the BMPT, especially for air defense missions.

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

Each echelon has its own type of air defense.

[Ingvar 72]

Quote: Flood

one barrel of a larger caliber instead of two 30mm

But what about the density of fire? After all, a larger caliber cannot provide the same density of fire as 2 * 30mm.
But the vehicle is designed to be used against tank-hazardous infantry, which is why Shilka is still used for this purpose.

[Flooding]

Quote: Ingvar 72

But what about the density of fire? After all, a larger caliber cannot provide the same density of fire as 2 * 30mm.

But what about the limitation of the bookmaker?
of course, a larger caliber will not give that rate of fire
but she is not needed
shooting from the AP is advisable in short bursts
if we are not talking about firing from a shipborne gun at KR or air defense at air targets
you can't do without density there
but not in our case
and with an increased high-explosive action of the projectile, the effect can be predicted

[Ingvar 72]

Quote: Flood

and with an increased high-explosive action of the projectile, the effect can be predicted

You will not replace the density of fire with a high-explosive action. The tank has an even higher high-explosive effect of the projectile, but for some reason Shilka rules in the mountains and cities.
BMPT just so that the density of fire does not give the tank-hazardous infantry head to raise.

[Flooding]

Quote: Ingvar 72

The tank has an even higher high-explosive effect of the projectile, but for some reason Shilka rules in the mountains and cities.

so do you suggest 4x23?
but why then invent BMPT if Shilka "rules"?

Quote: Ingvar 72

You will not replace the density of fire with a high-explosive action

replace? no, not about that
the density of fire in one ap is quite decent
but supplementing with a higher high-explosive impact does not really hurt

haven't you read that BMPT cannot fire simultaneously from two barrels?

[Ingvar 72]

Quote: Flood

but why then invent BMPT if Shilka "rules"?

Shilka was originally an air defense tank. The idea is to complement Shilka's effectiveness in the city with other weapons and thick armor. I'm surprised that I have to explain basic things.

Quote: Flood

haven't you read that BMPT cannot fire simultaneously from two barrels?

Didn't you know that Gatling guns cannot fire from all barrels at once, but only in turn?
I think the hint is clear?

[Flooding]

Quote: Ingvar 72

Didn't you know that Gatling guns cannot fire from all barrels at once, but only in turn?

what does the Gatling system have to do with it?
if the BMPT has two guns with separate power supply
when the Gatling system is one weapon
and the density of fire when firing from two identical guns can be increased only when they are used simultaneously

Quote: Ingvar 72

I think the hint is clear?

to write off on old age?
don’t worry, there are enough reasonable commentators of a more mature age on the forum

Quote: Ingvar 72

Shilka was originally an air defense tank. The idea is to complement Shilka's effectiveness in the city with other weapons and thick armor.

Shilka has bulletproof / splinterproof armor up to 15 mm
"tank" with "thick armor"

air defense missions are in no way tied to "efficiency in the city"

rather, on the contrary, in urban conditions, air defense tasks are more difficult to accomplish

[Ingvar 72]

Quote: Flood

what does the Gatling system have to do with it?
if the BMPT has two guns with separate power supply

They shoot in a checkerboard pattern, in turn. You can even see it in your video.

Quote: Flood

Shilka armor bulletproof / splinterproof up to 15 mm
"tank" with "thick armor"

BMPT with thicker armor. And with an expanded arsenal.

Quote: Flood

rather, on the contrary, in urban conditions, air defense tasks are more difficult to accomplish

Not only BMPTs have thicker armor! I mean that Shilka in the city is ideal against the infantry.

[Flooding]

Quote: Ingvar 72

They shoot in a checkerboard pattern, in turn. You can even see it in your video.

how does this affect the density of the fire?

[Flooding]

Quote: Ingvar 72

They shoot in a checkerboard pattern, in line. You can even see it in your video.

by "checkerboard order" you probably mean alternate shooting

when two cannons are installed, and they do not have the ability to fire at the same time, then it is ABSOLUTELY OBVIOUS that they shoot alternately

but this in no way increases the density of fire that you wrote about above

but it has a certain reason, because the cannons are powered separately. and can be loaded with various types of ammunition.

[Ingvar 72]

Quote: Flood

by "checkerboard order" you probably mean alternate shooting

Exactly. Just why did you decide that alternate shooting does not increase the density of fire, because 2 guns are not one.
The rate of fire is in any case higher, again this can be understood by comparing it with the rate of fire of a conventional BMP.
But I agree on separate nutrition.

[Flooding]

Quote: Ingvar 72

Just why did you decide that alternate shooting does not increase the density of fire, because 2 guns are not one.

what should Aunt Vika tell us?
"Density of fire is one of the main characteristics of the intensity of fire impact on a target, which is expressed in the total number of shells (bullets, mines, etc.) per unit area of ​​the target (sometimes - per the length of its front) per unit of time."

[Ingvar 72]

Quote: Flood

which is expressed in the total number of shells

And what do you disagree with? I’m talking about the same, two guns in any case create a denser fire, a higher fire impact on the target.

[Flooding]

Quote: Ingvar 72

I’m talking about the same, two guns in any case create a denser fire, a higher fire effect on the target.

but only for a period of time longer than that which is necessary to empty your ammunition with one cannon.
therefore not at all "anyway"
but only under certain conditions
and since the cannons do not fire continuously until the bk is completely exhausted, this is a purely theoretical speculative calculation
unpractical

[Ingvar 72]

Quote: Flood

and since the cannons do not fire continuously until the bk is completely depleted

In the sense of not leading? There is such an opportunity, both to fire one, and both at the same time.

[Flooding]

Quote: Ingvar 72

There is such an opportunity, both to fire one, and both at the same time.

do you state this with evidence of it?
or do you just think so?
the network has repeatedly written that shooting is possible only one by one
and all published videos with shooting confirm this

https://tvzvezda.ru/news/2020913956-b4Na8.html

if you find a video with simultaneous firing of two guns, I admit I'm wrong

[Ingvar 72]

Quote: Flood

that shooting is possible only one by one

Link please?

[Flooding]

Quote: Ingvar 72

Link please?

video is not enough for you?
I can add a couple more to these two

[Ingvar 72]

Video is a visual perception that everyone has their own. The reference to the TTX is different, you must understand this.

[Flooding]

Quote: Ingvar 72

Video is a visual perception that everyone has their own

do you perceive shooting from one gun as from two?

Quote: Ingvar 72

The reference to the TTX is different, you must understand this.

reference to low vision and poor perception is something new, you must understand this

https://www.vesti.ru/article/2521503

shooting from one barrel is clearly visible

[Ingvar 72]

Quote: Flood

do you perceive shooting from one gun as from two?

Let me answer you, and that's it. Each of the two BMPT cannons has a certain rate of fire, and this is a fact. As you said, they have separate loading, and therefore have separate triggers. This is also a fact.
Accordingly, there is no reason to constructively restrict firing with two barrels at the same time. There are not many videos with shooting, and the staggered fire can only be explained by the different times of pressing the trigger.
And that's all. All the rest of the discussion is only with reference to the performance characteristics.
Goodbye.

[Flooding]

Quote: Ingvar 72

And that's all. All the rest of the discussion is only with reference to the performance characteristics.
Bye

I understand that bmpd is not an authority for you
but still I will try to get through

"In its current form, the BMPT" Object 199 "is rather a tank with a weakened main armament (a 30-mm cannon with an ATGM instead of a 125-mm cannon with an ATGM. firing, so in terms of fire, there is actually one gun), due to which it accommodates two additional crew members with anti-personnel grenade launchers. "

https://bmpd.livejournal.com/4200849.html

[Ingvar 72]

Quote: Flood

I understand that bmpd is not an authority for you

I have not heard of this. This is a commentary by a specialist like you and me.

Quote: Flood

not intended for simultaneous firing, so in terms of fire, there is actually one gun)

Two guns with separate loading, and the possibility of simultaneous firing of only one - some kind of nonsense. If the loading mechanism is separate, respectively, separate and release, otherwise the meaning is lost. And how can that save space for two additional crew members? Think logically yourself?
But even if a system of alternate firing of barrels is somehow introduced there, it turns out that in the end the rate of fire is still higher, since two guns are two shells, not one. Although from the point of view of logic, such a system is appropriate to implement only with combined loading, so as not to overheat one barrel during prolonged shooting. But the charging systems are separate there, tk. BMPT can fire with one barrel and two. Even if there is no doublet in the video. By the way, one more assumption - a checkerboard pattern can be introduced to eliminate excessive recoil (whoever shot a doublet will understand). But again we have the density of fire of 2 guns.

[Flooding]

Quote: Ingvar 72

I have not heard of this. This is a commentary by a specialist like you and me.

but you could have asked
this is not a comment, but an excerpt from a publication on bmpd.livejournal - a fairly authoritative and well-known military-themed blog

I also brought the link
but you are not interested if it does not fit into a mosaic convenient for you personally

"I understand that bmpd is not an authority for you" was written with irony
but it turned out that I accidentally hit the top ten

now there is certainly no point in further discussion
build on your conclusions based on ... your own assumptions

[Ingvar 72]

Quote: Flood

build on your conclusions based on ... your own assumptions

Unlike you, I build them on the basis of logic, which I wrote about. You hid behind the comment of a very authoritative, but for some reason little-known sharashka.

[Flooding]

Quote: Ingvar 72

You hid behind the comment of a very authoritative, but for some reason little-known sharashka

are you joking?
is bmpd blog little known?
under each publication of which there are from 100 to 300 comments?
This is something new
you have just dropped the rating of the Military Review
it clearly does not get it in comparison with this "little-known sharazh"
but your comment is a good illustration of your level of awareness and objectivity

and did not try to read instead of ranting?
you didn't even read my link to bmpd
which was so requested before
but talk about logic
what kind of logic do you have if it sweeps aside video facts? and is based solely on its own assumptions

[Ingvar 72]

Quote: Flood

but did not try to read instead of ranting

You are ranting, dear. Instead of performance characteristics, they brought an opinion. You'd better ask what kind of gun is on the BMPT. And there is 2A42, and its characteristics are publicly available. And there are two of them! And even if they strike in a checkerboard pattern in order to neutralize the effect of the doublet, the rate of fire is somehow twice as high. This gun does not need intermediate cooling for up to 500 rounds. Ammunition BMPT 900 rounds for two barrels?
Can you give at least one reason why the rate of fire could be reduced?

[Flooding]

Quote: Ingvar 72

You rant, dear

Quote: Ingvar 72

You hid behind the comment of a very authoritative, but for some reason little-known sharashka

so which of us is not responsible for words?
the answer is obvious.
but I do not expect you to admit that you are wrong.
you belong to the category of people who are not capable of this.

[Ingvar 72]

Again, you are hiding behind a comment instead of answering my questions. I don’t see any sense to continue.
Goodbye.

[Flooding]

Quote: Ingvar 72

I don’t see any sense to continue.

I have provided you with video facts
I gave a link to an authoritative resource
what else to look for meaning to a person who is looking for calculations of the density of fire from BMPT cannons in the Gatling system?
and where does the "comment"?
this was the link to the article from which I cited an excerpt!
what the hell is the comment I'm hiding behind?

[Ingvar 72]

Quote: Flood

what the hell is the comment I'm hiding behind?

Open your link, and notice where (!) It is indicated that the gun is essentially one. The bmpd comment, not the article itself.

[Flooding]

Quote: Ingvar 72

Open your link, and notice where (!) It is indicated that the gun is essentially one. The bmpd comment, not the article itself.

this is the author's article
first comes information from the source
under it is the author's opinion
all this is the author's article, under which readers leave comments

are you having trouble understanding what you have written?
"in terms of fire, the gun is one" since one of the two barrels at the time can fire
therefore, "in terms of fire" it is incorrect to talk about two guns

[Ingvar 72]

Will you answer at least one of my questions?

[Flooding]

Quote: Ingvar 72

Will you answer at least one of my questions?

formulate it first
and if you want to get answers, then learn how to answer your opponent's questions and take responsibility for your words

[Ingvar 72]

Quote: Flood

then learn to answer your opponent's questions and take responsibility for your words

If you want to show off, then this is not for me. The only argument that you gave is the opinion of the bmpd LJ administration. And that's all. Although the video shows that the shooting is carried out in a checkerboard pattern. I have voiced my opinion on this matter to you. In response, I received repeated references to bmpd authority.
Then I take my leave, and I will not answer your comments, because I have no desire to conduct a dialogue with a person who cannot connect logical chains.

[Flooding]

Quote: Ingvar 72

The only argument that you gave is the opinion of the bmpd LJ administration.

well, almost so))

Quote: Flood

I have provided you with video facts
I gave a link to an authoritative resource

agree, this is more than your unfounded reasoning

and yes, about logic with a capital L

Quote: Ingvar 72

Didn't you know that Gatling guns cannot fire from all barrels at once, but only in turn?
I think the hint is clear?

Explain your riddle. Don't try to explain yourself in hints. You can't do it.

[Barberry25]

I suspect that the matter is in the shooting modes - at the ranges we have a certain number of shells to kill ... that's why the gunners shoot in short bursts, and in order for the second gun to work, you need to squeeze the trigger

[Flooding]

Quote: Barberry25

I suspect that the matter is in the shooting modes - at the ranges we have a certain number of shells to kill ... that's why the gunners shoot in short bursts, and in order for the second gun to work, you need to squeeze the trigger

all modes are being worked out at the landfills

[Barberry25]

they work out everything, but for recording they usually take the beginning of the exercises so that journalists do not have an eyesore, not to mention the exercises

[Flooding]

Quote: Barberry25

they work out everything, but for recording they usually take the beginning of the exercises so that journalists do not have an eyesore, not to mention the exercises

is this the argument?
above I gave a link where fire was fired simultaneously from both grenade launchers
and there was a reporter nearby. in my opinion, from the Star

[Barberry25]

well, watch your own video from Zvezda, 2:20 .. as you can see that they shoot from both guns, just the second gun is activated at an increased rate of fire

[Flooding]

Quote: Barberry25

well, watch your own video from Zvezda, 2:20 .. as you can see that they shoot from both guns

you know, didn’t see
that the trunks are shaking I see
to both shoot - no, not visible

[Barberry25]

but you now need them to twitch in sync?

[Flooding]

Quote: Barberry25

but you now need them to twitch in sync?

I do not like empty correspondence
either facts and reasoning or goodbye
even when firing from one gun, the second barrel will twitch from its recoil
these are the laws of physics

[Barberry25]

the facts are "look, they shoot together from separately installed AGS"?)

[Flooding]

Quote: Barberry25

the facts are "look, they shoot together from separately installed AGS"?)

I mentioned the simultaneous shooting of the AG only in response to your ridiculous comment

Quote: Barberry25

for recording, they usually take the beginning of the exercises so that journalists do not have an eyesore

facts I call a video with slow-motion shots and a link to a thematic resource
if you chat, then I'm not interested

[Barberry25]

for those who are in the tank, there is generally an answer from the developers from 2013 - the main rate of fire from 1 gun, the second gun starts to work in case of prolonged firing to reduce overheating, i.e. synchronous shots, which you require, no, BUT variable shooting from different barrels in one volley is, which allows us to speak about the use of both barrels for shooting

[Flooding]

Quote: Barberry25

for those who are in the tank, there is actually an answer from the developers from 2013

where is he? share a secret
and finally get out of the tank!

Quote: Barberry25

those. synchronous shots that you require, no, BUT variable shooting from different barrels in one salvo is

that is, the guns do not fire at the same time
then what have you been trying to prove to me all this time?

Quote: Barberry25

allows us to talk about the use of both barrels for shooting

of course allows. otherwise why do we need a second cannon?
but that was not the point.
you tried to prove that it is possible to fire both guns at the same time!
and here on you, change your shoes

[Barberry25]

at the same time, even on ship installations, the cannons do not fire) but fire alternately)

[Flooding]

Quote: Barberry25

at the same time, even on ship installations, the cannons do not fire

1. what kind of ship auctions do you write about?
2.What thesis of mine did you argue with when you joined the correspondence?

[Barberry25]

ooh, let's get excuses for 300

[Barberry25]

And then what?

[Flooding]

Quote: Barberry25

And then what?

set the playback speed to slow and ask yourself why all the casings are thrown from the left

[Barberry25]

on the video from 1 minute it is clearly visible that both guns are firing, and the shells are poured on the left because there is an ejection on the left of both guns

[Flooding]

Quote: Barberry25

on the video from 1 minute it is clearly visible that both guns are firing

controversially
playback speed 0,25
starting from 0:58, a total of six shots were fired
of these six, the fifth seems to be from the right barrel (for the viewer of the left)
A question for connoisseurs: if a burst from both barrels is given, how does one barrel manage to fire 5 shots, and the second only one?

[Barberry25]

I wrote about this above, about connecting the second gun

[Flooding]

Quote: Barberry25

I wrote about this above, about connecting the second gun

did you write what?
your guess?
the second barrel fires one round while the first fires five - and this is what you call "gun connection"?
Where have you heard this?
this is 2A42. it has preset firing modes.
but you've just come up with something new.

[Barberry25]

I am aware of the modes, and you will review your video from the star)

[Flooding]

Quote: Barberry25

I am aware of the modes, and you will review your video from the star)

and it does not bother you at all
it turned out that the cannon shoots single

[Old tanker]

but supplementing with a higher high-explosive impact does not really hurt

The high-explosive action of the shell covered by the Terminator is quite enough. BMPT for this and was created to eliminate the threat from the infantry. Here the rate of fire, the density of fire and the total mass of the salvo are important. That is, to make sure that the infantry could not raise their head off. Did not take advantage of the pause in her shelling to fire a shot at the armor. Chechen fighters often launched ATGMs without escort, you just aim like a NUR. And they managed to hit, especially in standing or slowly moving vehicles. Although, of course, it was more often so smeared. And when a sheaf of thirty flies in your direction, then you have to be completely dumbfounded in order to try to aim the installation at the target or hit it out of the border.
So in this case 30mm is enough.

[Flooding]

Quote: Old Tankman

in this case, 30mm is sufficient.

almost 3-fold difference in weight of cc
accordingly, a very decent difference in high-explosive action
is this difference necessary? I think yes
I agree, if the infantry with anti-tank weapons is covered with a burst of 30mm - it will not seem a little
and if the exact location in the greenery or the building is unknown?
then the question arises how deadly an inaccurate turn will become for the enemy

[Old tanker]

Just a line of thirty will be more effective in green stuff. If you stray the OFZ, then due to the greater number of shells in the queue of fragments and and the affected area will be larger. Dade 12,7 MDZ perfectly makes green wool. And if you load with BTs, you can mow the green stuff.

[Flooding]

Quote: Old Tankman

If you stray the OFZ, then due to the greater number of shells in the queue of fragments and and the affected area there will be more

the difference in rate of fire is 1,5-1,7 times in favor of 30 mm versus 45 mm
but what is the difference in the number of submunitions in these calibers? that the comparison is in favor of 45 mm, I think there is no point in proving
But in addition to the high-explosive action, it is the fragments that are the main factors in the defeat of manpower

Quote: Old Tankman

Dade 12,7 MDZ excellent wool green

but who can argue with that?
it's not about what gauge wool, and which one does not
it was about comparative effectiveness

[Barberry25]

the problem is that there is no 45 mm cannon as well as ammunition supplies ..

[Flooding]

Quote: Barberry25

the problem is that there is no 45 mm cannon as well as ammunition supplies ..

I wrote above about the 45mm
but you have no time to read
but the minuses have already been born
minus - is this all your arguments?
then you don’t come to me

[Barberry25]

and how does this affect my words that there are NO guns, there is an exhibition sample without tests, as well as NO stocks of shells. And yes, I have nothing more to do, as every "topvar's expert" I come across has disadvantages, you didn’t give up to me for nothing

[Flooding]

Quote: Barberry25

how does this affect my words that there are NO guns, there is an exhibition sample without tests

there is no gun in the troops
state tests have not been carried out
but R&D and most likely factory tests have been carried out
the cannon exists as a sample
can we say that it is NOT?

[Barberry25]

yeah, the cannon has surfaced at the exhibition all the time and that's all ... and without a factory test guarantee ... so yes, it is NOT ... and most importantly, there are NO SHELLS for IT ..

[Flooding]

Quote: Barberry25

the main thing is that she has no shells ..

my dear, I did not claim that there are shells
in the comment above, I drew my opponent's attention to the fact that the 45mm cannon was already lit up at the exhibition
to which you decided to write that there is no cannon and no shells

[Barberry25]

remind what year it was?

[Flooding]

I'm sorry for the false accusation

Quote: Flood

but the minuses have already been born

already realized that it was not you

[Old tanker]

In greenery, the efficiency of relatively light fragments is 30mm or 45mm, almost the same. Since the range of expansion is generally limited by the branches and branches. And the more ammunition per unit of time explodes in one and the same area, the higher their density is.

[Flooding]

Quote: Old Tankman

In greenery, the efficiency of relatively light fragments is 30mm or 45mm, almost the same. Since the range of expansion is generally limited by the branches and branches. And the more ammunition per unit of time explodes in one and the same area, the higher their density is.

yes
to listen to you, the laws of physics no longer work
only recently you wrote how a large-caliber machine gun mows green
and now you assure that the branches will be an obstacle for the fragments
and the fact that 45mm ofs gives a lot more striking elements is not at all a fact for you
I'm not talking about the greater damaging effect of fragments from 45mm compared to 30mm

but it seems that I was in vain talking about Barberry
I apologize to him if I was wrong

[Old tanker]

Give an approximate comparative number, weight, speed and energy of 45mm fragments (45mm shells under development only!) And 30mm. And then the laws of fijics will immediately tell whether 45mm is much more effective than 30mm. In the meantime, all your arguments are just words.

[Flooding]

Quote: Old Tankman

Give an approximate comparative number, weight, speed and energy of 45mm fragments

there is logic and hard facts
an increase in the number (total mass) of fragments and their lethality take place with an increase in the caliber of projectiles
this is a fact that you cannot argue with

but you are like water off a duck's back

[Old tanker]

Logic just dictates that the weight, energy and speed of the fragments in 30 and 45mm shells will be approximately the same. The difference is likely to be in their number. Naturally, 45mm has more, but obviously not 1,5 times. Accordingly, 30mm with a XNUMX times higher rate of fire will create more fragments in the same area in the same unit of time. So it will be more effective in greenery conditions.

[Flooding]

Quote: Old Tankman

Naturally, 45mm has more, but obviously not 1,5 times

are you new to geometry?
Do you know how the area and volume change in response to a change in linear dimensions?
with a seemingly small difference between 30 and 45 mm, the difference in the mass of the cc is almost threefold

[Old tanker]

So far I have not seen any of the figures you quoted.
Do you take into account the increase in the mass of the explosive, and the thickness of the walls of the case and the energy for their rupture?
Here is a quote from the manual "Fragmentation Projectiles":
A lethal fragment is considered to be a splinter weighing at least 5 g. When a 76-mm grenade breaks, 200-250 pieces are obtained, 107-mm - 300-400, 122-mm - 400-500 and 152-mm - 500-700 PCS.
As you can see, the indicated ratios are clearly not in favor of your hypothesis.

[Flooding]

Quote: Old Tankman

When a 76-mm grenade breaks, 200-250 pieces are obtained, 107-mm - 300-400, 122-mm - 400-500 and 152-mm - 500-700 pieces.

you didn't even understand what you just quoted
explain
an increase in caliber by 30-40% gives an increase in the number of lethal fragments of at least 100 units
that is, each shell burst is plus 100-150 lethal fragments
Now think about how many lethal fragments a 30mm off-line gives, if a 76mm grenade gives them 200-250
at best, three times less, i.e. no more than 70
oops i'm sorry
weight of a 30mm projectile in the region of 380-390 grams
not sure if this figure includes cbm
if it does not even include, and even if we assume that exclusively all the fragments have a mass of more than 5 grams, then we get about 70 lethal fragments (absolute in vacuum)
but it is absolutely certain that most of the debris formed during the explosion has a lower mass
as a result, the number of lethal fragments from 30mm offs cannot exceed 50 pieces
rather less

add 100 pieces (according to the data you provided) to get the number of lethal fragments for 45mm
this is at least a 100% increase

I already wrote that you are out of tune with geometry? with math, apparently, too.

[Old tanker]

Many letters, but little sense.
So pure math.
We compare the effectiveness of 3 76mm rounds to 2 of a larger caliber - as much as 107mm. Their caliber ratio is about the same from 30mm to 45mm. 1,5 and 1,4, respectively. This assumption is needed to correspond to a 1,5 higher rate of fire.
3 × 200 = 600 shards.
2 × 300 = 600 shards.
Conclusion: their number is the same.
That is, replacing a 45mm cannon with a lower rate of fire will not give an advantage in the formation of fragments with a 1,5 times higher rate of fire of 30mm.
Although it is not clear to me where you got the figures from 1,5 to 1,7 times. Even if 2A72 and 2A42 differ from each other in rate of fire. A 2A42 has a different rate of fire.

[Flooding]

Quote: Old Tankman

Although it is not clear to me where you got the figures from 1,5 to 1,7 times. Even if 2A72 and 2A42 differ from each other in rate of fire

if a 57mm assault rifle has a rate of fire of about 100 shots, then I think it's fair to focus on 150 for 45mm

Quote: Old Tankman

So pure math

projectile weight 30mm of the order of 380-400 g
projectile weight 45mm about 1000 g
difference in weight 2,5 times

from here https://wwii.space/
it is fair to assume that the number of lethal fragments directly depends on the amount of metal in the projectile
and it is obvious that the capabilities of the 30mm caliber for the formation of lethal fragments are limited by its mass
and your comparison of larger calibers is, to put it mildly, incorrect
but also your comparison does not take into account the damaging factor of a larger caliber at a greater distance
higher high-explosive effect + more lethal fragments + greater distance at which these fragments have a damaging effect

[Old tanker]

Rate of fire 2A42 double 220 and 550.

There is no direct linear dependence of the number of fragments on the size of the projectile. Since the fragments are formed of different sizes and masses. It depends both on the mass of the explosive and on the thickness of the material of the walls of the projectile. And they will be different for different parameters. If you take with
outfits of larger caliber 122 and 152mm, for example, they have the same number of fragments.

[Flooding]

Quote: Old Tankman

There is no direct linear dependence of the number of fragments on the size of the projectile

it even becomes uncomfortable for you
I did not call this dependence a straight line, but it is obvious even from the figures you quoted

[Old tanker]

You have not supported your obviousness with any formula, not a single mathematical calculation.
So far, it is obvious that the total salvo of one 2A42 in terms of the mass of fragments is not inferior, and at a high rate, significantly exceeds your hypothetical forty-five in the number of fragments formed.
Unfortunately, you have not been able to prove the opposite.

[Flooding]

Quote: Old Tankman

You have not supported your obviousness with any formula, not a single mathematical calculation.
So far, it is obvious that the total salvo of one 2A42 in terms of the mass of fragments is not inferior to

excuse me, you "did not support this thesis with a single formula, not a single mathematical calculation"
Why don't you demand from yourself what you demand from others?

[Flooding]

Quote: Old Tankman

You have not supported your obviousness with any formula, not a single mathematical calculation

but I am ready to refute your calculations and statements

are you sure you're ready to tackle the formulas?
https://studfile.net/preview/5082433/page:24/
i left it for dessert

[Old tanker]

I gave you the mathematical ratio of the number of fragments formed to the ratio of calibers with an equal coefficient. From you only your own guesses and reflections.
First, calculate the total mass of a salvo for 1 minute of the 2A42 cannon at low and high rates. Then compare with the total mass of the salvo during the same time your hypothetical forty-five with a 1,5 slower rate of fire than the 2A42 at a low rate.

[Flooding]

Quote: Old Tankman

I gave you the mathematical ratio of the number of fragments formed to the ratio of calibers with an equal coefficient

which I have already denied

Quote: Old Tankman

From you only your own guesses and reflections.

so your "mathematical relationship" turned out to be untenable
in other words untrue
but you didn't even notice it
I will repeat

and compare with your "mathematical ratio"

Quote: Old Tankman

lethal fragments when breaking a 76-mm grenade turns out to be 200-250 pieces, 107-mm - 300-400, 122-mm - 400-500 and 152-mm - 500-700 pieces

have you noticed anything?

[Old tanker]

First, calculate the total mass of a salvo in 1 minute from a 2A42 cannon with a low and high rate of fire. And compare it with the total mass of a volley of a hypothetical forty-five with a rate of 150 rounds per minute.

[Flooding]

Quote: Old Tankman

First, calculate the total mass of a salvo in 1 minute from a 2A42 cannon with a low and high rate of fire

something you give up your words too easily
So all your arguments now boil down to the fact that the total mass of a salvo from 30mm 2A42 is higher than the hypothetical of 45mm, but ONLY at 500 rds / minute?
yes, I agree
that when shooting in short bursts is not decisive
and when firing long, it will lead to an overexpenditure of ammunition and a large spread of shells

[Old tanker]

Well, I proved it to myself mathematically, and not you to me. And then only by the total mass of the salvo. But there is no direct dependence on the total mass of the salvo and the formation of fragments.
At the expense of dispersion at a high rate, I agree. But! We cover them with infantry, a group target, not a single one. So there will be no reduction in the effectiveness of defeat.
Taking into account the fact that the c / c 30mm is larger than 45, the ratio of ammunition consumption will be approximately the same. But we can’t count it, because we don’t know b / c hypothetical 45mm

[Old tanker]

I will answer for you myself.
220 400 × = 88000
1000 150 × = 15000
In total, the total mass of the magpie salvo is 1,7 times higher than that of the 30mm. And here she certainly kicks in.
But at a high pace
550 400 × = 22000
In total, at a high pace at 30mm, the total mass of the salvo is 1,4 higher than that of your 45mm.
Here is another argument for you that you could not prove to me that 45mm will be more effective.
By the way, the low rate on the BMP-2 is used for shooting at vehicles and shelters, and at the infantry, a high rate.

[Flooding]

Quote: Old Tankman

I will answer for you myself.

captain obvious

Quote: Flood

the total mass of a salvo from 30mm 2A42 is higher than the hypothetical of 45mm, but ONLY at 500 rds / minute

what exactly did you answer for me?
Kindergarten

[Old tanker]

Kindergarten

Here it is! And I think that it is you in mathematics in any way.

[Flooding]

Quote: Old Tankman

And I think that it’s you in mathematics in any way.

How to say
to make a mistake by an order of magnitude - no, I will not succeed even with a strong desire

Quote: Old Tankman

1000 150 × = 15000

Quote: Old Tankman

550 400 × = 22000

[Flooding]

Quote: Old Tankman

... And here she certainly injects.
But at a high pace
550 400 × = 22000

Operating instructions 2А42

"Fire mode when shooting
The 2A42 product allows firing with single fire, at low and high rates, and firing with single fire and at a low rate is provided by the control panel.

Note. Shooting at a high rate is also possible without a remote control by pressing the trigger. The length of the queue is regulated by the pressing time.

The maximum permissible mode of fire is 100 shots at a high rate, with 50 shots allowed to be fired in a continuous burst, and the remaining 50 shots in short bursts. After this, complete cooling of the barrel is required.."

[Old tanker]

The maximum permissible mode of fire is 100 shots at a high rate, with 50 shots allowed to be fired in a continuous burst, and the remaining 50 shots in short bursts. After that, complete cooling of the barrel is required. "

Good. Since you do not understand the conventional units of measurement (and the rate of fire is considered to be shots per minute, like the total mass of the salvo), then calculate the mass of the salvo in 9 seconds. Just 50 rounds will fly out and during the same time your forty-five.
Oh, I forgot, kindergarten!

[Flooding]

Quote: Old Tankman

forgot, kindergarten

exactly
this nullifies all your theoretical reasoning and returns to what I wrote to you earlier

Quote: Flood

So all your arguments now boil down to the fact that the total mass of a salvo from 30mm 2A42 is higher than the hypothetical of 45mm, but ONLY at 500 rds / minute?
yes, I agree
that when shooting in short bursts is not decisive
and when firing long, it will lead to an overexpenditure of ammunition and a large spread of shells

so we count 50 shots from 30mm in 6 seconds
50 x 400 = 20000
or 15 shots from 45 mm in 6 seconds
15 x 1000 = 15000
we get the difference in weight of one 6-second queue

despite the fact that 45 mm

Quote: Flood

higher high-explosive effect + greater distance at which fragments have a damaging effect

and the capabilities of the 45 mm cannon are not limited to 15 shots in one burst

[Old tanker]

Ida, the difference is not in favor of the forty-five. But I am glad that kindergarten is starting to doomatt!

and the capabilities of the 45 mm cannon are not limited to 15 shots in one burst

Bring the performance characteristics of this notorious 45mm cannon.

[Flooding]

Quote: Old Tankman

Ida, the difference is not in favor of the forty-five. But I am glad that kindergarten is starting to doomatt!

Does this person have memory gaps?
because I wrote much earlier

Quote: Flood

the total mass of a salvo from 30mm 2A42 is higher than the hypothetical of 45mm, but ONLY at 500 rds / minute?
yes, I agree

it was because of your inconsistency and illogicality that I remembered kindergarten
not at all because of your weak mathematical knowledge
after all, not everyone is given the ability

Quote: Old Tankman

Bring the performance characteristics of this notorious 45mm cannon.

it's easy to figure it out
it is enough to raise information on Soviet 57mm assault rifles or foreign 40mm
but even without that, under this article I had to teach you a lot. it's time and honor to know.
you can think that for a 45mm machine gun the maximum burst is 15 shots

[Flooding]

Quote: Old Tankman

calculate the mass of the volley in 9 seconds.
Just 50 rounds will fly out and during the same time your forty-five.
Oh, I forgot, kindergarten!

nursery mathematician?
with a firing mode of 500 shots. it takes 50 seconds to shoot 6 shells

shells fly out of the barrel, not cartridges

[Flooding]

Quote: Old Tankman

If you take with
outfits of larger caliber 122 and 152mm, for example, they have the same number of fragments.

I don't know who to believe anymore
you definitely can't be trusted
since you have safely forgotten what you wrote earlier

Quote: Old Tankman

122 mm - 400-500 and 152 mm - 500-700 pcs.

400-500, arithmetic mean 450
500-700, arithmetic mean 600
well, exactly equal!

[Old tanker]

They did not refute it at all. They said that it was untenable without any calculations.
Since there is no data on the number of fragments of 30mm shells, and hypothetical 45mm shells do not exist yet, I took the calibers that are closest in terms of the ratio. This is called the casting method.
By the ratio of 122 to 152, I meant that both 122mm can form 500 fragments, and 152mm can form 500 fragments. Everything will depend on their size. So at different calibers, they can form ONE number of fragments. And it turns out that the caliber of these shells is not an overwhelming factor on the number of fragments.
And the arithmetic mean yes, different.

[Flooding]

Quote: Old Tankman

They did not refute it at all. Wordlessly, without calculations, they scribbled that it is untenable

blah blah
I wrote about the numbers that were provided by you
they just turned out to be dubious

Quote: Old Tankman

By the ratio of 122 to 152, I meant that both 122mm can form 500 fragments, and 152mm can form 500 fragments.

keep in mind - this is not about mathematics
mathematics is an exact science
keep this in mind))

Quote: Old Tankman

So at different calibers, they can form ONE number of fragments.

Are you seriously?
want to remember the theory of probability and calculate the probability of such a coincidence?
it's not even funny

[Old tanker]

Whatever the probability, but it exists. That is, shells in different calibers, under certain circumstances, can produce the same number of fragments. It is a fact!
And yes, count. It will be curious.
Just for the sake of purity of calculation, find the data on the average amount of the formation of fragments in the maximum amount at 122mm and the average amount of the minimum amount at 152mm.

I was really curious about it.

[Flooding]

Quote: Old Tankman

Whatever the probability, but it exists.

this probability is less likely that the projectile will not explode, and there will be no fragments in principle.
that is, it is less likely that 30mm and 152mm shells will give an equal number of fragments - zero
I already wrote that mathematics is not yours. Do what is easier for you.

[Old tanker]

And where are the calculations, after all, the theory of probability was mentioned in kindergarten?

[Flooding]

Quote: Old Tankman

And where are the calculations, after all, the theory of probability was mentioned in kindergarten?

judging by your multiplications with the loss of zeros, this is an unbearable burden for you

[Flooding]

Quote: Old Tankman

And where are the calculations, after all, the theory of probability was mentioned in kindergarten?

the probability that a 122mm projectile will give 500 1/100 fragments, for 152mm 1/200
the probability of a joint event is equal to the product of probabilities 1/20000

I hope you don’t need to explain that this probability is lower than the probability of failure?

of course this is very simplistic
since the probabilities of the formation of a particular number of fragments are not equivalent
these are random events

[fiv]

Then, dear expert, Msta-S should be used as a BMPT.

[Ingvar 72]

Quote: Old Tankman

And when a sheaf of thirty flies in your direction, then you have to be completely stoned,

I no longer know how to explain this to my opponent!

[Flooding]

Quote: Ingvar 72

I no longer know how to explain this to my opponent!

we had a dispute about the density of fire, dear opponent
and that the BMPT does not fire from two barrels at the same time
and even about the Gatling system
and that Shilka is not an "air defense tank"

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

If that were the case? The 30mm cannon is effective at ranges up to 1,5 km, up to 2 km at the most. At long ranges, the projectile or projectiles fly anywhere, but not at the target. The insufficient effectiveness of the small-caliber cannon at a 2-kilometer distance was also noted by its creators. Therefore, they are striving to switch to a larger 57-mm caliber. The developed remote blasting for a 30-mm caliber may also be insufficiently effective.
The absence of at least a weakly armored turret and a small angle of elevation of the trunks also do not add efficiency to the machine under discussion.

[Albert1988]

Quote: Ingvar 72

But what about the density of fire? After all, a larger caliber cannot provide the same density of fire as 2 * 30mm.
But the vehicle is designed to be used against tank-hazardous infantry, which is why Shilka is still used for this purpose.

Better fire control (modern optoelectronic systems + radars) and programmable ammunition - that's compensation.

[valentine light]

I completely agree with you, there are few weapons to counter groups of "tank hunters" and the AG, or even two (one on each side) would add effectiveness.

[Flooding]

Quote: valentin light

AG, or even two on each side would add efficiency

they were, as it were, in the previous incarnation of the BMPT based on the T-90
but not in tower version
and almost coursework, with a scanty sector of shelling
and even requiring an operator each
on BMPT-72 from this location AG refused
but apparently no place was found on the tower
it is understandable. in addition to the AG itself, it is necessary to ensure the location / supply of grenades
when they come to the single-barreled version of the tower, you look, and they will find a place for a grenade launcher

[valentine light]

Ag can and should be installed directly on the pylons on the sides of the machine, left and right, power supply through a semi-rigid box from the box-store on board.
But if I had planned, I would have solved the issue like this - on the sides there is a bracket with a servo drive, a console above it covering it and having an infrared search sensor, like that of hunters, as well as a sight camera. A disposable tube with a fragmentation RG and a second tube with a thermobaric action ("bumblebee") is attached to the bracket itself.
In my opinion, according to data for 20 years, the tank is more threatened by groups of "tank hunters" and they are guaranteed to hit if they start hunting, as a rule, they are 3-4 detachments of 5 people each and in a timely manner.
identifying manpower is to increase the liv honor of the tank.

[Flooding]

it was this kind of separate placement of weapons that required an increase in the size of the crew

[valentine light]

1) The driver of the car 2) The commander is the observer and the operator of the weapon, 3) the operator of the weapon.
There is no need to increase the crew. Displaying information and controlling weapons on the console, just like in games, without holding your eye to the rubberized sight, see
twisting the knobs and aiming wheels with the fingers. :))

But there is one "BUT" - it is necessary to prepare the cockpit according to a different layout scheme.

[Flooding]

Quote: valentin light

1) The driver of the car 2) The commander is the observer and the operator of the weapon, 3) the operator of the weapon.

the operator will not physically have time to service different types of weapons, each of which has independent guidance and its own sector of fire
separately - yes
together - no

[valentine light]

Only the "Fedor" robot can do it at the same time :))
Look, there is no need "with all the trunks at once, fluently, furious - FIRE"

We are already living with 21st century digital control technologies that could not have been imagined 30 years ago.

You need a display / screen and a comfortable joystick designed for the army.
The choice of weapon upon receipt of information will be almost instantaneous. You can quickly mark the target with the cursor to set an algorithm, for example, for a cannon - "hit one by one" and do others.
And the conandir will still have access to the control of the weapon.
All real-microcircuits and programmable controllers will allow it, then it's up to the Weapon Servos ...
Find, choose, celebrate, ... it has already been proven that it is possible, in computer games and competitions.

The important thing is target search sensors, sighting systems and preparation of crew workstations and the car will be such that it is simply fantastic.

[Flooding]

Quote: valentin light

Look, there is no need "with all the trunks at once, fluently, furious - FIRE"

just in the conditions of urban combat, it is very important to be able to control several targets
be able to choose the means of destruction of a particular target
and ideally - simultaneous shelling of more than one target

[valentine light]

Your words - ".. just in the conditions of urban combat it is very important to be able to control several targets .."

But in the car, TWO crew members have access to weapon controls.
And then, there is important information - you cannot enter armored vehicles into the city, and even more so without infantry, and the purpose of armored vehicles is to support the infantry and suppress firing points, and for this, the range of the tank's guns and BMPT automatic cannons will be quite enough from the defended positions they occupy.
With the suppression of firing points and the development of the territory by their infantry, the positions change.

By the way, on the joystick I will change weapons faster than two operators.

[hagen]

Quote: valentin light

or even two (one on each side) would add efficiency.

As a result, the T-35 will be born?

[valentine light]

The T-35 is a multi-turret tank with a hull more like the cruiser Aurora than a tank.
I suggest a compact bracket mount and you can
even one-shot RGs, but with fragmentation grenades or thermobaric. It takes only 0.4 m / 2, approximately

[Flooding]

Quote: Hagen

As a result, the T-35 will be born?

Feel like a new idea of ​​100 years of freshness is in the air?

[valentine light]

T 35 is a "childhood disease" of the beginning of the era of steel "elephant"
They wanted to conduct an all-round shelling of the enemy without good ventilation and sights.
But there is one single fact of successful use in June 1941 by an unknown major tanker and cadets of a tank school. They raided against the stream of German columns, where they were in the Belarusian city - they beat quite a few fascists.
But the T 35 did not have more successes. The major was killed and one cadet only survived, when that one of the ammunition in the turret ran out, the major kicked him out of the car ...

[zadorin1974]

You are most likely confused with the raid on Minsk T 28 June 28, 1941 under the command of Major Vasyachkin.

[valentine light]

Now I will not pretend to be accurate, because I don’t remember, but I remember that the tank was multi-turret.
And for those fleeting events, it was a real feat.
In principle, the T-28 has 3 towers - the main one and two along the course.

I gave, an example, that especially multi-turret did not have the expected results, and if he believes the legend, then Stalin said, "... what is this ....?, Let there be one gun, but such that it will crush for sure." Legend.

[Old tanker]

I gave an example that especially multi-turret did not have the expected results.

Just the same, the T-28 showed itself very well during the assault on the Manerheim line. Precisely because they could fire simultaneously in several directions, including from machine-gun turrets along the trenches. Well, they returned to one tower not to enhance the power of the tank gun, but to strengthen the armor.
And the legend says that Stalin removed one turret from the model of the two-turret KV, with the words that the weight of this turret would be better spent on enhancing the armor. But this is more of a legend, of course.

[valentine light]

The T-28, even according to the encyclopedia, has bulletproof armor and was considered then as support for the infantry, a kind of BMP, but without the landing.
In the "Winter War" of 1939-1940, the main tank was the T 26, aka "Vickers" and what does the Finns have
were the same "Vickers".
The Kv 1 tank was driven there as for combat trials and proved to be excellent.
He was on the Mannerheim Line in a one-turret performance.
We lost only one car, which was blown up by a powerful land mine, and the crew was intact.

[Old tanker]

It's not about booking, but about the concept of multi-turret and its effectiveness in breaking through defensive areas.
Well, it is not correct to compare the losses of several experimental vehicles and the losses of combat units. Since both the number of machines and the intensity of combat use are significantly not in favor of the experimenters. Even incomparable! In total, there were three (!) KVs on the Finnish front at different times. The first took part in only one battle. The other two arrived at the front after breaking through the main line of defense of the Finns on February 22.
By the way, KVs were not lost at all. The SMK was blown up by a mine.

[Old tanker]

I completely agree with you, there are few weapons to counter groups of "tank hunters" and the AG, or even two (one on each side) would add effectiveness.

They are on the "Terminators", which are delivered to the 90th division. Which is clearly seen in the photos and videos of those cars. But this is not the first time that the authors of the VO have copied and pasted the BMPT-72 performance characteristics into articles. Looks like the first thing googled on Wikipedia.

[valentine light]

Interesting. If there are AG, then what do we not know yet ....?
After all, we are discussing the combat effectiveness of defending a tank platoon.

[Krasnoyarsk]

Quote: Flood

this has been discussed for a long time and is already becoming obvious and inevitable
one barrel of a larger caliber instead of two 30mm
and hopefully supplement AG

Are you suggesting to put 152mm? A cannon or a howitzer?

[Flooding]

Quote: Krasnoyarsk

Are you suggesting to put 152mm? A cannon or a howitzer?

203mm
why waste time on trifles

[Krasnoyarsk]

Quote: Flood

Quote: Krasnoyarsk

Are you suggesting to put 152mm? A cannon or a howitzer?

203mm
why waste time on trifles

Persuaded. We put it.

[valentine light]

Based on the results of US actions in Iraq, one can make sure that Abrams is hit by a 30 mm cannon in the rear projection of the tower, where the result of the defeat is not only the penetration of armor and the destruction of the crew, but the destruction of the external power plant.
The task of the BMPT, I see the protection of one tank during a special mission or such a platoon, when attacking in an open area, and precisely from counter-tank teams, enemy infantry or disguised ATGMs.
Countering the main enemy tanks, no matter how it should be, should be the main task, only help in the absence of threats from ATGMs or anti-tank teams with "javelins, RPGs and ATGM Tow-2
This means that we need means of detecting and suppressing manpower, non-armor-piercing projectiles and shoot at groups of 3 or 5 people.

[Ramon Mercader]

So what's so funny about it? The paths of development are inscrutable, who knows, perhaps we will return to the idea of ​​direct support of 152 mm over time. Well at least they returned to the idea of ​​the ShiSBr (albeit in the format of an experimental company).

[Sergey Valov]

Increasing the caliber is not always beneficial, often requires a rate of fire. As an example, the BMP1 cannon was powerless against the tank and redundant in infantry, but the BMP2 cannon could well stop the tank and is excellent against the infantry.

[dnestr74]

Yah? BMP 1 has a cumulative shot, you can stop a tank at the side, but how can a 30 mm stop a tank? You are confused)

[Konnick]

Yah? BMP 1 has a cumulative shot, you can stop a tank at the side, but how can a 30 mm stop a tank? You are confused)

Here is the answer, comparison ... will simply stop

https://m.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=6&v=khL2nwkdP0M&feature=emb_logo
Armata would still be fired like that with its huge birdhouses and the splinterproof outer casing of the tower.

[valentine light]

In Iraq 30 mm
stopped.
But the task is to protect the tank from the ATGM operator Tow 2 and Javelin

[Normann]

And we will get another tank)

[Barberry25]

taking into account the tank turret, you can put the main barrel of 57 mm and another 30 mm on top ... although my personal opinion is that the best BMPT is object 782 ... they only needed to reduce the crew from 5 to 4 and increase the landing to 3 ...

[SKVichyakow]

For how many years they have not been able to determine the place in the battle formation and the tasks they solve, the same number of tests and tests are carried out. And it seems that everyone has already understood everything that is needed, and adopted it. And again, every year, everything is the same. Yes, I forgot. Two course grenade launchers said that they would be removed, but they are present in all the pictures of the BMPT varieties.

[moreman78]

Quote: SKVichyakow

For how many years they have not been able to determine the place in the battle formation and the tasks they solve, the same number have been testing and testing them. And it seems that everyone has already understood everything that is needed, and adopted it. And again, every year, everything is the same.

Yes, the fact of the matter is that the Ministry of Defense does not need this machine, this industrial lobby is actively pushing it through. Therefore, they cannot decide on its place in the OshS troops and on weapons. The Ministry of Defense really needs a heavy infantry fighting vehicle for tank regiments, and not this miracle of technology!

[SKVichyakow]

Why, and in tank and motorized rifle, it will be perfectly in place. Especially in urban battles.

[moreman78]

There it will be great in place of TBMP. If everything were as fine as you think, the BMPT "Terminator" would have long ago fit into the organizational structure of the troops, but as you can see - something does not merge with the Ministry of Defense with this model of weapons - that's why they decided for the time being to stick the "short" company (in total 2 platoons of 4 vehicles and 1 vehicle each) in the tank regiment.

[SKVichyakow]

Do not be surprised, I want to ask, what did you finish, are you so confident in your conclusions?

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

You don't need to finish anything to see the new "Epoch" combat module with much better characteristics than the "Terminator" weaponry.

[SKVichyakow]

Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich

You don't need to finish anything to see the new "Epoch" combat module with much better characteristics than the "Terminator" weaponry.

BMPT is designed to support tanks from infantry weapons. A BMP-3 with a combat module "Epoch" to support motorized riflemen from arming enemy infantry. Therefore, it plays the role of booking.

[Flooding]

Quote: SKVichyakow

Two course grenade launchers said that they would be removed, but they are present in all the pictures of the BMPT varieties.

and removed
there are none on BMPT-72
and a crew of three instead of five
but the photo is not clear where it was taken from
PS
apparently you are right
reviewed the last photos
grenade launchers in place

[SKVichyakow]

I just noticed that most simply unsubscribe, without delving into the presented pictures. But do not forget to obhait. The courage to admit a mistake is generally found in a few. This is for you. +

[Flooding]

Quote: SKVichyakow

I just noticed that most simply unsubscribe, without delving into the presented pictures

you may remember this grenadeless version of the BMPT

[SKVichyakow]

Of course I remember, but he seems to be on the T-90 platform.

[Flooding]

Quote: SKVichyakow

Of course I remember, but he seems to be on the T-90 platform

just this version was positioned as a modernization on the basis of the T-72

[SKVichyakow]

Well, yes. Only, in my opinion, no one has seen them yet.

[Eugene-Eugene]

Well, the office staff became clear. A separate BMPT company for a tank regiment. And then they shouted - how they will stick BMPT into a tank company. And no one even thought about it. Only an additional company will be screwed onto the regiment.

[moreman78]

Quote: Eugene-Eugene

Well, the office staff became clear. A separate BMPT company for a tank regiment. And then they shouted - how they will stick BMPT into a tank company. And no one even thought about it. Only an additional company will be screwed onto the regiment.

And what exactly is clear here, besides the fact that an additional company was created as part of the regiment for testing?
Intelligent people shouted correctly. Because it was initially clear that BMPTs would not replace heavy BMPs. And the introduction of additional equipment into the regiments is an increase in personnel, and additional ammunition, and the supply of fuels and lubricants, etc. Therefore, these questions were asked initially, only the BMPT supporters did not have answers, as they do not now!

[Eugene-Eugene]

Quote: moreman78

And the introduction of additional equipment into the regiments is an increase in personnel, and additional ammunition, and the supply of fuels and lubricants, etc.

There are no established structures for centuries. For example, drone platoons are being created in reconnaissance units. This is also "an increase in personnel, and additional ammunition, and the supply of fuels and lubricants, etc."

[2 Level Advisor]

Interestingly, and BMP with "Berezhok" with 30mm, ATGMs and AGS - what will be worse? not in the sense that support for tanks is unnecessary, this is just not discussed, support is needed .. in what way is it fundamentally better? the armament is the same .. the armor of the tower is the same .. the armor is more powerful, perhaps .. but without the remote control, the armor is not much more useful .. and the remote control and the BMP have already been developed .. it seems that this machine is already outdated, 25 years ago right on 5+ was needed, and now the technologies and BMPs are already up to these tasks like ...

[OgnennyiKotik]

Quote: 2 level advisor

this machine is already outdated, 25 years ago it was needed for 5+ years, and now the technologies and BMPs are already up to these tasks

Absolutely right. Threats have changed, now it is the presence of a massive number of ATGMs of 2-3 generations, various UAVs of a tactical level. You need a car in the same order with tanks that will protect them.
To do this, you need radar, OLS, BIUS, air-blasted projectiles, and corresponding missiles.

[URAL72]

In general, you are right, the functions of the Terminator can be performed by a heavy BMP T-15, but in some cases, for example, vanguard, reconnaissance, convoy escort, urban combat, the Terminator is better.

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

Without a turret, it will nowhere be better than the T-15.

[Flooding]

Quote: Level 2 Advisor

armor is more powerful, except perhaps .. but without DZ, the sense of armor is not much more

tank armor with a machine gun in the lateral projection definitely cannot be flashed
even 12,7 mm
so what about "the sense of the armor is not much more" you are wrong
I agree about the equivalence of weapons

[pogis]

Why 9? 4 platoons? Or 2?

[tank64rus]

Less than 25 years have passed, in Algeria it has long been purchased and found application.

[st2st]

Comrades officers close to this topic, please answer, and why the BMP-3, BMP-4 do not suit the relatives of the RF Armed Forces? The power is the same, plus the troops in the compartments?

[Max PV]

With all my negative attitude to the 30mm caliber in modern conditions, first of all, due to the obviously insufficient armor penetration, I think that it is on the BMPT, precisely in a complex of two guns, that it is optimal. Since the only one allows you to effectively solve the problem of combating the calculation of ATGMs at a distance of over 2 km. What is the problem of the defeat of the ATGM calculation? - in the fact that when using high-impulse guns, the dispersion along the range at such a distance reaches tens and hundreds of meters, and the use of air explosion projectiles or mounted fire of 2A70 or LShO systems requires an accurate determination of the distance, which in practice is very, very difficult, even when using laser rangefinder (from which the beam was reflected from the grass a hundred meters in front of the trench, breastwork, or earth / grass behind the trench?), and, at the same time, machine guns and automatic grenade launchers simply will not reach. At the same time, a burst of two 30mm cannons, 30-40 shells (1,5-2 seconds in time), roughly govlrya, will go into a circle with a diameter of, for example, 4 meters, and the probability of hitting the parapet, ATGM or operator's head will be high enough.

[2 Level Advisor]

I'll correct you a little ..

Quote: Max PV

At the same time, a burst of two 30mm cannons, 30-40 rounds (1,5-2 seconds in time)

cannon BMPT - 2A42 - Rate of fire shots / min 550 .. 30-40 shells - 3-4,5 seconds

[alexmach]

it is in a complex of two guns that it is optimal

Of those two guns that don't fire at the same time? Are they standing there just because they could not suddenly realize selective nutrition?

[Max PV]

So, after all, no one bothers to equip both HE tapes. And armor piercing is useless for BMPT. There are simply no targets for them on the battlefield right now. BMPT, this is precisely a tank support vehicle, that is, a) there are fewer of them than tanks, and it is tanks that should work in the technique, and the BMPT should work on infantry, ATGM crews, artillery and pillboxes / bunkers, b) so that the BMPT can do that - to hit something from the equipment on the battlefield, you need a foolish enemy who, either will find something in the warehouses that will pierce with 30mm armor-piercing, and drive it out against the advancing tanks, or substitute the BMPT to the stern of the BMP or armored personnel carrier. Despite the fact that 30mm OFS is enough for all trucks and Hummers.

[alexmach]

that is a) there are fewer of them than tanks,

This is not an obvious conclusion. Before that, infantry was used to cover tanks, and there were more infantrymen in general than tanks. Why BMPT should be less and not at least as much?

[Michael HORNET]

And where to get them in such quantity? There are only 9 pieces

[alexmach]

And where to get them in such quantity? There are only 9 pieces

You are putting the question a little upside down. We are here trying to figure out in principle whether such a machine is needed. If you need something for what and in what quantity ...

Well, if there is nowhere to take them and 1: 1 with tanks it is impossible to produce them, then we go back - are they needed at all and are they needed in large quantities?

No, of course, you can always equip some special battalion for experimental purposes, maybe it will come in handy. But whether it is necessary to produce them in large quantities and whether it is necessary to shed tears over the fact that they are still not in the troops, it does not seem at all obvious to me. In my opinion, it is better to bring to mind modern infantry fighting vehicles, including the heavy one, and the same Derevatsiya-air defense.

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

And where did you suddenly get the idea that the 30-mm caliber is effective at ranges of more than 2 kilometers? This caliber loses its effectiveness already from 1,5 kilometers. Moreover, I have met in the literature with statements about the complete uselessness of a 30-mm cannon at a distance of about 2 kilometers.

[valentine light]

In my opinion, the main threat to a tank is a group of "tank hunters" (this has already happened in conflicts for 20 years), especially in mountainous and wooded areas or in settlements.
In practice, we remember the stories and descriptions of the participants that up to 3 groups of 5 people can work on one tank.
The task is their timely detection and defeat.
I, from the performance characteristics "Terminator", did not understand whether there are infrared cameras for searching manpower, at least 170 degrees. Now even hunters use heat sensors to search for prey, especially wounded animals, but here "support and protection" of a multi-million tank and personnel from the crew.

4 containers of missiles intended for armored personnel carriers and tanks, well, or enemy pillboxes, how will they help to resist grenade launchers or ATGM operators hiding in the bushes on both sides?
We need an automatic grenade launcher or, according to the experience of Israel on armored vehicles, a mortar, which gives sufficient damage with shrapnel.
Again, in the presence of modern promising sensors for determining and identifying targets along a radius of 360 degrees.
Yes, even sound, even an echo sounder, even a radar, a cltorv and a "bellgo noise" generator for blocking enemy overheads and blocking radio mines, that is, any innovations that allow you to determine the presence of an enemy in a semi-automatic search and scan with blocking enemy radio signals .. Then it will really be TERMINATOR without quotes. ...

[anatoly-tchaicka]

the ground terminator is a mistake, it must be airborne. advantage: speed, view of the battlefield, accuracy, cost, energy consumption, prospects ... disadvantage: the amount of ammunition ...

[Skipper]

Terminator -3 will be equipped with a 57 mm cannon ... as the T-15 began to be equipped

[Michael HORNET]

And you can also use "Cornflower"

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

It is not possible, too often you will have to get out on the armor and slip the loaded cassettes.

[Michael HORNET]

So change the design, leaving the idea of ​​a self-loading 82 mm mortar

[valentine light]

The Terminator does not need a gun larger than 30 mm.
Its task is to protect one or three tanks (platoon), not to become a light tank.
It should protect it from "tank hunters" and from hidden ambushes outside the field of vision of the tank crew.
You need a weapon that hits the area and has a high rate, if possible, to hit with shrapnel or by breaking through bunkers and bunkers.
Just against armored personnel carriers and pillboxes there are "Attack" missiles.

[Lontus]

For all the sympathy for the BMPT concept, its current implementation with 30 mm cannons is very clumsy and unsuccessful.
Need 57mm high ballistics.

[Pavel57]

And in what division do BMPTs fall on the staffing table?

[Lyman1982]

Where are the armats ??? Again, they snatch nonsense on the basis of the old t64

[S. Nikolaev]

BMPT mod. 1941 g.
History, of course, does not tolerate the subjunctive mood, but if there were enough of them instead of the T-26 bunches, how would it all turn out?