"Long arm" of the special operation: combat use of BMPT "Terminator" in Ukraine

153
Source: otvaga2004.mybb.ru

Source: otvaga2004.mybb.ru


As part of a special military operation, the Russian military is actively using various latest weapons. Among them, the support combat vehicle stands out. tanks "Terminator". Despite the fact that she has already passed her baptism of fire in Syria, it is in Ukraine that she will have to pass the aptitude test, and the operators themselves will have to understand how to use and in what conditions to use this machine.



In this material, we will consider episodes of the combat use of the Terminator, since so far they are very different from the typical and not always reasonable ideas about the operation of the BMPT as a vehicle exclusively for urban battles.

Source: 3mv.ru

Source: 3mv.ru

Not just for the city


Before proceeding to the description of the hostilities, it is necessary to talk a little about what the tank support combat vehicle is intended for, since the myths associated with it are a wagon and a small cart. This may lead to questions why the “Terminators” didn’t drive into the thick of the battles in conditional Severodonetsk and didn’t “crush” everyone, because they are intended for urban battles.

In fact, they are not very intended, or rather, this is not their main task. It is widely believed that BMPTs were entirely designed according to the requirements of the military who fought in Afghanistan and Chechnya, where the enemy - mostly tank-dangerous manpower - was in high-lying firing positions that were not possible to get tank weapons, so anti-aircraft guns, etc. This became the basis for the myth firmly attached to the car about its exclusively “urban” and “mountain” orientation.

In fact, the theoretical, quite intersecting with practice, research already in the early 90s looked like this. There are more and more anti-tank weapons on the battlefield, and most of them are portable or transportable on light vehicles. Tanks are not always able to fight them, and infantry fighting vehicles that carry infantry capable of destroying tank-dangerous manpower do not have good armor and are forced to work away from tanks. Equipping tanks with additional anti-personnel weapons - grenade launchers, machine guns or small-caliber guns - is impossible, since their crews are already overloaded. Conclusion: it is necessary to create BMPTs that can effectively operate in the same formation as tanks.

There is no specifics about the use exclusively in urban and mountain battles. Of course, the Terminator in such conditions will show itself better than any BMP (in some cases even better than a tank), but it can most fully realize all its power in space, which is more spacious than a narrow city street or gorge. And episodes of combat use in Ukraine confirm this.

"Terminator" in Ukraine


BMPT on the railway platform. This photo, taken in the second half of February 2022, has been repeatedly used in Western sources as evidence of the possible use of these machines in the Special Operation. Source: otvaga2004.mybb.ru

BMPT on the railway platform. This photo, taken in the second half of February 2022, has been repeatedly used in Western sources as evidence of the possible use of these vehicles in a special operation. Source: otvaga2004.mybb.ru

It just so happened that the "Terminator" has become a kind of dark horse of the special operation, about which not so much is known. Indeed, if you look at the most famous reports about this machine, they are generally limited to three points: at the end of February, the possible use of BMPTs in Ukraine was discussed in the West, in domestic publications this information appeared closer to mid-May, and the official video from the Ministry of Defense came out in July. However, some more specific data is already available.

One of the first appearances of the BMPT "Terminator" in the frame in the Special Operations zone. Source: yaplakal.com

One of the first appearances of the BMPT "Terminator" in the frame in the special operation zone. Source: yaplakal.com

Perhaps the first significant battle for the BMPT took place on the outskirts of Popasna, which became one of the key points of defense of the Armed Forces of Ukraine in the Luhansk direction. For a long time, the battles for this settlement mainly thundered along its outer perimeter, which allowed the Ukrainian military to relatively safely change firing positions - often at night, when it is least noticeable.

This is where the Terminators came in handy. Thanks to the remote weapons, these vehicles fired from behind cover at a moving enemy at a great distance, without entering into close combat contact. Looking out for targets with the help of a thermal imager, the crews of the BMPT created a flurry of fire with twin 30-mm cannons, hitting enemy manpower with high-explosive fragmentation shells. A few equipment of the Armed Forces of Ukraine also went into the “expenditure”, which did not present much difficulty for the Ataka-T anti-tank missiles installed on the Terminators.

BMPT "Terminator" in the Severodonetsk direction. Source: masterok.livejournal.com

BMPT "Terminator" in the Severodonetsk direction. Source: masterok.livejournal.com

With the further advance of the allied forces to Severodonetsk, the missiles again found use. From open sources, including major Russian media, it is known that in one of the areas of the breakthrough to this city, our troops collided with a Ukrainian armored group consisting of tanks and other combat vehicles. In the ensuing battle at a considerable distance, two platoons of Terminators fired guided missiles at the enemy.

The main advantages of the Ataka-T missiles are supersonic speed exceeding 500 m/s, which can significantly reduce the time to hit a target, and a tandem cumulative warhead that easily overcomes dynamic protection. This is quite enough to provide an overwhelming advantage over the armor of the Ukrainian T-64B / BV and the T-72M / M1 transferred by the West. Therefore, the result of the battle turned out to be predictable: 8 tanks and several armored vehicles of the Armed Forces of Ukraine were destroyed. There were no losses or serious damage on the part of the Terminators.

It is also worth noting that, according to media reports, a rather interesting event took place in this area. During the ensuing battle, the Ukrainian side reported a breakthrough of Russian units, after which a Ukrainian Mi-8 helicopter flew to the aid of the defenders in the clash area to provide fire support from the air.

Apparently, the helicopter could not fly for a long time and was shot down. Sources claim that it was the Terminator tank support fighting vehicle that shot him down. What hit the Mi-8 VVSU - guided missiles or automatic guns - is not reported. There is also no reliable information that could confirm the fact of the destruction of the BMPT rotorcraft. Nevertheless, the Terminator has the opportunity for this, because this incident could very well be real.

BMPT interact with tanks. Presumably: the area of ​​the Lisichansk - Bakhmut highway. Source: otvaga2044.mybb.ru

BMPT interact with tanks. Presumably: the area of ​​the Lisichansk - Bakhmut highway. Source: otvaga2044.mybb.ru

Realizing their capabilities to destroy tank-dangerous weapons, BMPTs also showed themselves in the immediate vicinity of Severodonetsk, which has become a symbol of the crumbling Ukrainian defense within the territories of the LDNR. Here, the "Terminators", "working out" the enemy's infantry, also fought with armored vehicles. A noteworthy episode was when two T-72M1 tanks transferred by Poland came into view of this combat vehicle. One of them was destroyed by the Terminator, and the crew of the second decided to retreat and withdraw from the battle. According to available information, later this Ukrainian tank by mistake went almost head-on to the Russian units and shared the fate of his brother.

Now the Terminators have been relocated to the Seversk direction, where, according to the already established tradition, they continue heavy battles with Ukrainian infantry and military equipment.

All these are just separate episodes of the combat path of the BMPT in Ukraine. Much, if not all, remains behind the scenes due to the fact that the vehicles are actually being tested in the conditions of combined arms combat, since Syria has become something of a warm-up for them. Nevertheless, based on military reports, the reviews about the Terminator turned out to be expectedly good, and the fact that not a single unit was lost in two months speaks of the high qualities of this product.

Conclusion


Indeed, the Russian military is trying to use the “Terminators” as the very “long arm” capable of destroying targets threatening tanks at long distances, which is facilitated, among other things, by supersonic missiles capable of hitting at a horizon visibility range of 5 or more kilometers. And the statement of the designer of this machine, who claimed that the BMPT in this version is a sniper rifle, once again confirms this.

In general, based on media reports and other information channels, the tactics of the BMPT units are as follows: shoot back at the most dangerous areas, suppressing the possibility of return fire, and provide tanks with the opportunity to finish off the most protected objects that can only be effectively hit by a large caliber.

However, you should not think that the Terminator is an exclusively armored tank destroyer. Against manpower - and it is one of his priority goals - he is also actively working. It’s just that infantry is often not included in the track record - it’s hard to count, and the tank, like prey, looks more solid. From this, messages in the style of “5 tanks / combat vehicles destroyed” appear much more often than reports on the number of knocked out infantry.

A separate line is reports of battles in settlements. When clearing them, "Terminators" are also used, and quite successfully. In this case, as already mentioned, they look much better than other equipment. But it is unlikely that we are talking about deep raids in the quarters most saturated with anti-tank weapons, where friendly infantry and artillery come to the fore.

In conclusion, it should be added that the BMPT was not immediately accepted by the military, who complained about the lack of landing and problems of organizational and staffing order. It was treated with caution even after the tests in Syria. Nevertheless, right now the fate of this machine is actually being decided and, given the positive dynamics of use, one can already hope that the Terminators will appear in the army in much larger numbers, and also find potential buyers.
153 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. -11
    25 July 2022 05: 03
    We are looking forward to Terminator-3 where instead of 30 current there will be 2x57mm machine guns.
    Then a very serious apparatus will become - the range of affected equipment will clearly expand.
    1. +47
      25 July 2022 06: 03
      And to the "Terminator" a trailer to it, for transporting shells for 2x57.
      1. -3
        25 July 2022 06: 29
        Well, modules with a 57mm machine gun have already been developed and are being tested. As far as I know, no one there complains about a small ammunition load. AU-220 M - a set of 80 shells.
      2. +2
        25 July 2022 21: 28
        Articulated ;)
      3. -1
        3 August 2022 15: 47
        And why two 57mm, why not one, or a vertical pair of 30mm + 57mm, but rather in independently rotating towers one above the other with different operators
        1. -1
          1 October 2022 09: 04
          multi-turreted machines - it was already such a long time ago. the idea was quickly abandoned.
    2. +6
      25 July 2022 06: 32
      2x57mm assault rifles...
      It would be nice, but you offer a small caliber, and only 2 pieces ... And that's not enough!
      1. 0
        25 July 2022 06: 34
        so why is he too small? all enemy infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers - it will be easy to take, but 30ki is just not enough - most enemy infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers can no longer penetrate 30mm.
        1. +4
          25 July 2022 15: 52
          Quote: Nexcom
          all enemy infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers - it will be easy to take, but the auto 30ki is just not enough

          For 30k BOPS, to develop for work on the "new" BMP armored personnel carriers and a programmable fragmentation for infantry. 57 mm, you don’t think you tried to try to implement, you tried, you just ran into problems all the time, then a lack of BC, then a forced reduction in booking, then something else. To use the 57mm caliber, new ammunition is needed (those that were used before had a sleeve from a 76mm cannon compressed under a 57mm projectile, and this is powerful, but redundant), and along with this, respectively, to develop a new weapon. Here it is tantamount to the introduction of other calibers, such as 35, 40, 45 mm. Probably now they are considering it, we'll see what happens.
          1. +1
            2 August 2022 10: 54
            For a long time, everything has been developed by the question of availability in the troops ..
      2. 0
        8 September 2022 01: 12
        How can you not remember this passage!
      3. -2
        1 October 2022 09: 05
        57 mm - small caliber? Are you seriously? He will destroy any BMP. Not enough for a tank, but there is an ATGM for this. And one gun is enough.
    3. +35
      25 July 2022 07: 07
      We are looking forward to Terminator-3 where instead of 30 current there will be 2x57mm machine guns.
      Then a very serious device will become - the range of affected equipment will clearly expand
      Increasing the caliber is not always beneficial. Here it is necessary to take into account the ballistic performance of the guns and the ammunition load. In addition, for fatter purposes, the terminator has missile weapons. Do not forget that the main prey for him is manpower with ATGMs.
      1. -10
        25 July 2022 07: 20
        And what will you do with armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles and wheeled tanks of the enemy? You can’t take them already 30mm. And missiles - it will be fat to spend on such purposes. This is where 57mm would come in handy.
        1. +44
          25 July 2022 07: 45
          Quote: Nexcom
          missiles - it will be fat to spend on such purposes. This is where 57mm would come in handy.

          Quote: Cat Alexandrovich
          It would be nice, but you offer a small caliber, and only 2 pieces ...

          Quote: Nexcom
          We are looking forward to Terminator-3 where instead of 30 current there will be 2x57mm machine guns.

          What are you kidding??!!!
          Spark 152mm automatic machines - that's it !!!
          As he gave a queue, 10 rounds of ammunition - where are the tanks, where are the infantry, where are the planes / helicopters ...
          And without fail, so that on the go he also makes shells for himself ...

          People - wake up!!!
          Everything that does not penetrate 30mm should already be destroyed by tanks or ATGMs. An increase in caliber will lead to a sharp reduction in ammunition. Spending 57mm on a single infantryman is also how you say "fat".
          1. -8
            25 July 2022 07: 57
            Spending 57mm on a single infantryman is also how you say "fat".


            Why so? A programmable fragmentation detonation over an enemy unit - and it will cover everyone in bulk
            1. +18
              25 July 2022 08: 49
              Quote: Nexcom
              Spending 57mm on a single infantryman is also how you say "fat".


              Why so? A programmable fragmentation detonation over an enemy unit - and it will cover everyone in bulk

              Making it on a tank OFe is even easier and more efficient.
              Are you trying to change ALL tank features
              And yes, forget about the greater weight of the 57mm installation, and its complication due to much greater returns
            2. +5
              25 July 2022 17: 01
              Whom all? If there is 1 spirit with an RPG in the bushes? Or is the platoon dispersed in landing? Correctly written above, Sparka 152 mm is the most
          2. +4
            25 July 2022 14: 40
            They cannot develop a remote detonation of a 30mm projectile. Made only within 57mm. 57mm have their history from ZSU 57-2. Namely, undermining over trenches is very necessary for mowing tank-dangerous infantry.
            1. +5
              25 July 2022 16: 43
              In a trench, it’s still more effective to extinguish infantry with a mortar angry
              1. +1
                26 July 2022 11: 30
                The mortar will not give such a density of fire. Again, while you deploy the mortar, while you shoot. 57mm will already fire off the ammunition and will slowly sip a cigarette like after a cupcake.
                1. 0
                  26 July 2022 17: 19
                  Quote: PROXOR
                  The mortar will not give such a density of fire. Again, while you deploy the mortar, while you shoot. 57mm will already shoot ammunition

                  To develop a 60mm automatic mortar for a combat vehicle, the problem is being solved.
                  It would be desirable to have such a machine.
                  1. -1
                    27 July 2022 12: 15
                    Well, why fence the garden ?! There is a universal AU-220 with remote detonation. Which will successfully cope with light armored vehicles and infantry behind shelters and in a trench. Why fence another mortar. How many copies were broken around the 100mm low ballistics guns on the BMP-3.
                    1. 0
                      27 July 2022 12: 39
                      Quote: PROXOR
                      Well, why fence the garden ?! There is a universal AU-220 with remote detonation.

                      The cost of ammunition is significantly different, with comparable effectiveness for infantry.
                2. -1
                  31 July 2022 20: 55
                  Now mortars from 2-3 shots definitely hit. without any "yet"
          3. +3
            25 July 2022 22: 20
            Spending 57mm on a single infantryman is also how you say "fat".

            So they seem to have AGSs too.
            1. 0
              26 July 2022 11: 31
              Not from a good life, 2 pieces stuffed him there. Again, in order to work with them, you need to pull out the body of the machine.
        2. +9
          25 July 2022 13: 39
          Well, modules with a 57mm machine gun have already been developed and are being tested. As far as I know, no one there complains about a small ammunition load. AU-220 M - a set of 80 shells.

          In Derivation-Air Defense, the entire turret space is occupied by an auger with an ammunition rack. And there are only 148 shots. Do you propose to hoist such a huge box on the Terminator turret and book it like a tank turret? And for two guns, these are two such "cans". Famously! Even if each such only has 80 shells. And this design will obviously go beyond the overall width of the body.
          1. +1
            25 July 2022 23: 42
            ZSU 57 2 fit 300 shots. And not to say what the array looked like.
            1. +3
              26 July 2022 06: 32
              ZSU 57 2 fit 300 shots. And not to say what the array looked like.

              The ZSU-57-2 did not have an automatic loader. The power of the guns was from clips of 4 shots.
              1. 0
                26 July 2022 17: 28
                But there were loaders.
                The auger, by the way, is not the only possible feeding option. It is not clear why it was stopped.
                1. 0
                  27 July 2022 11: 03
                  Do you propose to use loaders in the Terminator?
                  And what options for power systems, besides the auger, do you see?
                  1. 0
                    27 July 2022 17: 54
                    In the T-72, in addition to the AZ, there were also shells and charges scattered throughout the reserved space. Yes, even in the control compartment there were internal tanks with special recesses for charges. Those. fuel + charges.
                    For those who are a little unaware, the charge is such a cardboard capsule stuffed with gunpowder and with a steel pallet. And the shells were in the mid-80s of three types: OFS, BOPS and Kuma. We didn’t have regular SDs in BC. Although the gunner's sight even then allowed the use of this type of ammunition.
                    PS: If anything, I served in Czechoslovakia (then there was still such a country).
                    1. +5
                      28 July 2022 12: 21
                      Have you tried manually loading a shell and a tank gun charge from a non-mechanized T-72 or T-80 stowage? And I tried. Moreover, he complied with the standard. Rate of fire drops from 6-8 shots per minute to 1 shot every 6-7 minutes.
                      As for tanks, the non-mechanized stowage serves not to load the gun in battle, but to replenish the machine gun / loading mechanism. That is why for T-64/T-72/T-80 tanks there is no standard for loading a gun from a storage tank.
                      And yes, on the T-72, not only the front tank rack to the right of the mechanic, but also the rear one, near the engine bulkhead. Unlike the T-64/T-80. Moreover, on the T-64A / L T-80B / BV it is impossible to replenish the MOH without leaving the car from laying the previous tank rack. Since the MOH trays block the communication with the control department. So you can manually load only 1 cumulative shot located outside the MOH supply window.
                      This is so, a small educational program from the practice.
                      PS: If anything, I served in Czechoslovakia (then there was still such a country).

                      PS: if anything, then I have 22 years of service in the tank troops, including those with combat experience hi
                  2. +1
                    27 July 2022 20: 04
                    I'm talking about the fact that loaders also need a place.
                    There are several alternatives. The same clip with the right organization is also an option. Another question is what volume clip. And the clip feeding algorithm.
                    1. +1
                      28 July 2022 12: 27
                      Where will you put two loaders in the BMPT? Do you propose to add 5 more crew members to 2 crew members and, instead of the outsourced weapons, shove them into a huge heavily armored tower? So in terms of weight and dimensions, there is unlikely to be an advantage over auger loading. If you put a clip, then it is even the maximum allowable, it is an order of magnitude smaller than the screw. Will it turn out 3-4 short bursts and exit the battle to reload?
                      1. 0
                        28 July 2022 13: 27
                        I'm not suggesting anything. I'm just saying that if you have the desire, you can do the almost impossible.
                        Two 57 mm guns are clearly redundant. But it’s quite possible to try to place a gun with a normal ammunition load.
                        without taking up the whole body.
                        And ZSU 57 2 cited as an example of an approach when there was a desire to bring the product to perfection.
                      2. +2
                        28 July 2022 15: 50
                        Compare the dimensions of the ZSU-57-2 turret
                        Terminator towers. So there is no perfection there. And in view of the fact that, as a ZSU, it turned out to be ineffective, they released it in a small batch and did not stand in service for long. So the example is very bad. Even one 57mm gun with an acceptable ammunition load can only be installed in an uninhabited tower. That is, the commander and gunner must be moved forward and 2 automatic grenade launchers removed. That is, the BMPT with one 57mm gun will be inferior to the Terminator in terms of total firepower. And why is such a machine needed? Now, if on the BMPT-72 (which does not have AG) to replace two 30mm cannons with one 57mm, then this is still quite an option. But again, not for the Russian army.
                      3. 0
                        28 July 2022 20: 11
                        ZSU 57 2 was unsuccessful because it was late. The goals were changing too quickly in the direction of acceleration.
                        The tower is big. In fact, this is a gun yard.
                        In BMPT 57 mm, the tower can be made any way you like and definitely uninhabited.
                      4. +1
                        30 July 2022 19: 04
                        Nevertheless, its trailed progenitor S-60 remained in service for a very long time. And he is still fighting.
                        Well, to make a tower for the BMPT of any kind - how is it? If only it had a 57mm cannon and no matter what, at least the "gun yard" from the ZSU-57-2?
                      5. +1
                        30 July 2022 21: 11
                        At 60, it's completely different. ZSU 57 2 was an attempt to cover the columns on the march. Failed attempt. She is not fit for anything else.
                        From 60, this is essentially an objective air defense. Too bad they can put up a barrier. If there are many. And the direction of the blow is known.
                        And they are still fighting in air defense where? I honestly don't know.
                        Now for BMPT. 57 mm looks much better there than 30 mm, especially with adequate shells. The air blast and guided projectile that are promised for Derivation will make the BMPT with this gun a very flexible tool.
                        100 120 140 approximately shots should be enough for a fight. Roughly speaking 30-40 short bursts. With 30 mm, the number of bursts is almost parity and the performance is higher.
                        It is quite possible to place such an amount in an uninhabited tower.
                        Personally, I am for LShO 57 mm, but it’s somehow cloudy with it. I’d rather check in C 60 than in LShO 57
                      6. 0
                        1 August 2022 06: 58
                        ZSU-57-2 could not fire immediately. Therefore, they themselves did not have a special advantage over the towed S-60. The comparative firing efficiency of the ZSU-57-2 was significantly lower than that of the battery of S-60 guns of similar design, since the latter had PUAZO-6 with SON-9, and later the RPK-1 Vaza radar instrumentation system. And ZSU-57-2, neither the installation nor the battery had its own means of detecting an air enemy. Immediately shoot, like the S-60 could not.
                        The air blast of a 57mm projectile has existed for a long time, it was created for the S-60. For "Derivation-Air Defense" they are trying to create a controlled one.
                        "BMPT. 57 mm looks much better there than 30 mm" - I absolutely agree. But I still haven’t heard what kind of ammunition supply system and ammunition size do you see?
                        And so you can put 76mm on the BMPT - even better than 57mm. But again, the question is how to create a power system for it and where to place the ammunition.
                      7. 0
                        1 August 2022 08: 41
                        1, which is why the ZSU 57 was unsuccessful. Shooting from short stops, he did not justify himself without advanced (at that time) controls.
                        2. The size of the ammunition, I kind of indicated above. 100 140 shots ready for battle. The BMP 2 has an average burst length of 500-10 rounds. If you work on a point target. 12 40 queues. 50 mm on point can work even single with controlled detonation. According to the areal, 57-3 shells. Less lines but not much. About a third.
                        3. Bilateral supply of ammunition. Normal and managed. Plus BOPS piece by piece with manipulator feed.
                        Mechanized ammo rack and intermediate reloadable clips for 8 - 10 rounds.
                        There is something similar on LSO.
                      8. +1
                        1 August 2022 12: 56
                        Bilateral supply of ammunition.

                        Do we have 57mm guns with a breech capable of receiving ammunition from both sides, or do you offer one loader on each side?
                        It's not a joke. I asked about the firing system. And it happens: manually, cassette, tape feed, from an automatic loader (auger type, drum type, carousel type, tape type (not to be confused with feed from a link tape)).
                        100 140 shots ready for bo

                        Where do you propose to place ammunition? And are you sure that the total mass of a volley of several 57mm shells will exceed the total mass of a volley of a dozen and a half to two and more than 30mm? Did you do the calculations? Have you calculated and summed up the number of fragments formed during the explosion of a 57mm projectile and similarly for a 30mm projectile?
                        PS About half a year ago, we were already engaged in similar calculations with one of the opponents.
                      9. -1
                        1 August 2022 13: 47
                        Cassette. It is also called oboymennaya by non-specialists, to whom I belong, although I know that it is not true.
                        Two rechargeable cassettes. Change from one cassette to another in a few seconds. Such a break in shooting for changing ammunition is not critical .. Or a through-feed tape. But here I think there will be more problems.
                        But I honestly don’t know the mechanized ammunition rack. The auger allows you to release all the contents at once. For air defense it is necessary. For BMPT redundant.
                        Honestly, I don’t know what is the most compact, but I think the tape.
                        Terminator essentially has no tower. But what prevents the new iteration from not returning the tower. A small place to place ammunition.
                        If not difficult, give a link to your calculations. I'm genuinely interested.
                        Figured it out myself a couple of years ago. OF with GGE 57 mm turned out better if the fragments of 5-10 grams are counted.
                        And with a controlled air blast, you can take care of the directed formation of a fragmentation field. Then just do most of the mass of the projectile flies in the right direction.
                        In the evening I will try to find my fabrications on how I see the BMPTiP. T 15 as a platform and 4 weapon channels.
                      10. 0
                        1 August 2022 16: 34
                        Cassette. It is also called oboymennaya by non-specialists, to whom I belong, although I know that it is not true.
                        Two rechargeable cassettes. Change from one cassette to another in a few seconds

                        That is, you propose to abandon the rendered automatic weapons and return to manual reloading of cartridges, adding one more crew member - a loader. By increasing the mass of the turret and the entire vehicle, since you will have to install a turret with the same armor level and dimensions as a tank, and even possibly larger. Sorry, but this is nonsense.
                        Tape power for 57mm?! It is immediately clear that you did not try to load a tape with 30mm shells into the BMP box. And with a shot weight of 57mm, plus the weight of a tape link and such under 100! I would also like to look at the dimensions and weight of the electrically driven tape feed mechanism (automatic guns work on a 30mm cannon, there is no such thing at 57mm and cannot be. I am silent about the size of the box for such a tape. So this is simply an impossible option. Therefore, on the auger , as on the naval system on the land and stopped.
                        We do not have a 57mm GGE projectile.
                        During an air explosion, fragments fly in all directions. It's just that some of them don't go to the ground.
                      11. -1
                        2 August 2022 11: 50
                        See how cluster feed is implemented on some Western models of 40 mm guns with telescopic ammunition.
                        Yes, and on the same LShO.
                        There is no charging. The change of cassettes and their reloading can be made automated without any problems.
                        That's why I said that the tape is in second place.
                        We just do not have modern 57 mm shells. There are old ones in a limited number and new developments. Everything has to be done from scratch. And what happens depends only on the terms of reference.
                        And here you are mistaken. Air defense has long used technology when most of the fragments fly in a certain direction.
                        In a projectile, this is also not difficult to implement.
                        The distance to the target is programmed during the shot and measures the distance of the projectile by the number of revolutions. Therefore, the projectile knows its position relative to the ground. Upon reaching the undermining threshold, a certain algorithm of actions will be worked out. Changing the axis of the projectile relative to the trajectory is not a problem. Transverse engines have been used for a long time.
                        The nose of the projectile bows to the ground by 45-60 degrees and an explosion occurs.
                        The GGEs are not distributed throughout the hull, but are located in the bow of the projectile. Then explosives and "brains" in the stern. A directed explosion sends the GGE forward relative to the axis of the projectile with an angle of 100 degrees or more.
                      12. +1
                        3 August 2022 16: 28
                        Projectiles with a remote tube have been known for a long time. In 57mm, we have had them since the adoption of the S-60. And we do not have 57mm shells with GGE. I already wrote about this. I don't understand why this topic should be brought up.
                        Once again, imagine the size of a tower with a box for placing b / c in cassettes and a mechanism for reloading them. Just take a calculator, a sheet of paper, a pencil and a ruler and draw on a certain scale to have an idea of ​​​​what size the structure will be for at least 80-100 shells. Less makes no sense.
                        PS In fact, the game is not worth the candle. Since the current second-hand 30 mm guns of the Terminator will provide the same effectiveness of destruction, if not more.
                      13. -1
                        5 August 2022 21: 13
                        I repeat. There are no modern shells for the descendants of the C 60. They are in the process of being created.
                        We are talking about the prospect of BMPT. next step.
                        What is now in the army is poorly suited for war. BMP 3 latest tank modifications. The only thing that is not there is a heavy infantry fighting vehicle. Let them procrastinate Armata as a platform as much as they like. But the T-15 is needed in the troops. And in a big series. And the T 15, with its dimensions, is an excellent platform for the BMPTiP. There is enough space for the ammunition we are talking about and for the crew.
                        But I repeat. I see such a technique with a weapon of not high ballistics and something simpler. Type LShO 57.
                      14. +1
                        1 August 2022 17: 19
                        The area affected by fragments of a 57mm projectile is 60m2, the area of ​​​​continuous destruction (and this is not the same thing) is 30mm OFH 20-50m3. A total burst of 2-3 30mm fragmentation shells is equal to one 57mm shell. Therefore, the 30mm ammunition load of 250-300 shells in terms of fragmentation is equal to the ammunition load of 100 57mm shells. So is it worth fencing the garden with the invention of a new combat module with a 57mm cannon specifically for the BMPT?
                      15. -1
                        2 August 2022 11: 53
                        And the mass of fragments? Do you take into account the mass of fragments? In terms of fragmentation, 30 mm is frankly weak. Especially if the enemy is equipped with body armor.
                      16. +1
                        3 August 2022 16: 20
                        They have damaging properties, i.e. can kill or significantly injure (damage a person so that he cannot perform a combat mission) metal fragments weighing at least 2 grams. Fragments with a mass of 2-5 grams should be considered optimal in terms of weight.
                        The book "Calculation of the damaging capabilities of fragmentation mines and grenades" Veremeev Yu.G.
                        Accordingly, all fragments of a smaller mass are not taken into account. The same applies to fragments of all fragmentation artillery shells and mines.
                        For reference: automatic bullet 5.45 mm. weighs 3.4-3.7 gr
                      17. 0
                        5 August 2022 21: 05
                        I served in the late 90s. All officers of the unit have combat experience. Some even starting from Afghanistan. Then the Caucasus. And they hammered ratchet 23 and 30 mm into us, they are not afraid. If not a meter away from you, it will simply stun. Their personal experience. There were publications about the weakness of the high-explosive and fragmentation effects of 30 mm ammunition here, on the VO.
                      18. +1
                        8 August 2022 16: 07
                        It's good that you didn't come under real fire from 30mm with such experience. I don't know about 23mm. Once a VOG-25 exploded a meter away from me and not a scratch. But I would not tell my fighters that he should not be afraid. It was just luck.
                        And yes, for some reason I don’t remember that the spirits in Afghanistan had 30mm guns.
                      19. 0
                        8 August 2022 20: 10
                        I mentioned the Caucasus. Everyone was there. We were not taught not to be afraid and not to attach importance. We were taught not to panic and how to hide properly. What and how to cover. And they drove it into their heads that they didn’t need to frantically try to run. Then it will definitely be stuffed with small things so that the Tweezers will get tired. Hide, wait out and continue the fight.
                      20. +1
                        9 August 2022 06: 30
                        . And we were not afraid of ratchet 23 and 30 mm

                        These are your words.
                        I mentioned the Caucasus. Everyone was there.

                        Well, there really were 30mm guns in the Caucasus. But in very small quantities. Perhaps one of your officers was "lucky" to fall under their fire. Me here and never. Yes, and stories about this were just as rare and at the level of tales. But the chichi were very afraid of them. Continuous sheaf of fire and fragments. Suppress the firing point with the BMP-2 for one time. Here is such a "ratchet".
      2. +1
        25 July 2022 08: 38
        everything is correct, they forgot to add about the weight of 57 sparks compared to 30
        1. +3
          25 July 2022 13: 45
          And also the dimensions of the automatic loader for a pair of 57mm guns. Look at this miracle Yudo.
    4. -2
      25 July 2022 08: 13
      Quote: Nexcom
      We are looking forward to Terminator-3 where instead of 30 current there will be 2x57mm machine guns.

      Actually, "Terminators-3" already exist! Unlike "Terminators-2", they have crews of 5 people and 2 30-mm grenade launchers have been added ... If you want to replace the 30-mm 2A42 with the 57-mm "LShO-57" and 30-mm grenade launchers with 40-mm " new items" "Balkan", then call it "Terminator-4"! And you will be happy! fellow
      1. 0
        25 July 2022 08: 17
        Yes, at least name Terminator-10, if it really helps. wink
        I keep dreaming that this machine really becomes a terminator - it turns into a hellish thresher. a real thunderstorm for infantry and BTR-BMP and wheeled tanks.
        1. AUL
          +7
          25 July 2022 08: 53
          He would still have real-time communication with the UAV - in general, he would have no price!
        2. +5
          25 July 2022 08: 56
          Quote: Nexcom
          Yes, at least name the Terminator-10, if it really helps

          As you "call the yacht, so it will float ..."! wink An interesting trend is observed in the "Western enemy world"! In the projects of new tanks, automatic loaders were added, but the 4th member of the tank crew was saved! It has been renamed from a UAV operator to an UAV operator, robotic platforms, and is also responsible for the interaction of the tank with the network-centric space ... There is something interesting about this! There are persistent rumors in Russia about the development of an "assault robotic tank complex, Shturm" ... Maybe then tanks with 4 crew members and heavy uninhabited (!) BMPT "Terminator-10" will appear, "working" together?! So, do not rush and do not run ahead ... accept that in front, for now, there will be "Terminators-4"! wink winked
      2. +2
        25 July 2022 10: 24
        AGS stood on the first terminator. Moreover, each AGS had a separate crew member. At the second Terminator, the AGS and two fighters were seized. I haven’t heard about the return of the AGS to the Terminator, can I see where the firewood comes from?
        1. +3
          25 July 2022 12: 31
          Quote: demiurg
          where are the firewood from?

          Actually, the names: "Terminator", "Terminator-2", "Terminator-3" are rather "unofficial" than official! Several modifications of the BMPT have been created in the design bureau, and work on improving the technology continues ... most likely the name "Terminator-1/2/3" was put into circulation by the developers themselves so as not to "get confused" in the modifications! On the Internet, such informality allows some authors of articles about the "Terminator" to freely "call names" of different variants of the BMPT ... I have seen statements on the Internet more than once that a BMPT with 2 2A42 guns, Ataka missiles and 2 AGS-30 is and there is "Terminator-3"! To be honest, I am cool about all these "frills" and do not consider the "Terminator" a "wunderwaffle" in the form that it is; and in response to Nexcom's comment, he "slightly" screwed up!
          The next step towards the approval of the rooted name was the announcement of the development of the BMPT "Terminator-3", which was made by Vyacheslav Khalitov, Deputy General Director of UVZ for special equipment, on June 2, 2016.


          Construction :
          The BMPT crew consists of 5 people - a commander, a gunner, a driver and two operators of course grenade launchers.

          Basic armament consists of:

          - two 30-mm guns 2A42 (900 rounds)
          - 7,62 PKTM (2000 rounds)
          - ATGM type "Attack" 9M120-1 (UR 9M120-1F, 9M120-1F-1) with a laser guidance system (four URs per turret launcher)
          - two AGS-17 grenade launchers (300 shots in a single tape for each) in fender niches
          In addition to the main power plant, the BMPT is equipped with an auxiliary diesel unit, which serves to power the machine's systems without turning on the main power plant.

          The defeat on the fly and from the place of tanks, infantry fighting vehicles, bunkers, bunkers and other highly protected targets, as well as helicopters and low-flying aircraft, is carried out by supersonic laser-guided anti-tank Ataka 9M120-1 (9M120-1F, 9M120-1F-1) anti-tank missiles from the KWV “Ataka-T”. The 9M120-1 missile in the pipe-container mounted on the launcher provides the BMPT with the ability to fire missiles after overcoming a bottom of a water obstacle up to 5 m deep.

          The BMPT turret with the Ataka-T KUV and small arms and cannon weapons is supposed to be used to equip an armored two-link light-class transporter for the Arctic and the Arctic based on a unified interspecific two-link tracked platform (ARC "Arktika"). The Russian articulated combat vehicle will be put into service in 2015. The BMPT has a modern advanced automatic fire control system (FCS) "Frame". The gunner's sight includes a thermal imaging channel, an optical channel, ground-based control equipment for an ATGM laser-beam guidance channel (developed by the NCC VKT FSUE GRPZ) and a laser rangefinder. The commander's panoramic sight has a 360° field of view. The panoramic sight has optical, low-level television and laser rangefinding channels. If necessary, the commander can display the image of the gunner's thermal imaging sight on his video device. The automated control system has a digital ballistic computer, a set of automatic sensors for firing conditions and a target tracking machine, which greatly simplifies and increases the efficiency of using guided weapons at once in the entire speed range of the BMPT with roll and trim up to 15 °.

          The vehicle is also equipped with the NAVSTAR/GLONASS navigation system.

          The machine has a light direction indication and an audible alarm about BMPT irradiation with laser means and automatic counteraction to this.


          And here is the "illustration" of "Terminator-2" ....

          At the exhibition REA-2013 there was a presentation of the BMPT-72 (object 183), made on the basis of the chassis of the T-72 tank. Serial production of the BMPT-72 is declared on the website of OAO NPK Uralvagonzavod in the Special Products section under the name Terminator-2 fire support combat vehicle, while the BMPT (object 199) has the name Terminator fire support combat vehicle.

          According to the management of UVZ, the modified version of the Terminator BMPT, first introduced on September 25, 2014, was created taking into account the requirements of the Armed Forces of the Republic of Kazakhstan. The upgraded sample also received the eponymous name "Terminator-2" from the manufacturer. The name of the modernized model is mentioned in a statement dated October 1, 2014 by the Commander-in-Chief of the Ground Forces of the Russian Federation, Colonel General O. L. Salyukov (there are no 30-mm AGS-D grenade launchers!)
          But on the Internet there are "illustrations" with completely opposite "signatures"! So ... think for yourself, decide for yourself ...
        2. +1
          25 July 2022 13: 48
          I haven’t heard about the return of the AGS to the Terminator, can I see where the firewood comes from?

          Look at the photo of the Terminator in Ukraine in the article. Everything is visible there. Without any firewood.
      3. 0
        25 July 2022 17: 02
        On the contrary, terminator 1 with ags, terminator 2 without ags, since the idea is bullshit. Deuces like the Kazakhs did, we only have the first version
    5. +4
      25 July 2022 10: 32
      Quote: Nexcom
      Look forward to

      the appearance of shells with either a software explosion or a radio fuse, which will dramatically increase the ability of the BMPT to combat infantry and anti-tank systems
    6. 0
      25 July 2022 12: 36
      Quote: Nexcom
      We are looking forward to Terminator-3 where instead of 30 current there will be 2x57mm machine guns.

      Is there a projectile programmable for remote detonation of such a weapon? If it is not there, then you should not start
      1. +4
        25 July 2022 14: 00
        There is one. 53-BR-281U + multifunctional projectile with a remote fuse. Everything is used in the same Derivation-Air Defense.
    7. 0
      25 July 2022 16: 53
      Well, not 2 to 125?
    8. +2
      25 July 2022 17: 09
      If you have ever been inside our tanks, you must remember how crowded it is. Two more people are sitting in the "Terminator" (in the same volume plus equipment for them).
      In the "Terminator" 30mm cannons are stupidly loaded with one OFS, the second with armor-piercing ones. In total, two belts for two guns with sensitive ammunition. And two 57 mm guns are very unlikely to fit in a car. One will fit, but, given the peculiarities of the ammunition supply, it will not be possible to change the type of projectile ...
    9. Maz
      +2
      25 July 2022 17: 09
      you need to add a drone and a drone operator to it, then it will be a surprise
    10. 0
      25 July 2022 17: 41
      Quote: Nexcom
      there will be 2x57mm machine guns.

      And then the meaning of the machine will disappear, because there will be less b / c and rate of fire.
      1. -1
        30 July 2022 09: 53
        The meaning of the machine is in question from the very beginning. To escort tanks, you need a vehicle capable of both dropping troops and evacuating the crew of a blown up or wrecked tank. In this form, with places for evacuation, the tankers will be both hands in favor. And just to fence a tank with obviously weaker guns is a controversial idea. You can argue about the number of places for the landing or evacuation of tankers, but since the powerful cannon has been removed, its place should be used more intelligently.
        1. 0
          30 July 2022 13: 00
          So while there are no heavy infantry fighting vehicles, this machine makes sense. In the meantime, they are not there as a means of fire support for motorized riflemen - that's it.
          1. -1
            30 July 2022 20: 09
            Motorized riflemen have their own weapons, and much more decent. The same BMP-3, in addition to the 30 mm, also has a 100 mm gun. Why do they need a 30-mm double-barreled shotgun?
        2. 0
          30 July 2022 13: 47
          Quote: Blackgrifon
          So while there are no heavy infantry fighting vehicles, this machine makes sense. In the meantime, they are not there as a means of fire support for motorized riflemen - that's it.

          In addition, there is one more important note: the plus and minus of any BMP is a landing. It bears weight. And here it was all the weight that went to the armor.
          In addition, a vehicle of this class, like the BMPT, is no longer just our know-how: the Carmel vehicle is being made for the IDF. Almost everything is the same there, but the crew is 2 people.

          Actually, IMHO, this machine has 3 ways of development and application:
          1. evolve into heavy. BMP (but this is both weight gain and a small motorized rifle squad - which has already had a negative effect).
          2. or serve as an infantry fire support vehicle. And to carry troops on the same typhoons and patrols (fortunately, they are more convenient, roomy and almost better protected than the BTR-80 and BMP-1/2). This, again, in my opinion of a jacket lover of armor, is the most preferred option. But it is necessary to reduce the crew to 3 people.
          3. or serve as a tank destroyer (fortunately, 4 ATGMs are strong).
          1. -1
            30 July 2022 20: 13
            No need to nod at the IDF every time, this is a completely different theater of operations and other vehicles, they have the Merkava tank itself, it looks like a heavy infantry fighting vehicle.
            And a vehicle with weak weapons, without the ability to pick up a crew from a wrecked tank, is bewildering. Well, it would be nice if there were 6 places, three for the crew and three for reinforcement, but there are 5 people in the maximum version, only two places are theoretically free, not enough.
    11. +3
      25 July 2022 20: 33
      We are looking forward to Terminator-3 where instead of 30 current there will be 2x57mm machine guns.


      Well, the 57mm assault rifle has only one advantage (in my opinion) this is the range of remote detonation ammunition used, and it’s not worth making an anti-tank weapon out of it; it is designed to deal specifically with enemy infantry, i.e. precisely the support of the infantry. The use of a 57mm assault rifle will lead to a decrease in the ammunition load and an increase in the weight of the vehicle, and then the problems begin to increase.

      As far as my memory serves me, the idea of ​​​​the BMPT was originally - to create a well-armored vehicle with powerful weapons based on the main tank. This was justified by the use of existing industrial capacities with the unification of the use of parts of the manufactured equipment. Which will lead to mass and inexpensive production, i.e. avoiding the situation with the T-14. When there is a project, an experimental batch is made, the tank takes first place in all ratings, but it is not necessary to talk about serial, and even more so mass production, because the sum of this very mass production puts an end to the project itself.
      So we have two options today:
      make another T-14 with all the above Wishlist, but leave it on paper with a couple of other prototypes.
      Or create on the basis of serial tanks, and preferably tanks that are in storage (after modernization), but get a massive well-armored and well-repairable vehicle at existing repair bases using components from serial tanks.
      Yes, it will look somewhat worse than all the wishlists described above, but due to mass production, maintainability and the use of new electronic means of observation and communication, this drawback is greatly leveled.
      An example is our T-34 and T-34-85 against the German Panzerwaffe, where the Soviet industry outplayed the German purely technologically in the production of armored vehicles.
    12. 0
      25 July 2022 22: 38
      I think that our designers came up with a new class of armored vehicles and it was clearly a success. Now we will work on the development of the idea, but most likely they will complement each other, most likely both 2x30 and 1x57 will survive in the presence of more and more advanced reactive components, and according to AGS (presence-absence, 30-40), options will be explored in combat application . Moreover, we are pioneers, such equipment (so far) is only of our production, but it has probably already been noticed and appreciated by all our competitors (both friends from the east and enemies from the west). In general, the machine is clearly a success and now it needs to be sanded and sanded in every sense.
      1. -6
        25 July 2022 23: 59
        The Germans were engaged in the development of such armored personnel carrier tanks in the 80s of the last century, and very successfully. They are armed with both an armored personnel carrier and an anti-aircraft gun, which is now being transferred to the ZSU. Because our engineers are somewhere 40 years behind.
        1. +2
          26 July 2022 01: 00
          The Germans were engaged in the development of such armored personnel carrier tanks in the 80s of the last century, and very successfully.

          Because our engineers are somewhere 40 years behind.
          Actually, not like that ... That German, according to your personal classification, "armored personnel carrier" (which is "Marder") neither in terms of armament (with a 20-mm cannon and 2 7,62-mm machine guns), nor in terms of armor (where the forehead protects only from a 30-mm projectile, and the side from a 14,5-mm bullet ...) cannot be compared with the Terminator BMPT! wink
          1. -1
            26 July 2022 08: 51
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhctlNLpy7I
            1. +5
              27 July 2022 02: 12
              Dear ! Before you announce the "Puma" to me, you would better study the "materiel" in terms of its fate ... as well as the history of the Soviet-Russian tank industry ... And also remember your glib statements about the fact that someone is there that I developed it for a long time, but someone lagged behind ... I quoted these pearls of yours above!
              You said there that our engineers are 40 years behind! And 40 years ago, the Germans had only "Marders", and "Pumas" (which can still be equated with the "Terminator" and which you are now pushing me through the link on YouTube) did not even plan to create! But our (Soviet) designers began work on the creation of the BMPT, just about 40 years ago! And if it were not for the collapse of the USSR and the ensuing problems in production, the BMPT would have been created much earlier. But even with all the problems of the defense industry of the 90s ..., the first sample of our BMPT (with one 30-mm cannon, like the Puma) was produced in 2000! And in 2002, a prototype BMPT was presented, in fact, in the form in which it is now mass-produced ... But the first copy of the Puma was assembled in 2005! SO WHERE AND WHOSE ENGINEERS ARE LOST?
              1. -5
                27 July 2022 22: 58
                I don't understand why you are so angry. Marder was produced until 1975 in the amount of 3000 pieces! Yes, he has a 20mm machine gun and lighter armor, but he has the same remote gun, night sight, ATGM and three crew members + 6-7 troops. The task is the same as that of the Terminator.
                In 2005, on the Puma, modular armor, with protection against 30mm projectiles, dynamic protection, laser irradiation sensors, a front motor, a thermal imager, a self-guided ATGM, a gun with programmable projectiles and 6 troops! 100 pieces for 2020.
                And all this is against some kind of vague characteristics of 2 experimental Terminators?
                Wake up, the Terminator on the Puma can only scratch the paint, everything was drunk back in the 90s.
    13. 0
      31 July 2022 08: 50
      30 mm behind the eyes, the density of fire is the highest!
    14. 0
      31 July 2022 09: 36
      If only with a remote detonation system.
  2. +4
    25 July 2022 05: 12
    Algeria does not complain.

    In general, I think soon orders from China and India will arrive. Maybe even from Turkey.
    1. +3
      25 July 2022 05: 47
      The Chinese themselves rivet this.
      1. +2
        25 July 2022 06: 22
        The Chinese have already blinded an analogue of our Terminator. Testing.
        If I don’t confuse, then they blinded it on the chassis of their MBT.
      2. 0
        25 July 2022 17: 26
        I highly doubt it. BMPT is extremely time-consuming and therefore expensive to manufacture. Various ersatz are available from all tank manufacturers. The degree of protection of the BMPT in close combat is much higher than the protection of the MBT (just throw back 30 tons of the weight of the tower and spread them on the protection of the armored hull). That is why the failures of converting tanks into terminators. And so far, not a single downed true BMPT ...
        1. -1
          25 July 2022 18: 07
          Do you think the turret is twice as heavy as the rest of the tank? belay
          1. 0
            25 July 2022 18: 20
            Much more. The mass of the T-90 hull is about 11 tons, with the engine and transmission about 20 tons.
            Tank weight 48t
    2. -5
      25 July 2022 07: 16
      It is necessary to provide for a secret self-detonation. Remote, and the control panel in the RF Ministry of Defense.
  3. -1
    25 July 2022 05: 13
    Against enemy snipers, I would try it ... 30 mm shells can demolish any position of a sniper at a distance. distances.
    In general, I like the Terminator in terms of the level of weapons ... with such weapons, I would gladly ambush enemy columns ... I put a couple of pieces around the edges and the column can be shot like in a shooting range without being substituted from afar.
  4. +2
    25 July 2022 05: 23
    His roof is clearly redone, I wonder if it was made more durable than on tanks? I think there was an opportunity, since the weight of the tower is less than that of the tank
  5. +11
    25 July 2022 05: 26
    Quote: Nexcom
    We are looking forward to Terminator-3 where instead of 30 current there will be 2x57mm machine guns.
    Then a very serious apparatus will become - the range of affected equipment will clearly expand.

    It will be fat. Two 57mm. Can you imagine the weight of such a weapon? What about the weight of a 57mm projectile? Plus return. Plus the interference of twin closely spaced guns.
    One 57 mm is enough for the eyes. Subject to the use of programmable projectiles with remote detonation.
    As for the armor-piercing ones, the 57-mm one takes all the tanks in the world on board.
    1. +2
      25 July 2022 06: 25
      As for the armor-piercing ones, the 57-mm one takes all the tanks in the world on board.

      That's why I suggested that a 57mm machine gun would be very out of place.
      An ambush from a pair of Terminators-3 and bring enemy tanks on board.
      Again, there it will be possible, as you said, to develop programmable fuses in caliber 57mm - it won’t fit into 30k, it was written about this many times.
      So it turns out that the 57mm caliber is more interesting - there is room to move in terms of development.
      1. -4
        25 July 2022 08: 10
        An ambush from a pair of Terminators-3 and bring enemy tanks on board.

        Only now, at first, the BLPA will work on them in an ambush, it’s enough to live by the criteria of the Second World War ...
      2. -3
        25 July 2022 12: 01
        in general, 30-mm 9-A-1611 shells with a programmable fuse have been produced for a long time, and they are cheaper than world analogues, since the Russian control system is laser
        1. 0
          25 July 2022 15: 53
          Quote: Romario_Argo
          in general, 30-mm 9-A-1611 shells with a programmable fuse have been produced for a long time, and they are cheaper than world analogues, since the Russian control system is laser


          Where did you come up with all this again?
          9A-1611 - generally from a different opera.
          and they don’t produce anything like that, simply because we don’t have a ready-made system for controlling detonation for any carrier of 30mm guns, neither on an infantry fighting vehicle, nor on a helicopter.
          Simply no, because even R&D was not conducted.
          1. 0
            25 July 2022 16: 50
            2015 article on VO
            https://topwar.ru/80569-rossiyskie-specialisty-razrabotali-boepripasy-novogo-pokoleniya.html
    2. +3
      25 July 2022 07: 07
      Quote: Kuroneko
      It will be fat. Two 57mm. Can you imagine the weight of such a weapon? What about the weight of a 57mm projectile? Plus return. Plus the interference of twin closely spaced guns.

      The ZSU-57-2 coped well with this, and this would not have been an obstacle for the BPMT. Two guns, it would be possible to try as an operational change in the type of projectile. Or install one, but with two-tape ammunition, like 2A42. There is not enough information on the AU-220 (in the sense of the possibility of BUT to quickly change the type of shot). But on programmable projectiles, you are right. This will greatly expand the combat capabilities of a 57 mm gun (and even 30 mm, if they manage to shove the fuse into the volume of the projectile while maintaining space for explosives ...).
    3. 0
      25 July 2022 09: 49
      Plus interference twin closely spaced guns.

      belay
      This is not Vitalik Klitschko accidentally introduced such a term?
      Uh, I’m afraid to offend, but did you call the increased load on the design of armored vehicles with such an intricate term?
      1. +3
        25 July 2022 10: 30
        You need this for Klitschko, for an internship. And with a primer under his arm.
        The 30mm babahi has a muzzle compensator that throws part of the powder gases back / to the side, including onto the barrel of an adjacent gun. Plus, powder gases also affect shells flying out of a neighboring gun. Accuracy suddenly worsens.
        By the way, a well-known problem since the advent of multi-gun turrets on warships.
        Although, on the other hand, the effect of powder gases on shells and barrels of neighboring guns is clearly not called interference. In short, both of you go to Klitschko. I alone am d'Artagnan all in white.
        1. 0
          25 July 2022 10: 40
          the effect of powder gases on the shells and barrels of an adjacent gun is clearly not called interference

          Instead of verbosity, this phrase would suffice
          To Klitschko without DralTatyan, well, no way. Only in three
    4. 0
      25 July 2022 14: 07
      One 57 mm is enough for the eyes. Subject to the use of programmable projectiles with remote detonation.
      As for the armor-piercing ones, the 57-mm one takes all the tanks in the world on board.

      The problem is that the automatic loader for this artillery system is auger. Imagine the height of the box above the tower. Which should still be armored at least like the forehead of the car body, at least from the front projection. And above it is a bulky cannon and how this whole structure will chatter from recoil when firing. You can, of course, lower it into the tower, and removing the 2AG, transfer the commander and gunner to the place of the shooters. But then this machine in terms of firepower will be clearly inferior to the one that is now in the army? And it is necessary if the heavy T-15 infantry fighting vehicle is armed with a 57mm cannon, ATGMs and also transports an infantry squad.
  6. -7
    25 July 2022 05: 40
    The use of BMPT is the use of a surrogate instead of normal BMPs. Decent booking plus high-quality SLA. At this time stage, the use of BMPT is justified. But the NWO shows that it is necessary to tie up with buoyancy, increasing security and firepower. Moreover, both a separate machine and a division.
    1. fiv
      +7
      25 July 2022 06: 53
      "The infantry fighting vehicle is designed to increase the armament, security and mobility of motorized rifle units operating on the battlefield under normal conditions or under the conditions of the use of nuclear weapons." BMPT - support not for infantry, but for tanks. With the same level of armor and faster and more numerous weapons. The BMP and BMPT have different tasks and different carriers, respectively. Do not mix. Don't even shake!
      1. -3
        25 July 2022 10: 21
        You are replacing soft with warm.
        How will 2 * 30mm plus four ATGMs support a tank platoon in urban combat or in hilly areas? How will BMPT replace 8-9 pairs of eyes?
        Optics and thermal imagers on BMPTs are better than on linear tanks, and even more so than on BMPs. If there were normal thermal imagers on all tanks and infantry fighting vehicles, the BMPT would not be needed, it would be replaced by the BMP2/3. The whole point is that on the linear BMP2/3 in 90% of cases there is no Berezhka / Bakhchi, with a more or less sane SLA.
        1. fiv
          +5
          25 July 2022 11: 01
          Soft and warm are perfectly combined and complement each other's arcs. Why not GAZ-53? With a PAR radar, a laser gun and a squad of marines? Because the armor is weak. That's why BMPT, not BMP.
          1. -3
            25 July 2022 11: 22
            That is, do you seriously think that BMPT optics will replace 8 pairs of eyes in urban combat?
            In the photo from the article on tanks and infantry fighting vehicles, tanks and infantry fighting vehicles do not shoot. So even a BMP-2 with Berezhok would have replaced the BMPT there. And in front of a 42kg land mine, all armored vehicles are equal.
            1. fiv
              0
              25 July 2022 11: 46
              I think that something will be replaced by a drone, something by a single information network of a platoon, companies, attached to motorized rifles on infantry fighting vehicles. But to carry an infantry squad and have the stamina of a tank is the wrong way.
        2. +1
          25 July 2022 11: 25
          The best combination is T-14 + T-15. On the T-15, both landing and weapons are just against "light" targets. Excellent combination of TBMP and BMPT; 2-in-1 straight. The main disadvantage is that there are few ...
          EMNIP BMPT based on the T-72 was developed as a replacement for the "tank landing". An infantryman will not be able to keep up with an actively maneuvering tank. Because of the DZ / KAZ, it is dangerous to ride "on armor" and just be nearby. And the Terminator will be able to do everything that is required of the infantry.
          1. 0
            25 July 2022 11: 34
            A tank without infantry support is an exploding torch of fire. The current realities, when real-time drones correcting artillery plus anti-tank systems, made tank rushes impossible.

            But the quality of optics and thermal imagers on board, oddly enough, confirmed their need.
            1. +2
              25 July 2022 12: 19
              Here I am about the fact that the T-14 + T-15 is the best solution at the moment. Here is a tank, and a TBMP, with its own UAV (they talked about this; it’s not clear how it is in real life). Infantry is better protected than in BMP-1/2/3.
              I hope no one will throw tanks at the unsuppressed defenses so that they burn like matches.
    2. 0
      25 July 2022 17: 35
      BMPT - a vehicle heavier than a tank. She doesn't swim. She can crawl along the bottom. Although this has never been used in the war ...
  7. +4
    25 July 2022 06: 42
    57mm and one is enough
  8. -1
    25 July 2022 06: 55
    It is also worth noting that, according to media reports, a rather interesting event took place in this area. During the ensuing battle, the Ukrainian side reported a breakthrough of Russian units, after which a Ukrainian Mi-8 helicopter flew to the aid of the defenders in the clash area to provide fire support from the air.

    Apparently, the helicopter could not fly for a long time and was shot down. Sources claim that it was the Terminator tank support fighting vehicle that shot him down. What hit the Mi-8 VVSU - guided missiles or automatic guns - is not reported. There is also no reliable information that could confirm the fact of the destruction of the BMPT rotorcraft. Nevertheless, the Terminator has the opportunity for this, because this incident could very well be real.

    Shadows on the weave.
    When there are few positive results, rumors and fictions can be used.
    At first, the reference goes to some kind of mythical media, then to "Sources claim."
    After all, there is even a law on the use of only official data of the Moscow Region.
    But TC is apparently not a decree.
  9. -3
    25 July 2022 08: 09
    it is possible to hang an armored box from behind in which to place troops in a row, taking into account the width of the vehicle, 5-6 people will fit in, with their backs to the stern and facing back from the vehicle, at the same time the stern will be covered and the landing will be instantaneous, and the troops will be protected in front by the entire size of the vehicle, it will turn out normal heavy infantry fighting vehicle ...
  10. -1
    25 July 2022 08: 40
    And what about the long arm?
    1. -2
      25 July 2022 09: 56
      And what about the long arm?

      Shooting anti-tank guns from a tank gun turned out to be more declared than used (and why so much money is uhaidakano)
      But in fact M2A2 / A3 with 25-mm M242 Bushmaster and ATGM "TOW" .... that's just 9 fighters can not carry
      Call at least BMPT, at least with a long arm ...
      You can call it "long leg". The opponent gets a good kick, this cannot be taken away
  11. 0
    25 July 2022 09: 48
    Why "long arm"? Does the tank have a shorter enemy BT range?
  12. 0
    25 July 2022 10: 04
    It seems to me that the Cornet ATGM is better suited. There is a very powerful HE ATGM with 8kg of explosives .... I don’t think that tanks are the main target for BMPTs. And it is necessary to unify ground systems according to anti-tank systems. BMPs and infantry and BMPTs should have the same systems. And on machines, you can combine different missiles on one launcher.
    1. +1
      25 July 2022 12: 16
      He is much stronger, but flies slower
      1. +3
        25 July 2022 13: 46
        He has an assortment of missiles larger and larger caliber
  13. +4
    25 July 2022 10: 17
    You are horrified reading suggestions for "improving" the Terminator in the comments. Already 57 mm. the gun is proposed to be used. And not one, but two. Someone suggests abandoning the BMPT in favor of heavy BMPs. All these people seem to have completely forgotten the purpose of the machine. Considering that the Terminator needs to deal with the defeat of tank-dangerous targets.
    And this:
    Light vehicles with anti-tank systems
    Motor vehicles with reconnaissance and LCC
    Motor vehicles with suicide bombers (this is still found in the Middle Eastern theater)
    Light armored vehicles with weapons
    Armored personnel carrier and infantry fighting vehicle of the enemy
    sniper positions
    Camouflaged firing positions
    Infantry in buildings
    Infantry in the trenches
    Infantry in bunkers
    Enemy helicopters
    Medium UAVs
    etc.
    All of these targets are lightly armored (or not armored at all). The lack of protection is compensated by camouflage or mobility. But they have firepower so that at a distance of 500 m to a couple of km. pose a threat to the tank.
    That is why the Terminator needs a weapon that does not reduce the turret turn speed parameter for quick targeting and hitting the target. And set for this 57 or 100 mm. guns is pointless, because the turn speeds will not be significantly faster than the tank. And at 100 mm. guns and vertical aiming angles will also be comparable to a tank, but should be better. And this is not to mention the fact that 57 and 100 mm guns are redundant in their firepower against the vast majority of targets.
    Spark of rapid-fire automatic guns, what you need for BMPT. The only thing I would change is the caliber of the gun. 30 mm. for medium armored vehicles may not be enough. Also, this caliber destroys fortifications worse. Therefore, I would try to replace 30 mm automatic machines with 40 mm. The rate of fire will still be sufficient to create a barrage of fire on all sorts of targets. But such types of targets as medium armored vehicles (armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles) and long-term fortifications will no longer be able to withstand such a flurry. Also in 40 mm. it is easier and cheaper to create a projectile with remote detonation. That will increase the chances of hitting flying vehicles and infantry in the trenches.
    Bottom line: leave the machine 2 automatic guns. MAXIMUM, change this to 40 mm. automata. The main direction should be given to detection and surveillance systems. This is more important for BMPT now. The Terminator will fully open only if it is guaranteed to quickly detect any tank-dangerous target at a distance of several kilometers. regardless of weather conditions and time of day. Even if the ideas of a night shower. Even if the enemy is from the direction of sunrise in the fog. Even if the enemy is buried in the snow in a blizzard. The terminator should be a punishing and all-seeing eye for the enemy. And a faithful, sensitive guide and tracker for his own.
    1. 0
      25 July 2022 14: 18
      Therefore, I would try to replace 30 mm automatic machines with 40 mm. The rate of fire will still be sufficient to create a barrage of fire on all sorts of targets.

      Unfortunately we do not have 40mm AP.
      1. 0
        25 July 2022 20: 24
        But there are 2A38, they can be screwed instead of 2A72
        1. 0
          26 July 2022 06: 28
          Very capricious to maintain and more complex than the 2A42 "Terminator" weapon. Requiring a special disposable power strip. And such a frantic rate of fire on the BMPT is not needed.
      2. 0
        26 July 2022 10: 20
        What's stopping you from developing? Or have design engineers capable of creating an automatic 40 mm gun disappeared in our country? Yes, it will take time and money to develop and create production. But it is still cheaper than the production of military vehicles. Automatic guns are now not know-how like in the 30s of the last century, but standard weapons. And normal countries should not have problems with the design and creation of such a class of equipment as automatic guns.
        1. 0
          26 July 2022 10: 29
          What's stopping you from developing?

          What for? There was even such an attempt. But it turned out to be unclaimed. At this stage, the military satisfies 30mm and 57mm. Which have long been in the series
  14. +1
    25 July 2022 14: 54
    There was also a version of the Terminator with a crew of 3 fighters and without course grenade launchers. I wonder which option will go into the big series?
  15. 0
    25 July 2022 16: 46
    The problems of organizational and staff order for the military are the most complex.
    1. 0
      25 July 2022 19: 23
      The problems of launching a series of promising types of weapons are the most difficult. Take BMPT and the same TOS-1. how many such disputes were conducted everywhere right there in VO. Apparently it hasn't subsided yet. Under Stalin, there was one marshal who, to put it mildly, did not like the Katyusha, this was before the war. It got to the point that at the shows the installation was hidden from his commanding gaze. Everything changed before the war after the appointment of Comrade Timoshenko instead of Comrade Voroshilov. Timoshenko was surprised to see the installation and asked to see the effect in action, which stunned the entire commission. But before the war remained a few days. True, Comrade Kulik, Comrade Stalin remembered this too, but that was later.
  16. -1
    25 July 2022 17: 05
    All discussions around the weapons of the BMPT can be reduced to 1 thought: the BMPT is an incomprehensible comunculus with a bunch of buts. We need a heavy BMP.
  17. 0
    25 July 2022 18: 55
    Russia should upgrade their remaining T-72-s that they have in stock to BMPT Terminator standard. Send those along with T-90 and T-80 tanks and the advantage will be decisive.
  18. 0
    25 July 2022 19: 16
    The Terminator is an excellent fighting vehicle both as a support for tanks and as an independent unit in cooperation with other branches of the military. Drones identify initial targets, information is received, aviation and artillery are working, tanks are moving forward, the enemy is working on them, drones detect firing points at the forefront, advanced deep into the defense they detect artillery and MLRS infa arrives, tanks and BMPT work out the front line, artillery and aviation depth of defense and so on and on. And here the main thing is the processing of targets, the transfer of target designation, the same network-centric technologies, artificial intelligence, the well-coordinated work of artillery, aviation and tanks.
  19. 0
    25 July 2022 19: 23
    instead of 2 course grenade launchers, you need to put one on the tower so that you can smack 360 degrees - 4 ATGMs + 2x30 mm + 7,62 mm + AG ....... the crew will be 3 people, more ammunition can be taken from yourself .......
  20. 0
    25 July 2022 21: 50
    Why didn't any of the experts say that the servo gun should be stabilized by default?
    And why is the ATGM not covered by anything? Laser guidance? Shooting only from a stop? How many guidance channels? While one shoots - the rest froze, and do not even fart, so as not to knock down the sight?
    Stop, Vova needs to shoot!
    Stop, Kolya needs to shoot!
    Stop, Vanya needs to shoot!
    Stop, Vita needs to get out!
    Where is the video of shooting at least at the target?
  21. 0
    26 July 2022 09: 37
    We have a huge number of tanks, for example, the T-72 of various modifications, which can be converted according to the BMPT Object 787 "Viper" project into BMPTs similar to the "Terminator" with almost the same set of weapons. This machine was created in 1996 at the Chelyabinsk Tractor Plant in the amount of one piece. The advantage is that it is much cheaper to make this machine from the T-72 than to make the Terminator. Indeed, in fact, the gun is removed from the T-72 and two 30mm machine guns and an ATGM are installed on the sides of the tower with the possibility of installing a universal anti-aircraft machine gun 12,7mm NSVT, but only with the possibility of remote firing as on the T-80, additionally. The production of the BMPT "Viper" using the T-72 from storage would allow in the shortest possible time to increase the number of BMPTs in the troops. And only then, after the end of this operation, it is already possible to produce a new BMPT on the "Armata" platform, which will have fundamentally different qualities and characteristics, taking into account the experience of using it in combat operations.





    1. -2
      27 July 2022 09: 05
      BMPT-72 and made from T-72 from storage.
    2. 0
      31 July 2022 09: 41
      BMPT is different in that there are 5 eyes and not 3 and there are more weapon control channels
      1. 0
        31 July 2022 11: 48
        Two eyes of the commander and two gunners)
  22. 0
    27 July 2022 04: 32
    Quote: Dimon-chik-79
    We have a huge number of tanks, for example, the T-72 of various modifications, which can be converted according to the BMPT Object 787 "Viper" project into BMPTs similar to the "Terminator" with almost the same set of weapons. This machine was created in 1996 at the Chelyabinsk Tractor Plant in the amount of one piece. The advantage is that it is much cheaper to make this machine from the T-72 than to make the Terminator. Indeed, in fact, the gun is removed from the T-72 and two 30mm machine guns and an ATGM are installed on the sides of the tower with the possibility of installing a universal anti-aircraft machine gun 12,7mm NSVT, but only with the possibility of remote firing as on the T-80, additionally. The production of the BMPT "Viper" using the T-72 from storage would allow in the shortest possible time to increase the number of BMPTs in the troops. And only then, after the end of this operation, it is already possible to produce a new BMPT on the "Armata" platform, which will have fundamentally different qualities and characteristics, taking into account the experience of using it in combat operations.

    This is not beneficial for the manufacturer.
    The margin is small.
    Same topic for drones. Instead of 1000 drones, one fighter (attack aircraft) will be built.
    Loot steers.
  23. +1
    30 July 2022 17: 59
    Looks like great stuff. It makes no sense to increase the caliber, since this increases the weight of all elements that must move at high speed (turret rotation, raising and lowering trunks). To maintain speed and aiming accuracy, everything moving must be light.
    1. 0
      31 July 2022 14: 10
      Yes, it would not be bad to increase the caliber to 40-45mm, because the 30mm fragmentation projectile has frankly not enough efficiency and the armor-piercing is the same.
  24. 0
    31 July 2022 08: 47
    How late everything was realized by our military leadership, the T-72 must be converted into Terminators2 for storage. And it is necessary to supplement the armament with a block of S-8 pieces for 40 on one side instead of ATGMs, in terms of manpower this is Gut, since there are no grenade launchers on the T-2.
  25. -1
    14 September 2022 08: 25
    This car, this is power, and all this is Russia
  26. -1
    18 September 2022 15: 17
    Equipping tanks with additional anti-personnel weapons - grenade launchers, machine guns or small-caliber guns - is impossible, since their crews are already overloaded. Conclusion: it is necessary to create BMPTs that can effectively operate in the same formation as tanks.

    Firstly, a remote-controlled automatic gun with a caliber of 30 mm should have long been installed on a tank instead of an anti-aircraft machine gun and an additional crew member will not be required.
    The AGS must be installed on the fender of the tank, as they did on the BMPT, the control of the AGS should be transferred to the driver, he is not always busy driving the tank and may well "shoot" at the detected ATGM crew or the enemy's grenade launcher.

    Secondly, it is necessary to serially build heavy infantry fighting vehicles with modern remote sensing, cumulative screens, capable of operating together with tanks and destroying tank-dangerous infantry.
    The number of heavy infantry fighting vehicles in motorized rifle brigades and divisions should at least correspond to the number of tanks.

    Thirdly, "for cleaning up the territory" from tank-dangerous infantry, an order of magnitude more effective than BMPTs were the TOS "Solntsepyok", they need to be massively built and introduced into the shock tank units, at least a company of 10-12 Solntsepeks per tank regiment.
  27. 0
    19 September 2022 22: 53
    Here is a machine that should be part of mobile armored groups to deal with similar maneuverable formations of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. There, mobile formations of the Armed Forces of Ukraine entered the rear of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, groped for holes in the defense and went to the rear of our troops. And there they were supposed to be met by maneuverable formations of the RF Armed Forces with Terminators, tied up in battle, and then finished off with aircraft or artillery from the nearest stronghold.
  28. kig
    -1
    1 October 2022 09: 03
    In short, so far only rumors. I hope the DoD has a group that oversees new technology and its use and writes reports.
  29. 0
    9 October 2022 17: 48
    I can imagine what will happen to any tank if it is processed by a Terminator with two barrels of 30 caliber. Definitely not a fighter, and at least blind, and at least the shock of the crew is guaranteed.