BMPT "Terminator": expensive, unnecessary and old?

328

Not so long ago, interest in the topic of the so-called "combat support vehicle" rose again. tanks”, associated with the use of these machines in the NWO. Therefore, I propose to look at the "Terminator" from a different angle. Just from a different angle and from the other side. We can say - with the wrong one, but time will tell who was right.

I will try to reduce the number of letters and, as a start, I will remind you how “correct” is. "Correct" is here:
Ukraine. Again, light vehicles replace the BMPT
Just wonderful material from our expert Alexei Kuznetsov, who is Alex TV. And within the framework of his article, THIS side of the application is perfectly shown. So I recommend to be distracted and read, then we will talk about something completely different.



Alexei, like a true tanker, perfectly painted the role of his assistant on the battlefield. With a certain amount of optimism. I allow myself to disagree with some of his conclusions from the part of the application and give my assessment.

So, the idea of ​​the BMPT itself was born in the USSR under the influence of the war in Afghanistan. That is, as in the case of the "Octopus", which was the subject of proceedings, a case of forty years ago.

Then the Soviet military leaders decided that a vehicle was needed on the battlefield that would be more survivable than an infantry fighting vehicle and have a fire exit that vaguely resembles the Shilka, which in Afghanistan became a lifesaver with its four 23-mm barrels and a monstrous rate of fire.

Alexei, I hope, will tell in colors about what terrible mutants were born as part of these developments, some of which he had the pleasure of seeing personally.

For my part, I will say this: the experiment on crossing a tank and an infantry fighting vehicle is still completely unsatisfactory. What happened in the end is suitable so far only for exhibitions and parade shows, but it is difficult to fight on this and - most importantly - completely unprofitable.

The main postulate: tank armor and massive fire on all targets on the battlefield, except for tanks, right? Okay, but let's look at the "Terminator" from THAT side, from where it will fly into it.

Quote from the text of the above article:

"To destroy a BMPT, the enemy will need the same amount of forces and means as to destroy a tank."

Alas, here I disagree 155%.

The tank corps is excellent. Especially if the crew sits in it, and not in the module. Thick armor, DZ on the armor - the tank is generally a fairly reliable design, on which you can go into battle. There are many nuances, but today tanks go into battle, perform combat missions and leave the battle in almost the same condition.

Now next to the tank is the "Terminator", which should protect the tank from everything that is not worthy of the attention of the tank's 125-mm cannon.


Let's take a close look at the Terminator combat module and ask ourselves one question: who can disable THIS and with what probability?


I will refer to Alexei, who once told me the following phrase: “Everyone shoots at a tank, because a tank is the most terrible and effective weapon on the battlefield." So let's imagine that a tank is coming, a BMPT supporting it is walking nearby, and everyone is shooting at them.

And this is the list:
- 125-mm tank gun projectile;
- anti-tank artillery shells and self-propelled guns;
- ground-based ATGM;
- drums Drones with cumulative bombs and RS;
- ATGM on helicopters;
- RPG.

This is a general list, which is unpleasant for the tank as well. But what about a sequel?
- automatic guns BMP / BTR caliber 20 mm, 23 mm, 30 mm, 57 mm;
- aviation guns of all calibers;
- NURS on helicopters and attack aircraft;
- heavy machine guns from 12,7 mm to 14,5 mm on armored personnel carriers and other equipment;
- sniper rifles 12,7 mm;
- 7,62 mm machine guns with corresponding bullets.

Why such a list? Yes, everything is simple: the Terminator combat module has no armor. Meanwhile, there are enough vulnerabilities, from the mechanisms for turning / lifting trunks to sighting devices and wiring. One or two large-caliber bullets, placed by a sniper in the right place, will blind the Terminator and the battle will end there for him. Well, or the dubious prospect of repair under fire.

The tank corps, I repeat - it's gorgeous. But an unarmored module is not for the battlefield next to the tank. This is for the parade. And in a real tight battle in a couple of minutes, all that the Terminator crew will have is a course machine gun. The rest will be unusable.

Everyone shoots at the tank. Considering that the Terminator is “only” 1 meter and 25 centimeters taller than the T-72, not only will everyone shoot at it, but it will also get hit more often.

A few words about weapons.

I'll start with the armament, which, in my opinion, is the least appropriate on board this machine.

AG-17D. The automatic grenade launcher was clearly added when designing according to the “And to be” principle. Initially, the grenade launchers were supposed to have their own operators, that is, the crew of this controversial vehicle increased to 5 people, respectively, if the vehicle was destroyed, losses would increase.

In general, the AGS, which shoots "somewhere there" - it looks frivolous. Considering that this is a means of fighting infantry at short distances, the fire from these grenade launchers will not be effective, especially since they will be directed in such a way ...

ATGM "Attack". In general, the complex itself is good, if not for its obsolescence. When the "Attack" is on a helicopter, which still flies over the battlefield and everything is more or less decent with its review, this is one thing. And the code is, excuse me, ground combat, smoke, dust and all other interference, somehow the use of laser guidance does not look very good. Our BMPT is walking next to the tanks...


Even more miserly value "Attack" as a means of air defense. She is completely zero. It's like in a joke about hand-to-hand combat of paratroopers: you need to find a helicopter visually from the tank (!!!) during the battle, find a window without interference, wait until the helicopter hovering, put a beam on it ... And see how the helicopter instantly falls down, having received from of their systems the news of laser irradiation.

But here the most important thing is to find the helicopter. Radar, unlike the "Shilka", the "Terminator" does not, respectively, the talk that during the battle you can visually detect a helicopter is carried out only by those who have no idea what it is - a battle.

The helicopter can be detected by realizing that it is he who works out for you. But then it's usually too late to flicker with a laser.

And then, why do we need such a dubious remedy, if there is simply a delightful "Chrysanthemum", which simply does not care about smoke, aerosols, dust?

And the last thing: it’s probably not worth saying how good it will be for the crew’s health if a 30-mm projectile hits a container in an ATGM, is it?

But we'll talk about "Attack" a little later.

Machine gun. There are no complaints, the PC thing is very useful in many ways.

30 mm automatic guns. If you do not listen to fairy tales that they can be used to cover tanks from air attacks, this is an excellent weapon. Capable of solving many tasks, from pacifying infantry in positions to destroying lightly armored vehicles.

I repeat: for sensible work on air targets, a radar is needed. All these "miracle sights" and so on are nonsense. The guns of the Terminator will not protect either from a helicopter or from an UAV, simply because they do not know how to shoot at high-speed targets. The effectiveness is the same as that of a machine gun on a tank turret. But for everything else - just pour.

Maybe someone in the head (and we have a lot of experts) has a clear understanding of how to use the Terminator correctly, but what comes from the Ministry of Defense does not give a clear answer.

Yes, exhibitions ... It was said what a breakthrough weapon in the performance of the Russian military-industrial complex, which has no analogues (oh, how we adore it, practically deify it!). Yes, there really were no analogues, but this does not always mean that the development of forty years ago is so breakthrough.


It is precisely because there was no really developed concept that the military was in no hurry to accept the Terminator into service. And after the tests in Syria in 2017, the data of which were classified for some reason, they were accepted into service, but serial production did not begin, although such a decision should have been made in 2021. Further leaked data on the use of "Terminator" near Severodonetsk. Perhaps, after that, some changes will await the idea of ​​the BMPT, but for now, apart from 10 or 12 experimental machines, nothing.

But this is not at all surprising. On the contrary, it makes you think that the Ministry of Defense is also burning their brains, trying to figure out what to do next with the Terminator.

The car has its advantages.

1. Tank Corps, which can really save the crew.
2. Unification with the T-72, which is very useful in operation.
3. Very good automatic guns.

The car has its downsides.

1. Absolutely defenseless warhead.
2. The inability to protect tanks from air attacks due to the lack of radar.
3. Outdated set of weapons.
4. Complex sight.

The last drawback is, if not to say, then hinted at: the Frame control system, which is positioned as a multi-channel multifunctional sighting system, the panoramic sight of which (viewing angle of 360 degrees) has optical, low-level television and laser rangefinder channels. The automated control system has a digital ballistic computer, a set of automatic sensors for firing conditions and a target tracking machine.

In general, everything is simple: it costs a lot of money.

Further, it is clear: the lack of understanding of the correct tactics for using BMPT leads to a lack of desire to spend money on it. This is not entirely sad, it is an occasion for analysis and reflection.

Moreover: an attempt to improve the capabilities of the BMPT by installing a radar so that it can cover tanks from air attacks will further increase the cost of the design.

In general, the “3 in one” design itself is flawed in itself. This is not a Nescafe, but a combat vehicle.

And this is where the criticism begins.

In principle, but in general, how much is needed on the battlefield for a machine that can equally successfully try in theory to fight infantry, infantry support equipment, artillery, tanks and helicopters?

I'm sorry, but all this reminds me of one project from our past, namely the T-35 tank.


Many towers, a large crew, a kind of land frigate that could (again in theory) go and shoot in all directions. And fight (considering two cannon calibers) with different goals.

What happened in practice, you remember. A car for parades, nothing more. The practice of combat use with benefit was scanty. About the same with the "Terminator": he is very good at the parade, at the window dressing too. In combat, it is still classified.

But the vulnerability and great limitations of the BMPT in the form in which it exists are already clear. Therefore, the use of such a machine looks pointless and expensive.

And here it remains to answer the eternal question: what then should be done?

There is an answer. And for this you need to look into the existing tactics of using equipment on the battlefield. That is, we have a bunch of "Tank-BMP-2" that has been developed over the years.


A bunch of "Tank-BMP-3" will look much better, since the BMP-3 has a slightly more promising set of weapons. I would say - the best in the world, because it allows you to solve a very wide range of tasks.

But any infantry fighting vehicle is a "tin can", and the issue of tank support is also a matter of vehicle survival on the battlefield.

So what can really support a tank on the battlefield?

The same stupid intellect, powerful in armor and essentially merciless means.


The concept is as follows: as in the case of the Terminator, we take the T-72. Without removing the turret (in the sense of leaving the turret), we remove the cannon and replace it with the same two 30mm automatic cannons. In the horizon, in the vertical trunks - it does not matter, there is enough space.

Down with the machine gun from the tower, it was not needed on the tank, and it will interfere here. ATGMs… In general, the idea of ​​placing ATGMs on such a machine is from the evil one. As I have already said, the use of laser rangefinder and guidance devices in the conditions of modern combat, and even in the forefront, is stupid. There, if there is a place for missiles, then with radio guidance. And even better without missiles. There are means of destroying tanks that move at a relatively safe distance and destroy enemy equipment from a distance of 3-5 km.


Laser? Well...

Automatic grenade launchers are no less doubtful in terms of use, they are also better left in warehouses.

What is left in the end? Yes, two barrels with a rate of fire of up to 550 rounds per minute each. Protected by tank armor, "Curtains", "Relics" and other tank protection systems.

No latest generation electronics, no lasers. A simple but merciless machine capable of flooding infantry and mortar positions with 30-mm shells, riddling infantry fighting vehicles or armored personnel carriers, being completely invulnerable to their shells and bullets.

This is what “tank support” means: to sweep away with cannon fire everything that is unworthy of a 125-mm projectile, moreover, to do it as cheaply and safely as possible.

By the way, the idea is not new. Here's an idea for a BMPT in metal, almost a century old: a light Soviet T-60 tank armed with a 20-mm ShVAK aircraft gun and a machine gun. Not by the time the design, but the essence is clear.


About the same in this modern concept: no toys and ostentatious beauty. Rationality and maximum survival on the battlefield. It will not be a light tank, if only in terms of weapons. But this thing can easily walk alongside the T-72 (figuratively speaking) and shoot everything it sees.

Such a machine will be able to claim the title of a tank support vehicle. What is today, that is, the "Terminator" - is nothing more than a beautiful concept, completely incompetent for the above reasons. So the delays with the introduction of this machine into the troops are quite understandable. But such a machine as the Terminator is not able to break the now obsolete Tank-BMP link.

It makes no sense to combine the qualities of several others in one machine, especially since they already exist and are successfully used. "Chrysanthemum", "Cornet", "Shilka", "Tunguska" and many other combat vehicles. "Terminator" so far is nothing more than a concept, on which you need to work hard and for a long time, otherwise this BMPT will remain a machine for parades and demonstrations.
328 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +15
    21 August 2022 05: 37
    can be even better - 1 or 2 barrels 57mm
    Well, it’s still not the same without birds. at least in an armored outer container, it is better to leave them
    1. +44
      21 August 2022 07: 20
      Roman, sometimes you don’t look like yourself at all! BMP 3 and the tank joke is unsuccessful! For the Mass Grave of the Infantry is completely devoid of armor, and even more so, dynamic protection! a tank without cover will become a target. The BMPTs themselves are a means of self-defense and destruction of enemy firing points on the battlefield. Cons can be found in any technique, however, the Terminator is praised in war, which means that to a greater extent it corresponds to its purpose, and protects tanks, and clears the space in the zone of possible use from firing points. There is no ideal technique, it is high time to massively send the BMP1 and BMP2 to the scrap, but we are fighting on them, and the Terminator has the main advantage over the BMP, namely the tank corps with more powerful armor and dynamic protection. And the plane or helicopter should be shot down by Shilki, Turguski, Torah and Buki. By the way, Roman, as a "shilochnik in reserve" I will reveal to you the "secret" ZSU23-4 Shilka is also completely devoid of armor. All her firepower is 4 23mm machine guns, and attempts to attach launchers for anti-aircraft missiles to the car from someone’s lack of intelligence ...
      1. +1
        21 August 2022 13: 59
        I observed the work of Shilka at the exercises, the cartridge cases like a river pours out of it, without bags it was for collection
      2. +1
        22 August 2022 04: 55
        The BMP-3 is loved by those who didn’t go there in the landing, it’s a mousetrap, you can’t get out of it, and even in equipment.
        1. +8
          22 August 2022 10: 39
          Just who drove the BMP-3 in deante and they love it, but there are no sofa warriors ..

          BMP-3 FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF THE PRACTICE


          If motorized infantry prefer to go on armor, then the open hatches of the amphibious assault unit BMP-3 turn into additional protection.

          Anyone, even an inexperienced driver, knows how a “penny” and a “dvuhchek” “wind” with their nose, how to turn the car so that it doesn’t catch a hole in the dive, and then you can pierce the shock absorbers and torsions with balancers scatter along the road or even “catch a dolphin” - dive into a puddle with your head.

          Peres on the BMP-3, you immediately feel that centering and balancing on it, thanks to the transfer of the engine to the stern, have changed for the better, and the use of double torsions in the undercarriage design further improved the driving performance.

          The good smoothness of the BMP-3 makes life easier not only for the driver, but also for the gunner-operator, who no longer needs to find a pause between jumps and dives, he can fire practically in polygon conditions, even when driving over bumps, pits and potholes. The gunner-operator does not live by the stabilizer.

          Another argument of the opponents of the BMP-3 is the location of the landing and the need to fully open the upper stern projection of the vehicle with the landing of troops on top of the engine.

          Well, let's look at it from the point of view of practice.

          Firstly, the landing force is located very comfortably for long marches - practically in the center of mass of the BMP, which means that motorized riflemen are not wound, as in a BMP with a front engine, where they are located on the long end of the lever. Let's ask an ordinary motorized rifleman: “What is it like for you, son, to fly in a “landing party” mixed with duffel bags, weapons and neighbors on a march of a hundred kilometers?
          Secondly, the exit through the engine is no more difficult than through tight feed doors or a ramp.

          Thirdly, in the conditions of local conflicts in a mountainous and wooded area, for example, in the Chechen Republic, when motorized infantry prefer to ride armor rather than inside the car, the open hatches of the troop compartment turn into an armor type of open top armored armor.
          https://2009-2020.oborona.ru/includes/periodics/maintheme/2013/0513/113510702/detail.shtml
          1. The comment was deleted.
            1. The comment was deleted.
              1. +4
                22 August 2022 16: 36
                Because Kurgan, Boomerang, remained prototypes, and the BMP-3 was at least somehow produced, so they ordered it. Do not order BMP-2, discontinued back in the 90s, although Iran produces them, you can buy from Iran
          2. 0
            5 September 2022 16: 09
            I would consider everything in the complex like MO at the training grounds
            battalion fortified area - in the defense of 3 companies for 27 BMP-3 in caponiers (self-digging)
            + reinforcement of defense by a tank company on 10 T-72B3 tanks for each BMP-3 platoon
            + reinforcement ATGM platoon 3 units. Chrysanthemum-S for each company, 1 unit.
            The 4th reconnaissance company for 9 BMP-3s is ready for reconnaissance in force
            + reinforcement tank platoon 3 tanks T-72B3
            + reinforcement platoon 2 BMPT and 1 ZRPK Tunguska-M1
            Not frail such reconnaissance in battle will turn out (!)
            firepower is simply redundant:
            9 100-mm launchers (72 ATGMs + 360 rounds), 3 125-mm (12 ATGMs + 54 rounds), 15 30-mm machine guns, 8 SAMs, 32 7.62x54 PKT, 4 30-mm AGS, 3 Kord machine guns 12,7mm
            1. 0
              6 September 2022 08: 47
              What you write is a general's game of soldiers, but in reality there are 2-3 units of any kind of BT and no more and a people to a platoon ..
              1. 0
                6 September 2022 09: 35
                disagree,
                in Kantemirovskaya, Tamanskaya or in ODON (Dzerzhinsky) divisions just like that
                1. -2
                  6 September 2022 09: 46
                  On show, yes, in real databases, no ..
                  1. 0
                    6 September 2022 10: 11
                    ODON does not show off (!)
                    former division commander - Melikov Sergey Alimovich - head of the Republic of Dagestan
                    I can arrange for you brainwashing
                    1. -2
                      6 September 2022 10: 50
                      YOU would moderate your ardor, how everything happens in real life, we see in NWO ..
          3. 0
            7 October 2022 15: 06
            The situation is strange, because the crews in the relatively comfortable Troikas, in the Classic 1st and 2nd BMPs, are burning equally senselessly, since none of the vehicles corresponds to the level of protection that is necessary for vehicles moving immediately behind tanks
            Moreover, the landing continues to ride on armor and not under its protection, which completely eliminates its presence
            So far, a complete inability to solve the problem of ensuring protection from modern (massive!) Weapons of destruction, even tanks, is being demonstrated, light armored vehicles, with the exception of representatives of the mobile echelon, are an illustrative example of illiteracy and negligence in solving the problems of ensuring the security, combat readiness and survivability of infantry, which so far forced to play an independent role on the battlefield
      3. +3
        25 August 2022 06: 49
        Quote: Thrifty
        Roman, sometimes you don't look like yourself at all!

        Let me put in my 3 cents.
        Roman's sniper "blinds" the BMPT, but the tank, the same sniper, cannot "blind"? For Roman, the BMP is not obliged to fight air targets, but the BMPT, for some reason, is obliged.
        Roman thought badly. Hence the biased approach.
        Ceteris paribus, the BMPT's survival rate in combat is an order of magnitude higher than that of any BMP. The firepower of the BMPT is much higher than that of any BMP. And let the cubes, squares, tori and other circles deal with helicopters and other "bayraktars".
    2. +12
      21 August 2022 08: 43
      Quote: squid
      can be even better - 1 or 2 barrels 57mm

      You don't need two barrels. Extra ammo consumption. They used to be placed in order to increase the likelihood of hitting due to imperfect sights. Now, thanks to computerized control systems and projectiles with programmable fuses, firing accuracy has been significantly increased and there is no need to install another barrel. In addition, this design makes it heavier and increases the dimensions of the combat vehicle.
      1. +8
        21 August 2022 10: 06
        Quote: musketone64
        You don't need two barrels. Extra ammo consumption.

        By the way, a variant of the "Terminator" with a 57-mm gun is being considered ... ("Terminator-4"?) I don't remember how many barrels there are, but I agree that one is enough with the proper rate of fire or "adjustable" rate of fire ...
        1. +8
          21 August 2022 12: 45
          One of the candidates for the BMPT is object 782 (correct if I'm wrong with the number)
          It had armament in the turret like that of the BMP-3 (30 + 100mm), good optics also on the sides, with the ability to look not only horizontally, but also upwards, and fire at these targets.
          In my opinion, it would be a good helper for a tank in the city (he will see the enemy in the alleys and on the floors of skyscrapers)
          1. +10
            21 August 2022 19: 07
            In my opinion, it would be a good helper for a tank in the city (he will see the enemy in the alleys and on the floors of skyscrapers)


            The disadvantage of this project stems from its advantage - the high firepower of a 100-mm gun, the automatic loader of which occupies a certain volume inside the armored hull, which could be allocated to another gunner, which was implemented on the Terminator. Plus, as I understand it, in the BMPT concept, the creators consciously tried to move away from placing ammunition that could detonate inside the hull, which made it possible to solve the age-old problem of domestic tanks - the explosion of ammunition, accompanied by the detachment of the tower and the death of the crew, and also significantly save on the installation of KAZ.

            At the same time, we should agree with the commentators below that in modern combat, the 30th 2A42 guns are no longer enough to guarantee the destruction of most of the armored vehicles of the NATO bloc countries presented today, which means that in the future we still have to increase the caliber of at least one of the main guns. However, I believe that here preference will still be given not to the 100-mm 2A70 gun, but to the 57-mm 2A90 gun of the "Derivation" complex, which, on the one hand, will allow maintaining the required rate of fire (especially if, as in the case of Bakhcha, it will go about the twin 2A90 with 2A42), and on the other hand, it will make it possible to continue to follow the idea of ​​minimizing the risk of ammo detonation (part of which can still be placed outside the armored volume). In addition, the implementation of a programmable 57-mm charge in the future will make it possible to abandon the use of automatic grenade launchers on the BMPT. However, all this, as they say, is a matter of a distant and by no means clear future.

            In general, it is necessary to understand that if our army is saturated with a sufficient number of mobile medium-protected armored vehicles, for example, the same BMP-3 (especially in modifications that reinforce side armor) and BTR-90, designed not only to deliver troops, but also capable of acting as independent mobile firing points, which, if necessary, can not only cover (namely, cover, and not support, as the old BMP-1 and BMP-2 do) the delivered troops, but also take on some of the functions of protecting other armored vehicles, then the need for the existence of such a class there would be no tank support fighting vehicle. However, let's be realistic - in the near future the situation is unlikely to change, and not only because the industry will not be able to provide the required number of BMP-3s, but also because thousands of BMP-1s and 2s will need to be put somewhere, along with MTLBs, it’s bad -poorly coping with the role of the main army minibus, as well as the T-72A, which, as you know, are not involved in upgrading to the B3M level, but which may well be used to create the BMPT. And if so, you need to seriously think about why the BMPT is needed at all.

            I will note right away that it is better not to talk about the role of the Terminator as an anti-aircraft gun at all. It is clear that if you wish, you can also hammer nails with a microscope, but it is still better to do it with a hammer. The same is true here. Of course, if it becomes possible to stop the threat from the air, the machine should take advantage of this opportunity, but nothing more. I would not purposefully pursue the destruction of enemy helicopters and drones - this is the prerogative of the air defense system and ZAK.

            So, since the air threat is not a priority for the BMPT, then what is? In my opinion, the primary and main goal of the BMPT is the enemy infantry and ATGM crews + light and medium armored vehicles that deliver and support fighters on the battlefield. As for enemy tanks, when meeting with them, the BMPT should, first of all, safely make its feet, if possible, discouraging the enemy from pursuing it. At first glance, she has everything she needs for this: ATGMs, smoke systems, 30-mm (in the future 57-mm) guns that can damage the tank’s optics and an aiming system that can detect this very enemy in a timely manner. Basically, it's not bad. And what about the infantry and ATGM crews? And everything is the same. Moreover, since the number of soldiers is a multiple of the number of tanks, and the infantry itself can move not only in the horizontal, but also in the vertical plane, occupying different floors of buildings and structures, more optical means are required to detect it, which led to the appearance of a second panoramic sight and two more gunner operators in the crew of the car. And here I am in solidarity with Roman, because. I think it's overkill. In addition, enumeration is absolutely not effective, because the means of visual observation and detection alone are objectively not enough today.

            What can be done here? Exactly the same thing that Roman suggested - to install a radar, only not the radar that is characteristic of anti-aircraft missile systems, but the one that is commonly called a portable ground reconnaissance station (I hope some readers are told something by the names PSNR-5 "Credo" or SBR-3 "Headlight"). These products entered service with our army back in Afghanistan, where they were equipped with AGS and NSVT crews and, in principle, they have proven themselves well. Their main task is to search, detect, track and determine the coordinates of moving ground targets. Moreover, targets can be understood as armored vehicles, as well as groups of soldiers or individuals. In fact, this is a small radar that monitors the ground situation around its position at a distance of approximately 50 m to 10 km (depending on the target). It is these products that could become the eyes and ears of the Terminator, in my opinion, that today are very lacking in the standard armament of the BMPT. It is clear that any radar on military equipment is a consumable, but you can try to protect it, for example, by implementing a mechanism for lifting and folding it, which, given the compact size of the radar, in my opinion, is not at all difficult to implement on the basis of the BMPT. As for the cost of retrofitting tank support vehicles with the same Headlamp (PV and VR versions), it seems that it will not turn out to be so prohibitive, at least with respect to the radar of anti-aircraft missile systems, as Roman sees it.
            1. +2
              21 August 2022 22: 20
              Quote: Dante
              The disadvantage of this project stems from its advantage - the high firepower of a 100-mm gun, the automatic loader of which occupies a certain volume inside the armored hull, which could be allocated to another gunner, which was implemented on the Terminator.

              You inattentively read my text. In this machine, two operators do not look forward (like the "Terminator"), but to the sides (2 places behind the tower with their own hatch, as can be seen in the photo).
              By the way, in terms of weapons.
              From a report from the ongoing exhibition, it was said that, as a result of the hostilities in Ukraine, the Army signed a contract for the purchase of a large batch of BMP-3s.
              I think, among other things, this is due to a good assessment of her set of weapons.
            2. +3
              22 August 2022 02: 43
              By the way, the PSNR 5 is installed both portable and on the BRM 1 K (in reconnaissance and reconnaissance battalions.) On the tower, from the back, a locator extends, the commander has the station itself. I was looking for targets on it, in principle, with even a little training of conscripts, it was possible to detect targets well, their azimuth and range. Steps are even heard in the headphones, and the howl of the shishiga motor (spotted) is generally, as under a horoscope, all trimmings are heard.
            3. +1
              25 August 2022 07: 04
              Quote: Dante

              At the same time, we should agree with the commentators below that in modern combat, the 30th 2A42 guns are no longer enough to guarantee the destruction of most of the armored vehicles of the NATO bloc countries presented today, which means that in the future we still have to increase the caliber of at least one of the main guns.

              The BMPT is designed to protect the tank from threats that the tank cannot fight "out of hand". And the BMPT operates along with the tank. Why can't a tank deal with threats that the BMPT can't deal with "out of hand"? By increasing the caliber of the BMPT weapons, you return to ... the tank. What's the point?
          2. +1
            22 August 2022 11: 03
            This version of the BMPT has one joint, namely the turret from the BMP-3 with its low armor resistance, the filling (melon-y) had to be installed inside the TANK turret, and not attach the BMP-3 turret to the tank hull .. According to the mind, it would be necessary to design in general a new tower sharpened to confront not "crowbars", but ATGMs! At the same time, make the tower with the maximum possible dimensions and armored volume, because the main claim to the current BMPT is the rapid consumption of ammo, and to eliminate this problem, you need an armored volume, from the fact that there is the most suitable tower from the t-90M with its developed aft niche, which is ideal to use for installation of another independent firing post in the form of a DBM which can be anything from PKT \ AGS to "Epoch" with 57mm, the same module will be the eyes of the commander on the battlefield (situational awareness is the main problem of armored vehicles) the composition of the control system can be anything from the telescope rod , radar systems such as "headlight" and up to 2-3 UAVs with the function of automatic takeoff / landing / charging .. Yes, all this will be expensive, but the time for cheap solutions has passed .. What the author offers is the cheapest ersatz solution at the moment and the right to life this has .. It would also be nice to have an automatic driving machine for a mechanic and a couple of video cameras aft, since reversing from under fire is the most important function of BT in today them DB. It’s not at all difficult and not expensive, and all this has been around for a long time ..
            1. 0
              31 August 2022 13: 23
              Quote: max702
              This version of the BMPT has one joint, namely the turret from the BMP-3 with its low armor resistance

              Is this a BMP-3 turret?!
              It only has weapons similar to the BMP-3, but certainly not a tower.
              1. 0
                1 September 2022 07: 10
                In fact, yes, there are some improvements, but you can immediately see the tank armor there.
        2. 0
          22 August 2022 10: 23
          Personally, when I see a BMPT, I ask myself: why are there 2 barrels? For 2A42, this means: - firstly, the double consumption rate of the already limited ammunition load, especially in an autonomous combat module,
          - secondly, the two barrels of this weapon with a rate of fire of more than 500 rounds per minute, while firing simultaneously, must create very large vibrations in the combat module, which, in turn, lead to a decrease in aiming accuracy and, as a result, to additional ammunition consumption, which exacerbates again, the problem of the rapid depletion of ammunition.
          For the 2A72, with its low rate of fire and recoil, both of these problems would be much less, although it is still not clear: is the fire impact of one 2A42 gun really not enough?
          And, as for the BMPT concept as a means of protection against aviation, for its implementation it would be possible to install on the T-72 a combat module from the Derivation-Air Defense self-propelled guns with its 57-mm gun and multi-channel means of detecting air targets. In this case, both as a vehicle for protection against air attacks and as a means against ground targets, the BMPT with a 57-mm gun would only win.
          1. 0
            25 August 2022 07: 15
            Quote: Ivan Mak_2

            Personally, when I see a BMPT, I ask myself: why are there 2 barrels? ,

            For guaranteed destruction of the target in a short burst.
            Do you believe in the composure of a gunner in the heat of battle? Me not.
            By analogy - why PPSh if there is a three-ruler? She has a longer sighting range and less ammo consumption. Yes, everything is the same - there is no time to aim. He poured out a burst, if he didn’t hit, then he forced him to stop shooting and hide.
      2. +19
        21 August 2022 10: 42
        I also think that one barrel in 30 mm. quite enough. But having a "short-barreled high-explosive gun" (LShO) would not hurt. Especially in urban combat.
        Yes, and about grenade launchers, the author threw shit in vain. I read reviews on the use of the Terminator in the NWO, then they are very satisfied with the work of the AG there, and it was they who brought the most necessary and unexpected positive result.
        1. -3
          21 August 2022 15: 13
          Quote: Gritsa
          I read reviews on the use of the Terminator in the NWO, then they are very satisfied with the work of the AG there, and it was they who brought the most necessary and unexpected positive result.

          Grenade launchers themselves are normal. But the fact that they were stuck as coursework is bullshit.
      3. 0
        21 August 2022 13: 32
        Analog caterpillar AK-630 vmazat
        1. +5
          21 August 2022 20: 36
          It is necessary to carry a huge container with cartridges on a trailer! If there is ammunition for the AK-630 in the tank corps, it will be enough for exactly half a minute of the battle ...
          1. +1
            22 August 2022 00: 37
            But what will be the fight?
          2. 0
            22 August 2022 20: 06
            Come on, with an ak weight of less than 4 tons and firing 2000 shells, there is nowhere to place ?, with a cutoff of 200 rounds, mines are normal, a volley of 3 seconds, with 2 seconds there will just be about 160-170 shells
          3. 0
            22 August 2022 21: 24
            [/ center] On the left is a duet, 10.000 rounds of mines, on the right is an ak630, on a barbette-type pedestal
        2. +1
          22 August 2022 00: 37
          Why be petty? There are wonderful AK-630M-2
          1. 0
            22 August 2022 20: 03
            I mean, a duet ?, 10k rounds per minute
        3. -2
          22 August 2022 09: 59
          high rate of fire, with a significant spread.
          As far as I understand, the spread was made on purpose to increase the chance of hitting a maneuvering target. As a result, the shells fly too wide, and the density of fire at a distance is low, despite thousands of rounds per minute.
          1. +1
            22 August 2022 18: 49
            Quote: BastaKarapuzikI
            As far as I understand, the spread was made on purpose to increase the chance of hitting a maneuvering target
            Dispersion caused not by the desire to increase the chance of hitting, but by the Gatling scheme itself - the centrifugal force from the rotation of the barrels forms a "jet"
            bullets / shells in the form of a cone.
          2. 0
            22 August 2022 21: 18
            In terms of spread: our PSKR (project 1041.0) on firing from ak630 at a distance of 1 km, a target * shield * 6 * 3 m steel sheet was hit perfectly (80%), at a distance of 1.5 nautical miles, the shield * hit about 30% of the shells, * large shield * (9 * 4m) the defeat was about a little more than 50%, which was also an excellent result.
            1. 0
              29 August 2022 23: 10
              AK-630 and AK-306 have a barrel length of 54 calibers.
              Information on Kortik was not found, and the 30-mm 2A42 gun has a barrel of 80 calibers.
              This affects the spread and accuracy, it should, in theory. Along with some other parameters.
              It can be seen that this is a concept, 5000 rounds per minute (or even 10 - duet), emphasis on the "cloud" of shells and all that. Well, the designers did not try to get sniper accuracy, noticeably. This was also mentioned in some documentary that the normalized spread was adopted intentionally. (It's hard to remember the title of the movie)
              NATO fast-firing cannons of a similar purpose have a barrel length from 74 to 80 calibers. It follows from this that the emphasis on the aiming system is greater than that of the 630.
    3. +7
      21 August 2022 09: 06
      Any increase in caliber is a decrease in the rate of fire and a decrease in ammunition. In the limit, you can not change anything.
      1. +8
        21 August 2022 10: 27
        Quote: Sergey Valov
        Any increase in caliber is a decrease in the rate of fire and a decrease in ammunition. In the limit, you can not change anything

        Any decrease in caliber and increase in the rate of fire leads to an overrun of ammunition, the range of destruction and a decrease in the impact of the ammunition on the target. It is necessary to work on a quick search for a target and its destruction at the maximum range with the minimum expenditure of rounds of ammunition.
        1. 0
          21 August 2022 18: 05
          Those. the same tank, but with an advanced multi-range technical vision system and a target recognition system.
        2. -4
          21 August 2022 18: 10
          The essence of supporting tanks by infantry is, in fact, additional eyes. And if you put a sufficiently effective optical-location station and an automatically controlled machine gun on the roof with a 360-degree sector on the tank, then the need for infantry support may disappear as such.
      2. 0
        24 August 2022 21: 03
        Any increase in caliber is a decrease in the rate of fire and a decrease in ammunition.

        Why go far, the Korean War - for Saber 6x12.7 for MiGs 1x37 + 2x23, our hit was much more deadly.
        1. 0
          24 August 2022 21: 37
          “Our hit was much more deadly” - it's up to you to hit. A question for backfilling - who has a higher probability of hitting - a MiG or a Saber? And then even more interesting - who are we shooting at? Bomber or fighter? What is the probability of hitting in this case, because the shooting conditions will be different. And the question is not idle - how many potential targets does each enemy have, against whom is a particular aircraft primarily intended? Fighters or bombers? The USSR at that time had almost no bombers, while the United States and England had thousands. Against what goals were these machines designed in the first place? You can continue for a very long time, this is a question not a comment. And the last - the armament of the aircraft and the land armored combat vehicle is a little bit of a thing.
    4. +1
      21 August 2022 09: 11
      Quote: squid
      can be even better

      Where is it better - nowhere wink .
      After all, military science does not allow tanks to attack without support - the tactics of using armored forces does not order. And support tanks in the attack and artillery, and aviation, and infantry, including fire 30-mm 2A42.
      Why else and BMPT?
      I think so, a protected fire weapon that can effectively solve fire missions when developing an attack in depth, where it will take some time to call artillery or aviation fire, but it is expensive.
      What kind of fire missions need to be helped to solve tanks - such an BMPT is needed. There is no need to invent the T-35 now.
      In my opinion, tanks themselves with a powerful 125-mm OFS can best hit infantry, RPGs, machine guns, and ATGM crews with direct fire.
      But in shelters, ravines, on hills, behind buildings, you need in battle formations a mortar gun, protected no worse than a tank, like Nona, only 152 mm, you may also need to cover the battle formations from army aviation and hit targets with long-range ATGMs - this is already another BMPT.
      And the illusion that 2 or 4 30-mm cannons can, they say, create a "sea of ​​​​fire", they say they can't raise the enemy's head, is an illusion from computer shooters. They will fire a thousand or two shells in a few minutes. And then what, replenishment of ammunition in battle formations is one of the most difficult tasks.
      And so, as history and life in general teach, different BMPTs are needed, like any weapon, depending on the tasks.
    5. -4
      21 August 2022 09: 19
      "Derivation" with a 57 mm cannon has already been shown. True, it is more for air defense, but also on the field than it is not for tank support.
      1. +3
        22 August 2022 06: 06
        Quote: Taimen
        .And if you put two guns,

        Just don’t forget to attach a trailer with shells in the back, yeah ... but better a couple of Urals with ammunition ....
    6. +14
      21 August 2022 16: 26
      Quote: squid
      can be even better - 1 or 2 barrels 57mm
      Well, it’s still not the same without birds. at least in an armored outer container, it is better to leave them

      Question to all commentators and the author - did any of you take part in the hostilities on the BMPT? Or at least,
      has access to real reports on the use of BMPTs in Ukraine, their damage, losses?
      At least have information on the work of the BMPT in Syria to justify this article.
    7. 0
      22 August 2022 00: 21
      I wonder why you need to fence the garden with a support car? What prevents tanks from giving 23mm or 30mm guns?

      Then they themselves will be able to solve many problems bmpt
    8. 0
      22 August 2022 00: 34
      Ask the carabels, they have everything ready for a long time - AK-725
    9. +1
      22 August 2022 22: 17
      1 or 2 barrels 57mm

      With 2 barrels you got excited No. (unless you call it the wunderwaffe "Mammoth" smile )
      And with one there are already prototypes.
      Minus - even one 57mm is heavy, the ammunition load is small.
      A good solution would be a 45-mm cannon under a telescopic cartridge, developed some time ago. But we don't hear from her now.
  2. +9
    21 August 2022 05: 39
    “Everyone shoots at a tank, because a tank is the most terrible and effective weapon on the battlefield.” So let's imagine that a tank is coming, a BMPT supporting it is walking nearby, and everyone is shooting at them.
    Mdya and the appearance of a robot next to the tank distracts about half of the fire from the tank. Let the robot be less protected and more vulnerable, but it allows the tank and people to survive.
    1. -2
      21 August 2022 06: 28
      Mdya and the appearance of a robot next to the tank distracts about half of the fire from the tank. Let the robot be less protected and more vulnerable, but it allows the tank and people to survive.

      When modifications of Shermans with a long gun appeared, they were included in the battle formations of ordinary ones. German tankers, on Tigers and Panthers, first of all knocked out dangerous long-barreled ones, and after the first battles, the Americans stopped mixing tank units with different tanks. The robot will not distract anything.
      1. +5
        21 August 2022 12: 53
        Isn't it a tale? In battle, not like in a shooting range, choose targets. Whoever climbed in your sector of fire, they will shoot with him. If we get lucky.
        1. 0
          24 August 2022 02: 41
          The Tiger has an advantage, even a 76mm long barrel does not take it in the forehead. Well, at certain distances. Therefore, yes, as in a dash from one and a half to two kilometers.
      2. -6
        21 August 2022 15: 46
        Quote: Konnick
        first of all, dangerous long-barreled ones were knocked out. The robot will not distract anything.
        belay How is your logic? Very bad, 2 points.
    2. -4
      21 August 2022 06: 40
      Addition. Article (+) of course. Problem + Solution. That's just the result: There were two tanks became one + armored self-propelled gun with an automatic gun. request Maybe still let the robot nearby ...
  3. +10
    21 August 2022 05: 48
    The author, what is the difference between a panoramic sight on a BMPT and the same panoramic sight on a tank?
    And yes, it is needed for the effective destruction of enemy forces, again, this is an element for further automation of the process of searching for and destroying the enemy, which will later make it possible to create unmanned weapons systems.
    Covering the module with armor is yes, it won’t hurt and will make the module resistant to at least 7,62 - 12,4 mm small arms fire.
  4. +2
    21 August 2022 05: 50
    Yes, it has long been clear to all normal people that all these lightly armored modules with populated rackets and bells and whistles sticking out in different directions are disabled by fragments and bullets from small arms. Apologists-defenders of these modules have always relied on the fact that such modules will fire without entering the affected area with small arms and light grenade launchers. Truth? The author writes correctly, only in the fantasies of those who have not been in real battles can this be imagined. Although no, there is a desert, with barmaley, an ideal place to use such a technique. Under such an application, it was most likely created.
  5. +2
    21 August 2022 05: 56
    "And I spoke, spoke"! And so the terminator is a tank support machine, so it is necessary to create a machine to support the terminators because they are vulnerable. And so on and on ad infinitum.
    1. -2
      22 August 2022 18: 07
      Quote: Sergey Averchenkov
      "And I spoke, spoke"! And so the terminator is a tank support machine, so it is necessary to create a machine to support the terminators because they are vulnerable. And so on and on ad infinitum.

      You missed an important moment - the support vehicle of the Terminator support vehicles! laughing The Terminator itself is just money for UVZ, nothing more.
  6. The comment was deleted.
  7. +3
    21 August 2022 06: 06
    You remembered well about the T-35! And here I wrote about the BMPT as a distant descendant of the T-28! Of all the multi-turreted tanks, for all the ambiguity of the concept, it is the T-28 that seems to me the most successful
    1. +3
      21 August 2022 14: 56
      T-28 - it was the most reliable and proven machine, on a par with BT and T-26.
      The heavy T-35 is a completely useless "self-propelled bunker".
      1. +1
        22 August 2022 05: 44
        I completely agree! about the T-35, my monograph appeared back in 1995. therefore, I don’t get into disputes about it! enough information for me! for the first 2 weeks of the war, irretrievable losses were 48 T-35s out of 63 issued. of them combat 6 or 7, plus 1 was missing. and what can be added here?
        1. +1
          22 August 2022 12: 55
          It's nice to deal with a person who understands the issue deeper than the WOT guy from the couch.
  8. -5
    21 August 2022 06: 20
    Another option is the BMPT, with the fighting compartment of the BMP-3, and instead of the troop compartment - missiles with a vertical launch. Against targets not protected by armor - air-blasted warheads, a la beam projectile (you don’t need to aim especially accurately), against armored targets - homing modules.
    1. 0
      21 August 2022 07: 13
      Well, after all, the T-15 has already been invented ..
      1. -3
        21 August 2022 08: 08
        That's what I'm talking about - you can do it quickly and relatively cheaply. For aiming, it is enough to set the angle and distance.
        1. +3
          21 August 2022 13: 01
          Yeah, also the type of projectile, wind, air temperature, charge temperature, elongation of the chamber, height above the sea, derivation, correction for a batch of shells, barrel bend, trunnion angle, etc. Otherwise, you will only get hit by accident. Sorry sights are long gone.
          1. +1
            21 August 2022 14: 14
            I see, here, as always, some writers have gathered and not readers at all. I'm not talking about understanding... laughing
          2. +2
            21 August 2022 15: 23
            Well, for direct fire, and even more so for a laser, they would fit. As for the rest, I agree, ordinary artillery with its advantages on shells. In general, the war is going on in the old fashioned way, only drones and large rockets have been added, and calculations on tablets instead of manual ones. This is the 20th century, far from the 21st, which requires an integrated approach of many types of reconnaissance and strike at the same time.
      2. 0
        21 August 2022 10: 48
        Quote: Sancho_SP
        Well, after all, the T-15 has already been invented ..

        It remains to come up with a combat module in a tank turret, as the author suggests.
    2. +4
      21 August 2022 08: 08
      Quote: whowhy
      Another option is the BMPT, with the fighting compartment of the BMP-3, and instead of the troop compartment - missiles with a vertical launch. Against targets not protected by armor - air-blasted warheads, a la beam projectile (you don’t need to aim especially accurately), against armored targets - homing modules.

      And don't forget the tank trawl! And behind in the articulated module PU Iskander !!!
      1. -4
        21 August 2022 09: 06
        "There is an elder in the garden, and there is an uncle in Kiev." lol
        By the way, the Americans have such missiles (about 20 years ago I watched a film about it), only, so to speak, in the ground version. Containers (very compact) with four 200mm rockets (a dozen of these will enter the troop compartment of an infantry fighting vehicle) are installed on the ground, not far from the defended position and guided by a laser beam.
  9. -19
    21 August 2022 06: 21
    They wanted the best, but it turned out as always.
  10. +22
    21 August 2022 06: 22
    I would like to first study the practice of using it in a real battle before drawing conclusions like the author's ... it's painfully radical ... down with the machine gun ... down with the AGS ... down with everything that stands for armor ... let's leave the 30 mm gun , caterpillars and armor with a crew. smile
    I was thinking how this tankette would defend itself if a kamikaze with an RPG jumps out of the gateway at 20 meters ... you can’t deploy the gun quickly ... the author threw out the machine gun and the AGS as unnecessary ... what the hell should I do?
    And if it will be like at the beginning of the SVO, when in the cities our tanks from above from the 2nd 3rd floors were fired upon by Ukrainian grenade launchers with obscenities.
    It was painful to watch the helplessness of our crews. request
    I would like to put the author in this tank and see how he, with one 30 mm cannon, will chase the Faustniks along the floors.
    1. -8
      21 August 2022 07: 04
      how he, with one 30 mm cannon, will chase the Faustniks on the floors
      I agree, this is absurd. In general, a 30 mm caliber is not needed against infantry, and the armored vehicles that it penetrates in Ukraine will all end. All new Bradleys, Cougars and others already have armor that is not penetrated by 30 mm caliber from heading angles.
      1. +5
        21 August 2022 09: 13
        “which does not break through with a caliber of 30 mm from heading angles” - it is not at all necessary to break through, it is quite enough to break viewing devices and jam the tower, and a flurry of fire from a small-caliber gun allows this.
        “Everything will end in Ukraine” - Ukraine is not our only adversary.
        1. -4
          21 August 2022 10: 48
          Ukraine is not our only adversary.
          Yes, that's just the point, it's not the only one. But it is there that all the old Soviet equipment is brought, which breaks through with a caliber of 30 mm. Bradley and Pumas are no longer available with this caliber. And the ability to break their surveillance devices is not enough consolation. In the west, guns of 40 and 50 mm caliber are being developed with might and main.
          1. 0
            24 August 2022 03: 24
            Bradley is the same canned food as the BMP. The fact that DZ visited her will not be any obstacle for a rapid-fire gun. The first hit, the triggering of the dz box and the next swarm of shells inside. DZ amerzy from RPG barmaley hang. On piece hits.
  11. -3
    21 August 2022 06: 38
    This is a general list, which is unpleasant for the tank as well. But what about a sequel?
    - automatic guns BMP / BTR caliber 20 mm, 23 mm, 30 mm, 57 mm;
    - aircraft guns of all calibers;
    - NURS on helicopters and attack aircraft;
    - heavy machine guns from 12,7 mm to 14,5 mm on armored personnel carriers and other equipment;
    - sniper rifles 12,7 mm;
    - 7,62 mm machine guns with corresponding bullets.

    This list applies to Armata as well. In which neither the breech of the gun nor the instruments are covered with real armor. The devices are covered only by a 5 mm thick anti-fragmentation casing, which consists of different parts and is held on pins with cotter pins.
    The panorama optics, that of the Terminator, that of the Armata, does not even hold a shot from a pistol, since it does not have bulletproof glass.
    1. +7
      21 August 2022 07: 35
      I advise you to find a photo of the Armatov module without external armor; the breech is a solid hefty piece of steel. There were photos from 15 years old at the rehearsal of the Parade.
      1. -6
        21 August 2022 08: 27
        solid hefty piece of steel

        Which is not much larger than the size of the breech. Look for yourself, if you find the thickness of the gun protection armor, let me know. You can't even put active armor there. It's just UVZ hiding. We will not see Armata anymore.
      2. +1
        22 August 2022 18: 15
        You can hang anything on the front copy.
    2. +7
      21 August 2022 13: 11
      And who has the optics covered with armor? Not a casing, but armor? Puma, Bradley, Leo, Abrams?
  12. +18
    21 August 2022 06: 40
    Not today there are many critics of modern technology, and especially those who have not fought or have not done anything worthwhile in their lives. The development of the Terminator concept comes from motorized riflemen and tankers who took part in the fighting.
    Several Terminators are fighting in the Donbas, and so far the responses are not even bad, though not from tankers, but from infantry units. For any technique, it is necessary to develop tactics for its effective use and reduce losses. Here they often say that the use of our ATGMs
    when aiming a missile before it hits the target, it puts operators under fire. And if the operators, firstly with the best view and even behind the armor? And given that our latest ATGMs have a range of up to 8-9 kilometers, this is not even bad.
    One of the latest developments at a distance of 6.5 km pierced the Abrams tower brought to Russia (from Iraq) in the forehead during tests.
    -2 was a training aircraft, however, with the chosen tactics of night bombing, it became formidable (consider it high-precision)
    weapons. So let the war and those whom they protect give an assessment to this or that weapon. And on the sofa ,, fighters ,,
    1. -4
      21 August 2022 08: 54
      Quote: svoroponov
      The development of the Terminator concept comes from motorized riflemen and tankers who took part in the fighting.

      40 years ago and in the mountainous Afghan area, this must be taken into account ..
      Quote: svoroponov
      when aiming a missile before it hits the target, it puts operators under fire. And if the operators, firstly with the best view and even behind the armor? And given that our latest ATGMs have a range of up to 8-9 kilometers, this is not even bad.

      what ATGMs at 9 km do you think it is possible to put on the Terminator and how will it capture the target at 9 km? for "ordinary" operators, the main plus is the overview and that they are not visible before the shot and therefore they are usually not shot at, and they have already come up with a remote control .. in the BMPT, the enemies will see much better, unlike them, and shoot at them at least ..
      Quote: svoroponov
      One of the latest developments at a distance of 6.5 km pierced the Abrams tower brought to Russia (from Iraq) in the forehead during tests.

      and if there was a KAZ, what would happen? maybe it is at least as good as the BMPT to protect the tank?
      Quote: svoroponov
      -2 was a training aircraft, however, with the chosen tactics of night bombing, it became formidable

      its use was not from a good life and forced .. besides, yes, it caused damage to the enemy, but it couldn’t destroy either a column or a bridge - the efficiency compared to an aircraft specially sharpened for this, for example IL-2, is minimal .. so "terrible" is a little loudly said .. so any weapon is formidable - it can kill ...
      1. -1
        21 August 2022 13: 51
        But for Po (U) -2, unlike Il, German pilots were immediately given an "iron cross" ... so the nemchura during the Second World War would not agree with you.
        1. +3
          21 August 2022 15: 25
          for each Po-2 they didn’t give an iron cross, this is not true, but it was equated in value with a fighter — it’s true — try to shoot it down at night — and they gave it for shooting down in the total count of the number, counting as a fighter. There is still a difference..
          1. -2
            21 August 2022 16: 31
            Considering the combat losses of the U-2 ... those awarded with crosses according to your scheme should not exist at all ... but nevertheless there were such.
            1. +4
              21 August 2022 17: 08
              You misunderstood me.. The Iron Cross (1st class and 2nd class for each separately) relied on 5 points scored. 0 points were given for the destruction of a damaged single-engine aircraft, 5 point for the destruction of a fighter, 1 points for a two-engine fighter, 2 points for a four-engine bomber, etc.; night victories were at a double "tariff". those. equated to a Po-3 fighter - at night, this is 2 points out of 2 .. if 5 points have already been scored, then yes, for a Po-3 shot down at night, it turns out they gave an iron cross ..
              1. 0
                21 August 2022 20: 04
                Maybe ... I will not argue.
      2. -7
        21 August 2022 15: 18
        The Terminator was not created 40 years ago. This is a relatively new development. Such a machine is not even bad, given its capabilities.
        The Israelis are only now counting on delivering KAZ Abrams. It wasn't there before.
        On the use of anti-tank missiles at a distance of up to 10 km. This development is already in place. It was this projectile-rocket of this development that showed such characteristics. In addition, up close it is easy to see who is shooting at you, but at a distance, this is already a problem. Especially during a fight. So you should not criticize, but just wait until the feedback on the application appears from the people who used the Terminator or from those whom he supported.
        Yes, and about capturing a target with a sight - these are lasers and optics, and they are already available in aiming devices. In addition, on our tanks and so on, if anyone noticed, devices appeared in the form of telescopic masts with cameras at the end.
        This just allows you to both hide the equipment when observing the shelter and inspect the space at longer distances. In addition, a tank missile has been developed - a projectile with a range of up to 16 km, fired - forgot, according to the coordinates from the UAV. It, the UAV, is launched by the tankers themselves to identify invisible targets at this range and fire.
        1. +2
          21 August 2022 15: 21
          Quote: svoroponov
          On the use of anti-tank missiles at a distance of up to 10 km. This development is already in place. It was this projectile-rocket of this development that showed such characteristics.

          You proposed it to the BMPT - and I ask - suppose it is - how will you aim it at a target 9 km away?

          PS
          Quote: svoroponov
          The development of the Terminator concept comes from motorized riflemen and tankers who took part in the fighting.

          You said the concept .. and it appeared in the 80s, I was guided by your words, and the BMPT itself is clear that already in the region of 2000
          1. -1
            22 August 2022 10: 28
            Well, with good sight optics with high magnification capabilities, and even more so not located near the ground like infantry complexes, this is not a problem at all. The terrain is not a smooth table with continuous vegetation such as forests. Go out into the fields and look around when the weather is fine. Or watch videos on the attack on settlements, taken from the ground showing the area.
            Now for the concept. That in the 80s that in the 2000s, it has not changed much. On marches and during attacks, help tanks. While the tanks are destroying the main targets, someone should work on secondary ones, but posing a direct threat to tanks and infantry, that is, the tank-Terminator-BMP link should work. How the Ka-52, Mi-28 and Mi-8 helicopters work in conjunction now. Complementing each other.
            In general, why argue, the battles show that the Terminators are fighting not badly. And if so, then such a machine is needed.
            1. +1
              22 August 2022 11: 07
              Quote: svoroponov
              and even more so not located near the ground, like in complexes for infantrymen

              Well, we are, and the article is precisely about ground deployment on BMPTs, and not about helicopters, we are talking with you, there are no problems from the air with a range of 9 km .. but from the ground, nowhere you will find 9 km of effective range on this planet ..
              Quote: svoroponov
              That in the 80s that in the 2000s, it has not changed much.

              and I spoke about the same .. here we are in solidarity ..
              Quote: svoroponov
              battles show that the Terminators are fighting not badly. And if so, then such a machine is needed.

              of course, it’s better with them than without them, but it’s much better if you add KAZ to the tank .. but if you choose, saving money - give KAZ to the tank or give BMPT - a very debatable question .. look .. example .. a tank is driving with BMPT .. urban development .. 500 m on the roof of a 5-storey building launcher, remote control on the 3rd floor in the back of the building .. launch .. an ATGM missile hits armored vehicles in 3-4 seconds. the question is - how will BMPT help? and KAZ will help ... and even without a remote control in 3-4 seconds, it is unlikely to be in time .. and if the system fired, did you forget? KAZ, most likely, will help in all cases described - BMPT most likely in none ..
              provided that there are still neither KAZ nor BMPT in the troops and money is limited, it is better to use resources on KAZ ..
              1. 0
                22 August 2022 17: 39
                ,, Donetsk ,, rocket-projectile from a smoothbore gun got the target at a distance of 16 km. And there was an episode when the target was destroyed within sight at a distance of 9 km, as they stated, almost at the maximum range. There are videos where a settlement and its surroundings are clearly visible from a high-rise at a distance of 15 km from it, in good weather. Equipment and optics in our armed forces do not stand still.

                As an example, MANPADS complexes will soon be put into service where it is not necessary to cool the missile head with nitrogen to capture it. That is, when aiming at a target, it will be enough to capture the target and hold it for a few seconds. At Stinger, before capturing, you must turn on the cooling first and this is the time. And after turning on the cooling, you have up to 30 seconds to capture and launch. Otherwise, your complex turns into a club. Our complexes will be spared from this.
                Yes, in general, a lot of interesting things appear, earlier it was considered impossible, but today it is. The same external control of a hypersonic missile traveling at great speed in dense layers of the atmosphere, in plasma, which shields everything, but they control it. But what about Holmes?
                1. 0
                  22 August 2022 19: 31
                  Quote: svoroponov
                  , Donetsk ,, rocket-projectile from a smoothbore gun got a target at a distance of 16 km.

                  I beg your pardon, but what is the name of this missile projectile? but let's not move away from discussing the capabilities of the BMPT to the capabilities of artillery in general .. Krasnopol can continue, but what does the ATGM on the BMPT have to do with it?
                  Quote: svoroponov
                  There are videos where a settlement is clearly visible from a high-rise. Equipment and optics in our armed forces do not stand still.

                  https://planetcalc.ru/1198/ это калькулятор прямой видимости, так вот-с земли БМПТ, Танк и т.д в среднем, не могут увидеть далее 5 км. а если с 5ти этажки как раз где то 15 км.. но БМПТ по высоткам не лазает..

                  but about it will appear, I propose to speak when it appears .. everyone has a lot of developments, both the striped ones and ours .. the main thing is that in the troops ..
                  1. +1
                    22 August 2022 22: 37
                    Again . The earth is not a pool table. There are valleys and heights. Why are they fighting for heights in the first place? That's right, in order to better survey the surroundings and better see the enemy. A retractable telescopic rod with an observation device with a sight was reported to be about 6 meters, well, two more gives the height of the car. Total already 8 meters. And if you are on a hill, then plus the height of this elevation. Just watch carefully the videos of the fighting and the explanations (interviews) that the military give and many questions will disappear.
                    And what does it mean, the BMPT does not climb high-rise buildings. There is an overwhelming number of hills with gentle slopes and not springboard towers or mine heaps. I won't share the dispute. Just watch the action videos carefully.
                    1. +1
                      23 August 2022 06: 37
                      currently the farthest aimed shot from a tank is 4700 meters https://dnpmag.com/2020/03/27/snaryad-letel-5-kilometrov-samyj-dalnij-vystrel-iz-tanka-v-istorii/ never nobody shot at 8-10 km from armored vehicles with aiming nothing. just because of the curvature of the earth, but for some reason the BMPT can do it for you .. Chrysanthemum ATGM - shoots at a maximum of 5-6 km - and this is a special complex, for a second .. in a combat situation, the characteristics are not ideal and by 20-30% always lower .. when you describe the capabilities of the BMPT, then I generally don’t understand why we need tanks and Chrysanthemums, if the BMPT is so cool .. in this scenario, as you described, it will be a BMPT assistant tank, and not vice versa ..
                      1. -1
                        23 August 2022 18: 21
                        BMPT is cool but not armored enough. There is no large weapon with sufficient ammunition. Yes, and her goals are slightly different. To help protect tanks and tank columns, and not only tank ones. It’s like a leader (tank) and a follower (BMPT). One attacks, the other covers.

                        Yes, about the telescopic rod with a camera. When extended, it reaches a maximum height of 12 meters. The block with it is attached to the side of the back of the case. Tests are already underway in combat conditions. Tanks T-90.
      3. +1
        21 August 2022 16: 07
        It depends on which bridge and depending on how many U-2s. He could also carry a 250kg land mine. I read the tactics of their use in echelons. One came in and threw lighting bombs, others bombed at the target. The results were impressive.
        1. +1
          21 August 2022 16: 19
          Vladimir, a lot can be done, but my main thought was that they were used as bombers not from a good life .. but a helicopter can be shot down from an old gun with a certain luck and skill ..
    2. +5
      21 August 2022 13: 17
      the use of our ATGMs
      when aiming a missile before it hits the target, puts operators under fire


      Watched dozens of videos from Syria. Both Thaw and Cornet. Ptur flies, spins, flashes, 10 seconds or more. Not once did the tank return fire, never even noticed. Before arrival.
  13. +1
    21 August 2022 06: 45
    And what? In Syria, a tank in a pair with a BMP-2 or Shilka works in urban areas, it turns out fine.
    1. +7
      21 August 2022 09: 02
      Do you think the conflict with the barmaley in the desert is comparable to the current one?
  14. +13
    21 August 2022 06: 53
    Recently, there was an article on VO about the BMPT terminator, where it was written in black and white that this machine had proven itself from the best side.
    The bmpt-tank link worked perfectly. BMPT detects the enemy faster and better, especially in urban areas, which means it works out before the tank on the enemy. They also worked well in the field with birds. Crews are happy with the car. At that time, not a single BMPT-terminator was lost. There is also infa that the BMPT, after several RPG hits, calmly left the battle, and the crew escaped with a slight fright. The car was repaired and continues to fight.
    I understand that the module does not have armor, maybe I will finalize it in the future.
    And as for the radar, what kind of message is this, tanks and infantry fighting vehicles don’t have radars either. Even if there was a radar, in what way and how should these machines protect themselves from a helicopter or UAV, 10-20 km from equipment?
    PS
    It’s expensive and it’s not necessary when underships are shoved into the Navy without normal air defense, etc., etc., which cost two or three times more than Chinese ones, but at the same time, Chinese ones are several times more powerful!
    1. 0
      21 August 2022 07: 10
      So it might be more logical then to provide the tank with surveillance equipment from the BMPT?
      1. +5
        21 August 2022 07: 16
        The tank has the same surveillance equipment as the BMPT. Therefore, BMPT is written as a technique for supporting a tank in battle. They work in conjunction tank + bmpt, so to speak, complement each other.
        Also, do not forget about the elevation angle of the tank barrel, especially important in urban areas.
        1. +2
          21 August 2022 07: 21
          And how does it then “spot the enemy better and faster”?
          1. The comment was deleted.
          2. +2
            21 August 2022 07: 25
            Quote: Sancho_SP
            And how does it then “spot the enemy better and faster”?

            Read the comments below from svp67. It says why.
  15. +4
    21 August 2022 06: 54
    The concept is as follows: as in the case of the Terminator, we take the T-72. Without removing the turret (in the sense of leaving the turret), we remove the cannon and replace it with the same two 30mm automatic cannons.
    Isn't it easier to book an uninhabited tower?
    A simple but merciless machine capable of flooding infantry and mortar positions with 30-mm shells, riddling infantry fighting vehicles or armored personnel carriers, being completely invulnerable to their shells and bullets.
    Why use 30 mm guns against infantry? Maybe limited to a caliber of 23 mm or even 12,7 mm? As for light armored vehicles, alas, all of the latter can hold 30 mm from heading angles.
    In general, the idea of ​​​​placing an ATGM on such a machine is from the evil one.
    Disagree. A self-defense weapon against a tank should be. I saw a tank - shoot. As long as you contact your own people and ask them to destroy it, the BMPT will already become scrap metal.
    Automatic grenade launchers are no less dubious
    Low ballistic weapons have their advantages, they are capable of hitting infantry in the trenches, although not very effective, here, of course, remotely detonated ammunition is better.
    My version of the BMPT of the future is the Tank Corps, a remote weapon module protected by armor. LShO-57 with remote detonation ammunition (this is the ability to hit entrenched infantry, which is so lacking in tanks and hit light armored vehicles with sub-caliber shells), a 23 mm rapid-fire aircraft gun, possibly double-barreled (this is a hurricane of fire on open infantry and more ammunition than 30 mm), 2 ATGMs (self-defense against tanks), machine gun.
    1. +4
      21 August 2022 07: 05
      Did I understand you correctly that LShO-57 should be combined with 23mm plus birds?
      If correct, then this machine will simply be a "bomb" with such a set of weapons.
      1. -1
        21 August 2022 07: 08
        Did I understand you correctly that LShO-57 should be combined with 23mm plus birds?
        Absolutely correct.
        1. 0
          21 August 2022 09: 10
          LShO-57 with remote detonation ammunition (this is the ability to hit entrenched infantry, which is so lacking in tanks and hit light armored vehicles with sub-caliber shells), a 23 mm rapid-fire aircraft gun, possibly double-barreled (this is a hurricane of fire on open infantry and more ammunition than 30 mm), 2 ATGMs (self-defense against tanks), machine gun.

          And why is the 23-mm cannon so dangerous for open infantry? She has a very low high-explosive fragmentation effect.
          I prefer a 45 or 57 mm automatic gun paired with a 12,7 mm CP plus a 7,62 mm machine gun (in the tank turret) and two ATGM launchers. Or abandon the idea of ​​a BMPT altogether, and create a "heavy" ZSU on a tank chassis with a 57-mm cannon and a radar to cover a heavy BT, primarily from dangerous small tactical UAVs - artillery spotters, helicopters and ASP and other ATGMs flying up from above. And heavy infantry fighting vehicles should deal with tank-hazardous ground targets, as they were originally conceived, in addition to transporting infantry, of course.
          1. -5
            21 August 2022 10: 44
            And why is the 23-mm cannon so dangerous for open infantry? She has a very low high-explosive fragmentation effect.
            I prefer a 45 or 57mm autocannon paired with a 12,7mm
            The 23mm cannon is capable of creating a sea of ​​fire. In fact, the 12,7 mm caliber is even better, but aircraft guns in this caliber are not currently produced in Russia, and for the BMPT it is the suppression effect that is needed so that the infantry can be mowed down and they are afraid to tear their heads off the ground. This is achieved by a high rate of fire, which gives either an aircraft weapon or several barrels, like the Terminator. But 2 separate machine guns or cannons are additional weight and volume. Another thing is an air gun, or a machine gun capable of providing the proper density of fire. We have this in caliber 23 mm, but not in caliber 12,7.
            As for the 57 mm caliber, there are some nuances, for example, a small ammunition load. Such a gun should be used to treat infantry in cover, with remotely detonated ammunition, or to hit light armored vehicles with sub-caliber weapons.
            There are no guns brought to mind in the 45 mm caliber.
            1. +3
              21 August 2022 11: 55
              Quote: Vadmir
              The 23mm cannon is capable of creating a sea of ​​fire.

              The question is how long it will be able to create a sea of ​​​​fire due to the increased consumption of ammo and overheating of the barrels.
              With the 57 mm gun, this is compensated by more effective ammunition. Especially with remote detonation.
              Here is how a similar Bofors cannon works on land and sea targets:
              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rldn9Hvzih4
              1. -2
                21 August 2022 12: 54
                With the 57 mm gun, this is compensated by more effective ammunition.
                Why are you arguing with me? I'm not against 57mm guns. I am for this gun. But if we are talking about the BMPT concept, which appeared as a result of the combat experience of the Afghan war, where a flurry of fire from Shilka helped solve many issues. A 57 mm caliber gun does not give such an effect. It has its advantages, but also its disadvantages. An installation that uses both a 57 mm LShO-57 and an aircraft gun of 23 mm caliber or an aircraft machine gun of 12,7 mm caliber. It solves the problem of both a flurry of fire and a remote detonation of ammunition and the defeat of light armored vehicles.
                If we were talking about the BMP, I would say that she only needs one 57 mm caliber gun. But for the BMPT, the combination of barrels of different calibers is fully justified.
                1. +3
                  21 August 2022 14: 01
                  Quote: Vadmir
                  But if we are talking about the BMPT concept, which appeared as a result of the combat experience of the Afghan war, where a flurry of fire from Shilka helped solve many issues. A 57 mm caliber gun does not give such an effect.

                  Shilka in the first place was the most effective in mountainous conditions when firing on the slopes of heights due to the high angle of elevation of the installation trunks and the high speed of their transfer in the right direction. And when the fragmentation effect was intensified due to the breakaway stone fragments above the heads of the militants who sat behind the shelters. If somewhere in an open field (desert), then, most likely, on some kind of caravans and shahidmobiles, and then --- at a long range, these guns have a very high dispersion of shells.
                  Therefore, I am in favor of the 57-mm caliber, which can provide a high fragmentation field above the target, as in the proposed video, if you looked. Extra barrels only complicate the system and limit the B / C of a particular gun and machine gun. Yes, and LShO - 57 is more likely not a cannon, but an increased-caliber automatic grenade launcher.
                  Quote: Vadmir
                  If we were talking about the BMP, I would say that she only needs one 57 mm caliber gun.

                  Well, I don’t know .... In the BMP, a significant space is occupied by a compartment for landing. And this means that it greatly limits the volume for B / C overall shots. Probably the "epoch" module for infantry fighting vehicles is still the best solution (German Puma, Israeli Nammer, American 30-mm Bushmaster).
          2. +3
            21 August 2022 10: 59
            Quote: musketone64
            generally abandon the idea of ​​​​BMPT, and create a "heavy" ZSU on a tank chassis with a 57-mm gun

            Why create? Maybe it's easier to shake off the dust from the drawings of the 50s?

            1. +3
              21 August 2022 11: 16
              Quote: Gritsa
              Why create? Maybe it's easier to shake off the dust from the drawings of the 50s?

              Everything new is well-forgotten old. Yes
              Just remove one gun, install a radar and a perfect FCS. By the way, it’s quite possible to hit tanks from it by demolishing all sorts of sights, sensors, DZ from its tower, up to KAZ.
    2. +2
      21 August 2022 07: 09
      A tank gun, especially with tricky projectiles (guided or programmable) - the best anti-personnel weapon among those listed;)

      Instead of one tank and one bmpt - it's better to have two tanks)
    3. -11
      21 August 2022 09: 33
      23 mm rapid-fire aircraft gun, possibly double-barreled (this is a hurricane of fire on open infantry and more ammunition than 30 mm), 2 ATGMs (self-defense against tanks), machine gun

      Does the infantry consist of complete insane people? Which chains run to the BMPT. They also have surprises in the form of ATGMs. Equipment, as shown by the battles in the Donbass, is needed with the ability to fire from a closed position, and in order to destroy the infantry, you do not need to go out into the line of sight, but calmly conduct intensive shelling from the AGS from a closed position from a conventional armored personnel carrier. We even need tanks with a short gun, with low ballistics and the ability to launch ATGMs through the barrel.
      1. +3
        21 August 2022 10: 54
        needed with the ability to fire from a closed position
        Such equipment already exists and is called artillery. But artillery alone cannot be defeated - direct contact combat also has to be waged, for this there are tanks, infantry fighting vehicles, infantry fighting vehicles and, in part, armored personnel carriers.
        1. -9
          21 August 2022 11: 02
          This technique already exists and it is called artillery

          Now there is no such equipment that, having the power of a good gun, is directly in the infantry formations and fires at the direction of the infantry.
          1. +3
            21 August 2022 11: 06
            and performs firing at the direction of the infantry.
            These are not problems of technology, but of communications and interaction between infantry and artillery.
    4. +5
      21 August 2022 17: 19
      Quote: Vadmir
      My version of the BMPT of the future is the Tank Corps, a remote weapon module protected by armor. LShO-57 with remote detonation ammunition (this is the ability to hit entrenched infantry, which is so lacking in tanks and hit light armored vehicles with sub-caliber shells), a 23 mm rapid-fire aircraft gun, possibly double-barreled (this is a hurricane of fire on open infantry and more ammunition than 30 mm), 2 ATGMs (self-defense against tanks), machine gun.

      Then motorized riflemen and tankers will say that 57-mm low ballistics is good, but not enough. And the 23 mm fragmentation action is too weak. And they will require increased firepower.
      And a 100 mm gun will appear on the BMPT (which at the same time will be made by ATGM launchers - primarily for pinpoint destruction of firing points) + a 30 mm machine gun ... stop, somewhere I have already seen this. smile
  16. -5
    21 August 2022 06: 57
    Yes, everything is simple: the Terminator combat module has no armor.

    And not only the Terminator, but also Almaty. They put the turret in the hull, calling it a combat module. You just need to increase the mass of the tank and stop calling Russian weapons imported words.
  17. +3
    21 August 2022 07: 06
    Does a tank need an escort on the battlefield? Needed! So the same protection is needed. The choice of weapons again depends on the goal ... Whom can we meet on the other side who strongly dislike tanks? Everyone.
    The article has no beginning and end...
  18. -4
    21 August 2022 07: 06
    So many times already chewed: bmpt is exclusively an ersatz of the transition period. And then, only in the situation when the chassis is available more than tank guns.

    The conditional heavy infantry fighting vehicle of the T-15 type is in no way inferior to it in anti-personnel properties, but it is also an infantry fighting vehicle.
    1. -1
      21 August 2022 07: 51
      If 15 mm caliber guns are installed on the T-57, then this BMP will surpass the Terminator in everything.
      1. +3
        21 August 2022 13: 44
        Already put.
        1. 0
          21 August 2022 14: 04
          Already put.
          Yes, it is clear what they put. The question is what will go into the series.
          1. 0
            21 August 2022 23: 46
            What would not put.

            The modern bmpt will be in the unit instead of the tank.

            But the T-15 - instead of the BMP-3.

            As be, it is obvious which replacement is more interesting.
            1. 0
              22 August 2022 00: 29
              But the T-15 - instead of the BMP-3.
              Is not a fact. Kurganets 25t then why was it developed? Most likely, the T-15 is intended for tank divisions. But motorized rifles will not receive it.
  19. +14
    21 August 2022 07: 15
    A more chaotic story about the BMPT has never been read. Here the truth is mixed with speculation mixed with simple misunderstanding and not knowledge.
    Everyone shoots at the tank. Considering that the Terminator is “only” 1 meter and 25 centimeters taller than the T-72, not only will everyone shoot at it, but it will also get hit more often.

    All in all????? And let's see
    The total height of the T-72B tank, along the cut of the anti-aircraft gun, behind which, by the way, the tank commander sits openly is 2800 mm, along the roof of the tank 2019 mm

    The height of the BMPT-72 at the edge of the panoramic device is 3440 mm (difference of 600 mm), the height of the roof of the combat module is 2743 mm (difference from 734 mm) ...

    But thanks to this particular sight, the BMPT gets a bunch of advantages over the T-72B
    And with the T-90M equipped with the same sight, the height difference is even smaller.

    Our BMPT is walking next to the tanks...

    Yes, nearby, but not in the same line, but behind the tanks at a distance of up to 100 meters. That is, covered by tanks
    And the last thing: it’s probably not worth saying how good it will be for the crew’s health if a 30-mm projectile hits a container in an ATGM, is it?
    And that will be? If the hatches are closed, then absolutely NOTHING, the author is somehow not embarrassed by the placement of anti-tank systems on our infantry fighting vehicles? There, the effect may be more sad, due to the thin armor of the roof

    I repeat: for sensible work on air targets, a radar is needed.
    The current conflict in Ukraine has already greatly shaken this confidence ... There are opportunities to work on air targets with barrage fire without using an expensive and large radar mirror
    And the T-35 is not a "land frigate", but a "land battleship", which all other tanks were supposed to follow.
    And before the war, our "land frigate" was the T-28. It was a completely normal car for that time, but not without flaws, but far from front and very useful both in Finnish and in the first period of the Second World War, especially in the snow near Moscow.

    If there is anything to compare the BMPT with, then not the T-60, but with "trench brooms" - double-turret tanks

  20. +10
    21 August 2022 07: 29
    There was a project in the iron, proposed by the Author; It was called Viper. Now restored and on the go.

    1. +3
      21 August 2022 09: 10
      This car immediately came to mind. In my opinion, an amateur - she is much smarter than the terminator. Why they abandoned this direction is not clear
      1. +3
        21 August 2022 11: 10
        Quote: Lykases1
        In my opinion, an amateur - she is much smarter than the terminator. Why they abandoned this direction is not clear

        This project has the same problem that the author pointed out - the guns are not inside the protected turret.
        1. +3
          21 August 2022 11: 15
          But at least they are covered with armor plates from the sides, and even dz.
          1. +1
            21 August 2022 13: 01
            Quote: Lykases1
            But at least they are covered with armor plates from the sides, and even dz.

            Then, one wonders, why does this unit need a tank turret, and with remote sensing?
            1. +1
              21 August 2022 14: 41
              So the tower is inhabited!
    2. +2
      21 August 2022 10: 41
      The tower is heavy, does it make sense to carry extra weight?
      1. -4
        21 August 2022 11: 11
        Well, yes, it’s better to let them destroy the module from the RPG, ATGM or anti-materials 12,7.
        1. +4
          21 August 2022 13: 28
          At VO, several times they gave a link to the film of an interview with Yakovlev (the designer of this BMPT), so, according to him, it was possible to fit into those tasks by weight only with weapons taken out from under the armor (the BMPT has higher crew protection than a tank, hence and the extra weight that had to be saved on weapon protection)
          1. -4
            21 August 2022 13: 55
            But you must admit that protecting the crew is not an end in itself! Who needs a tin can with weapons torn apart at the first hit?
  21. +6
    21 August 2022 07: 30
    All this is chatter about nothing, another comparison and folding of the "bricks" of performance characteristics, but to give solidity, historical facts (adapted to the author's theory) The criterion of necessity and usefulness is experience, combat experience. So you need to ask or wait for the conclusions of those who are fighting on it BMPT now just at this very time.
  22. +14
    21 August 2022 07: 48
    I did not expect such an unthought-out article from Roman. Well, yes, everyone is entitled to an opinion. But the author concentrated too much on the tactics of using tanks ala "an avalanche to the English Channel." Practice in the SVO showed that the tank basically plays the role of a protected mobile firing point. That is, it rolls out to the firing distance, shoots 5-6 shells and rolls back. At this moment, we hit the anti-tank guns with the enemy's means. Therefore, the most adequate tactic for using BMPTs is a massive fire impact with available weapons in any dangerous direction at a time when the tank is busy with its immediate task - the destruction of fortified enemy targets. In practice - preventive processing of greenery by area. By the way, flooding the nearest forest belt with a VOG30 stream to suppress potential grenade launchers is a very relevant task, and not stupid in Roman's opinion. For this, the 1,5-2 km range of the AGEES is enough.
    In this situation, Roman's reasoning looks strange - in his opinion, it is better to deprive the tanks of a serious fire cover for the fear of damaging a completely replaceable module.
    Regarding air defense, the author should not have concentrated so much on this task for the BMPT. At the tactical level, this task is solved by Strela-10 or MANPADS operators.
    In general, the article is interesting, but on the whole it reflects the still existing confusion and vacillation in opinion regarding the real capabilities of the Terminator
    1. -6
      21 August 2022 08: 02
      Practice in the SVO showed that the tank basically plays the role of a protected mobile firing point.
      Is this practice really that good? What we see now is more like the tactics of the First World War, perhaps, in conditions of continuous urban development, this is necessary. But mobile warfare has its undeniable advantages, especially in open areas. I think that within the framework of the NMD we will still see a maneuver war in the south of Ukraine.
      Regarding air defense, the author should not have concentrated so much on this task for the BMPT. At the tactical level, this task is solved by Strela-10 or MANPADS operators.
      In its current form, the Terminator is not able to solve the air defense task. But Strela-10, together with MANPADS, cannot cope with this, since planes and helicopters try not to get so close that they can be reached by MANPADS. Neither Strela-10 nor MANPADS can really fight against drones, but it is necessary to fight.
      1. +7
        21 August 2022 08: 15
        Is this practice really that good? What we see now is more like the tactics of the First World War

        You know, tactics are born on the battlefield. This is, so to speak, military evolution - all those who act erroneously die quickly. Tactics of World War I or the times of the Crusades - call it what you want. Given the availability of combat means and the conditions for their use, it is the most adequate. Avalanches of tanks with infantry running after them have sunk into oblivion.
        But Strela-10, together with MANPADS, cannot cope with this, since planes and helicopters try not to get so close,

        You just named just a positive factor in the presence of front-line air defense - enemy aviation is also forced to adapt. She has to operate from maximum range and from minimum heights. Which makes it much more difficult for her to hit single targets and reduces efficiency.
    2. -10
      21 August 2022 09: 37
      Practice in the SVO showed that the tank basically plays the role of a protected mobile firing point. That is, it rolls out to the firing distance, shoots 5-6 shells and rolls back. At this moment, he hits the anti-tank weapons of the enemy.

      German self-propelled guns such as Brumbar or Shtug would have completed this task without going into direct fire.
      1. +5
        21 August 2022 10: 07
        You are comparing warm to soft. What is the point of comparing a tank and self-propelled guns, especially in the specifics of shooting from closed positions? Let's start comparing the D-30 and the tank
        1. -13
          21 August 2022 10: 13
          I compare because the tank performs tasks that are unusual for it, these are self-propelled guns with low ballistics that we don’t have, so they drive the tank back and forth and which shoots, practically not having time to aim.
          1. +6
            21 August 2022 10: 19
            You don't have it. And we have 2S9, 2S3, 2S1, 2S35. Regarding "uncharacteristic tasks" - then let's explain why the OFB tank is in the stowage. In your alternative world, the tank seems to have the task of only fighting tanks
            1. -12
              21 August 2022 10: 30
              You don't have it. And we have 2S9, 2S3, 2S1, 2S35. Regarding "uncharacteristic tasks" - then let's explain why the OFB tank is in the stowage. In your alternative world, the tank seems to have the task of only fighting tanks

              These are howitzer systems for long-range artillery, we do not have self-propelled guns with a short-barreled gun of low ballistics, self-propelled guns for direct infantry support, and infantry in combat formations with a short firing range.
              1. +4
                21 August 2022 11: 39
                The range of howitzer artillery is changed by the size of the powder charge.
                1. -10
                  21 August 2022 11: 48
                  I'm talking about self-propelled guns with a unitary cartridge and a gun. And next to the infantry, and not 20 km away.
                  1. +3
                    21 August 2022 12: 21
                    I would like to remind you that the unforgettable and widely used during the NWO 2S3 "Acacia" has a sight for direct fire. Yesterday they posted a photo where the 203-mm Malka hits with direct fire, though in the field, and not on the streets of Berlin as in 1945.
                    And why did you suddenly need a unitary cartridge?
                    1. -6
                      21 August 2022 12: 38
                      The unitary cartridge asked for more Rotmistrov for the IS-2.
                      To increase the rate of fire. You don’t understand the meaning of a low ballistics gun, it’s a short barrel, which from a closed position can shoot along a low trajectory, for example, into a pillbox embrasure located at a distance of 500 meters. Those. by direct target designation of the infantry. These self-propelled guns with tank armor should be escorted to infantry units for operational fire support.
                      1. +3
                        21 August 2022 12: 50
                        It still needs to be seen who is here and what they do not understand. Do you dream about the "Bakhcha" module with its 100-mm low-ballistic gun, but a tank chassis? This was also offered. The client just didn't like it.
                      2. +5
                        21 August 2022 13: 36
                        Quote: Konnick
                        You don’t understand the meaning of a low ballistics gun, it’s a short barrel that can fire at a low trajectory from a closed position ........
                        These tasks are now being solved by mortars.
                      3. +2
                        21 August 2022 13: 58
                        Konnick, where did you come up with all this!?! The bunker is not a target that suddenly pops up on the battlefield. The artillerymen know about it, a week before the offensive, they do not need any target designation from the infantry to include it in the list of priority targets. Shoot direct fire only, concrete slaughter, caliber 152 and above, full charge, gun with the maximum available ballistics from a distance of about a kilometer. Consumption, depending on the class of structure, from 10 to 50 shells.
              2. -2
                21 August 2022 13: 46
                The "low ballistics" you dreamed of is provided by a variable charge, and not by a short barrel. Acacia, Carnation, Nona.
      2. The comment was deleted.
      3. +4
        21 August 2022 14: 18
        Quote: Konnick
        German self-propelled guns such as Brumbar or Shtug would have completed this task without going into direct fire.

        Firstly, the Sturmpanzer IV, like the Stug III / IV, was intended to support infantry and not tanks. And Stug, in addition, is just milking the support of the attacking ranks. That is, it was just direct fire ... and yes ... the StuG had a short gun only at an early modification ... The Sturmpanzer, in the terminology of the Anglo-Saxons BRUMMBAR, did not show itself in any particular way. Moreover, he fired mainly along a flat trajectory, because there was a 152 mm mortar gun.
  23. -12
    21 August 2022 07: 56
    I think that the Bandera "Azovets", ridiculed at the time, is more suitable for the role of a tank support vehicle than the hyped "Terminator".
    For the BMPT, you need a small troop compartment with a convenient entry and exit. There will always be someone to carry there, for example, the crew of a damaged tank or the calculation of ATGMs, RPOs, sappers with explosives, a group of infantry attack aircraft.
    Further, you need a good overview in all directions at the same time, it will be possible to use the BMPT as a commander’s vehicle, for example, a tank platoon.
    And third. the presence of at least two independent firing points.
    That's when he will really support the tanks. And now this is tantamount to, for example, making the KV-1943 in 1, but instead of the then required 85mm gun, equip it with a twin forty-five, two "maxims", and a tin basket for fighters with anti-tank grenades. And all this in one tower.
    1. +8
      21 August 2022 10: 14
      You apparently did not understand the subject of discussion. BMPT is a tank support vehicle. And you just described a TBMP like the Israeli Hamer or the German Marder. They are completely different cars.
      1. 0
        21 August 2022 11: 43
        It’s just that everything is clear with him, only for unclear reasons, the Azovets was taken as an example, and not the BMO-T, on which, in addition, more powerful weapons can be hung.
  24. +4
    21 August 2022 08: 09
    ATGM "Attack"

    Even more meager value of "Attack" as an air defense system
    These two quotes demonstrate the complete nonsense of the article, the incompetence of the author laughing
  25. -9
    21 August 2022 08: 12
    I agree with the author that if we are talking about a tank support vehicle / means, then this vehicle should complement the capabilities of tanks, but not duplicate them. Thus, the presence of a ptur looks redundant, because with the armored targets of the enemy, obviously, the tank itself must fight. Is an AGS necessary? Probably yes, until 30mm works perfectly reliably.
    1. +3
      21 August 2022 13: 50
      Quote: moscowp
      if we are talking about a tank support vehicle / means, then this vehicle should complement the capabilities of tanks, but not duplicate them .....
      First of all, the BMPT must be very big-eyed in order to notice the enemy in time.
      Secondly, to be able to destroy the enemy, even if it is a tank (do not shout on the radio to the commander of our tank that he is already aiming at him and from where).
  26. +4
    21 August 2022 08: 14
    There was a similar thread a couple of weeks ago.
    I think it was removed.
    Apparently they didn't just remove it.
  27. +9
    21 August 2022 08: 14
    I immediately realized - who is the author - the most important tanker in the world. I did not read it (the previous "expert" assessments of this author were enough for understanding).
  28. +8
    21 August 2022 08: 16
    Many years ago, on the same resource, they buttoned up the topic that tanks are yesterday, have outlived themselves, etc. All these lamentations about the unsuitability of certain types of weapons remind me of the chatter of my hunter friends who, having bought an imported barrel, lift it up to heaven, blaming yesterday's Tiger, SKS, and Mosin, although a friend got game from a tiger no worse than from imports. To the question about the Second World War and the Mosin rifle, with SVT, they say how then the sniper worked and the war was won with such "crooked" Trunks, he did not receive an answer. As my grandfather said, (not a bad gun, but a bad shooter) to one young hunter, returning his gun, which he cursed. So it is in this case.
  29. +6
    21 August 2022 08: 22
    When the Americans were offered to adopt the Maxim machine gun, they refused. The reason was economic - a big waste of cartridges! Who will now refuse a machine gun, an assault rifle for economic reasons. I think these stories are very similar. P/S. "What we have we do not store, we lose, we cry." It may also refuse hypersound - it is very expensive if you divide the cost by speed.
  30. -5
    21 August 2022 08: 23
    I agree with the author, it’s sensible, but the T-72B3M asks for a module with a twin GSh-23, it is more compact, has more shells and is no less effective than a 30mm gun
  31. -4
    21 August 2022 08: 25
    Like all modern weapons, armored vehicles lack artificial intelligence for one hundred percent use of modern weapons! Human physiology is limited and cannot be improved!
  32. +7
    21 August 2022 08: 34
    Skomorokhov, after having reformatted all of Europe in his previous opus, is now taking on the Terminators. Approximately with the same success, there are many letters, little meaning. Writing for the sake of writing.
    1. -1
      21 August 2022 14: 36
      Quote: Adagka
      Skomorokhov, after having reformatted all of Europe in his previous opus, is now taking on the Terminators. Approximately with the same success, there are many letters, little meaning. Writing for the sake of writing.

      Well, why ... you can also say how bad everything is with us.
  33. +8
    21 August 2022 08: 35
    I read exactly to the moment where the defenselessness of the combat module is reproached. I immediately remembered the tests of the BMP-2, when the 30mm gun swept away all the aiming personal belongings from the tank turret, nullifying its combat value. This is the Achilles heel of ALL tanks. And any combat module with thermal imagers, various sensors, etc., is vulnerable. Therefore, to say that one of the main disadvantages of the "Terminator" is the vulnerability of the combat module - for me, it's so far-fetched. Any type of weapon consists of compromises, a balance of minuses and pluses. And if the usefulness, stability in battle is higher than the minus from the hypothetical vulnerability of the combat module, then is it worth asserting the inferiority of this weapon ???
    What, it’s better to pull BMPs with tanks, how cheaper is the analogue, where are they really suicide bombers ??
    Minus article. hi Roman got lost in three pines. My personal opinion
  34. -1
    21 August 2022 08: 37
    Quote: Vadmir
    All new Bradleys, Cougars and others already have armor that is not penetrated by 30 mm caliber from heading angles.

    What are you talking about? I read a lot of American agitation.
  35. -4
    21 August 2022 08: 40
    Quote: Sergey_tactics
    There, the effect may be more sad, due to the thin armor of the roof

    Are you aware that the ATGM container is loaded from inside the turret through a special hatch before firing?
  36. -1
    21 August 2022 08: 41
    It can be seen that the generals in the army are the same as the author. Therefore, we are fighting on Soviet "galoshes" !! Terminators are already fighting in the NWO. Well, tell me how, and then "There is no point in combining the qualities of several others in one car," engage in verbiage.
  37. +3
    21 August 2022 08: 41
    And where did Algeria look after buying more than a hundred Terminators. Saudi sheikhs have white camels, Algeria has Terminators. Arab show-offs?
  38. -3
    21 August 2022 08: 44
    The article is not about anything. The authors of the cuts on the BMPT topic, and they are known, should be put up against the wall. For example, to deal with the Stugna ATGM crews, which are located in field shelters and behind the reverse slopes of terrain folds.
  39. -10
    21 August 2022 08: 49
    I completely agree with the author, the same with the T-14 on the frontal armor of the electronic eye, even a loser will get into it, and then ???
  40. 0
    21 August 2022 08: 58
    What a tin in the comments and the article.

    In place of the BMPT there should be an BMP, and not one, but three.
    Well, remember, a standard SME, three infantry battalions and one tank battalion, in each platoon one tank, plus attached equipment
    In view of the fact that someone at the top decided that BMPs should float, the weight of the BMP stopped at the border of about 20 tons, with appropriate security. And from here the legs of all sorts of surrogates grow, such as BMPT. A normal infantry fighting vehicle should go on a par with tanks, not being afraid of RPGs and ATGMs of the Fagot / Milan / Javelin level in safe maneuvering angles. Sub-caliber 120-125mm yes, something serious is needed against him and his carrier.

    I strongly disagree with the article, we need not BMPTs with a new version of weapons, but BMPs with protection from cumulatives at the MBT level. The very idea of ​​the BMP is stillborn.
  41. 0
    21 August 2022 09: 05
    You can follow the path of Israel. There is already a Merkava with troops there. The only thing will have to change the entire BTT base.
  42. +4
    21 August 2022 09: 05
    In general, the “3 in one” design itself is flawed in itself. This is not a Nescafe, but a combat vehicle.

    It must be understood that this is a creative article-provocation from Roman. The people should be stirred up by the responses.
    What I would like to say here personally. Firstly, a car created on a successful and technological basis cannot a priori be too expensive. This is not "Armata", where they hurried to make a "platform" on a complex, expensive and crude base. If we also remember the T-35, since the BMP T-15 in terms of size and weight corresponds to it.

    Secondly, the BMPT is not "3 in one", the main task of this vehicle is specialized fire support for tanks. If you start speculation, then tanks "do not need" auxiliary machine guns, especially large-caliber ones on the roof of the tower, where they are mainly for anti-aircraft purposes (why "squirm", because there are "Shilki", "Tunguska", "Tor").

    Last, I will express my personal opinion. BMPT in conjunction with a heavy armored personnel carrier and can form a tandem heavy infantry fighting vehicle, where the BMPT will have a fire specialization, and a heavy armored personnel carrier with special infantry assault groups will have a protected transport specialization. All this on a single tank base, like a platform. In this case, a heavy armored personnel carrier should have a reduced landing force, which optimizes the dimensions, increases comfort and minimizes possible losses in the event of a vehicle hit with an assault force on board. Pushing exactly the squad (why not a platoon then), dogma, anachronism.

    There are airborne vehicles, wheeled armored personnel carriers, other equipment for delivery to the battlefield, there are different criteria. Next to the tanks, even in the second line, there is nothing to do with any heavy infantry fighting vehicles. The whole point of the BMP is precisely in versatility and mobility, this is the best example of the BMP-3 and for the Airborne Forces BMD-4M. Raids, marches, capture of bridgeheads, but hardly to work with tanks.

    For clarity, the vehicle on a tank base, like a "tandem heavy infantry fighting vehicle." The role of an armored personnel carrier could be a modified BMO-T for 5-6 paratroopers. In the role of specialized fire support, a non-landing version with a combat module and enhanced protection or directly BMPT of the "Terminator" type.




    It is also possible to create (revive) a "rocket tank" on the basis of the BMPT, as was the IT-1, where the auxiliary weapon will be an automatic 57 mm cannon and machine gun, and the main compact missiles.
    1. +2
      21 August 2022 11: 13
      A very reasonable thought. At the present level, the creation of a machine like IT-1 is quite possible and reasonable.
      1. 0
        21 August 2022 17: 09
        Quote: Panzerjager
        At the present level, the creation of a machine like IT-1 is quite possible and reasonable.
        In the Navy, the main caliber was replaced by missiles. In tanks, a reasonable gun limit is 140-152 mm. Further, it will be unacceptable to increase the weight and dimensions of the machine. Namely, rockets, instead of a large and heavy weapon, can be a solution to the problem. It is already possible to create a new "rocket tank" on the successful T-72/T-90 base, in which all the shortcomings of the IT-1 will be eliminated.
        Approximate appearance of such a machine with a multiply charged missile system, a 57 mm automatic cannon and a machine gun.

    2. +2
      21 August 2022 12: 04
      I largely agree. The machine is needed with as many landing places as possible, roughly based on the BMO-T, but with the Epoch combat module and a 57-mm cannon. There was an article that the BMP-3 module had already passed tests.
      Additional landing places are just what is needed to evacuate the crews of damaged vehicles and to control automatic grenade launchers.
      We need an operator as part of the crew and to control the drone.
      And additional automatic grenade launchers still need to manage to be placed so that the main tower does not interfere and the firing angles are as large as possible.
      If the 30 mm guns are removed and they should replace the grenade launchers, but I would like to finally see a more powerful and reliable 40 mm Balkan. From grenade launchers, it is also necessary to process all window openings in a row in the city and forest belts outside the city.
      1. -1
        21 August 2022 14: 15
        Burn down all the apartments in a row? What for ? From where they shoot, they answer there. BC is also not endless ....
        1. +1
          21 August 2022 16: 29
          Why shoot all the windows in a row? And I didn’t write about apartments. To secure the flanks and ease the assault, that's why. That's exactly what they do, they don't listen to strange questions from abroad. Even forest plantations are hammered in a row, for prevention, let alone windows.
          1. -1
            21 August 2022 17: 18
            Two windows and the whole apartment is a bedroom. But I saw something else on the videos from Mariupol. There are 30 apartments in the house, and 2,3,5 ridges. Only where the firing points were. In others, people will install glass and calmly spend the winter.
            1. 0
              21 August 2022 17: 27
              Discuss humanism with someone else. Before a tank or other combat vehicle enters, all windows of all buildings must be processed. Give thanks for the need for such an Armed Forces, it is yours who hide behind civilians and force them to use such tactics.
              1. +1
                21 August 2022 17: 43
                The Russians have humanism, but rather they are given such a combat mission - to beat the enemy, but without unnecessary casualties, civilian suffering and destruction. Everyone sees that there is. So they don’t shoot anywhere, I even see, as long as 30 mm is possible, they don’t use a large caliber. Because the 125 mm is already destroying the entire entrance, destroy the supporting structure. A 30 mm gun is only a panel, but not a house beam.
                1. 0
                  21 August 2022 17: 56
                  I don’t know where you got your information about humanism among the Russians, if somewhere they don’t process all the windows in a row, then because of a lack of understanding of the need for this, not for humanitarian reasons. Residents hide in basements, and there is no one to feel sorry for in the windows of both industrial and domestic and residential buildings.
                  1. -1
                    22 August 2022 00: 37
                    Humanism - that's what you said. I said - such an order. There is no need, time and BP to shoot at all windows. And only where did they open fire. On all the videos from Mariupol it can be seen
      2. 0
        21 August 2022 17: 30
        Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich
        The car is needed with as many landing places as possible,
        Sergey, you don’t need a lot of landing places for a vehicle working with tanks.
        Just the opposite, as in a car, 5-6 paratroopers. I have already noted that this will optimize the dimensions of the vehicle, without sacrificing armor and accommodation comfort, especially when it comes to a tank base, and specifically based on the BMO-T.
        The whole point of the topic "tandem scheme" is the separation of "flies from cutlets", where an armored personnel carrier without a combat module specializes as a transport with high protection, and an infantry fighting vehicle without an airborne compartment, but with a combat module, as a specialized fire support vehicle with a high level of protection ( can immediately work next to the tanks).

        Mastodon type BMP T-15, only creates the illusion of high protection. With infantry inside, this is a flawed armored personnel carrier due to the inserted overall and heavy combat module. Without infantry, this is a flawed BMPT, since it uses a volume for the troop compartment, and in terms of armament it will be inferior to the same "Terminator". In addition, the defeat of such an overall target with a landing force will be a "mass grave" for the infantry inside. Where can this monster be used? In parades, as similar in size and weight to the earlier T-35, or as a "police tank" against terrorists. The rest I have already said above. I will only emphasize that a heavy infantry fighting vehicle, neither fish nor meat, needs either universal, maneuverable infantry fighting vehicles, or specialized vehicles for operating with tanks, infantry fighting vehicles and heavy armored personnel carriers with special landing assault groups (in the second line).
        1. -2
          21 August 2022 17: 39
          Nothing is clear, although there are many letters. The machine based on the BMO-T is not satisfied, as is the machine in the form of the T-15. What then is needed?
          1. 0
            22 August 2022 07: 37
            Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich
            What then is needed?
            A heavy armored personnel carrier, and I’m just for a variant similar to the BMO-T, with a landing for 5-6 people, and not for a squad of 10-12.
            I said so.
            Sergey, you don’t need a lot of landing places for a vehicle working with tanks.
            Just the opposite, as in a car, 5-6 paratroopers. I have already noted that this will optimize the dimensions of the vehicle, without sacrificing armor and accommodation comfort, especially when it comes to a tank base, and specifically based on the BMO-T.
      3. 0
        23 August 2022 10: 57
        Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich
        From grenade launchers, it is also necessary to process all window openings in a row in the city and forest belts outside the city.

        how many shells will you put in the BO? well, even if it’s 80 .. shooting at each window of the side of the 5-story building facing you, even 1 shell, this is just 1 house .. and if you need to go through the street from 5 floors? and if just the enemies go deep into the house for a while - until their window "passes through"? something you got excited about every window ..
        1. -2
          23 August 2022 11: 19
          What shells? The ammunition load of small-caliber guns is in the hundreds, and 80 shells is not clear what. Window openings should be processed just so that you are not fired from a grenade launcher from above. And take a closer look, according to archived videos, to how armored personnel carriers fired in Mariupol, just one shot through each window. Moreover, even tanks processed low-rise buildings in a row.
          Just one house? If one ammunition load could solve problems with every house.
          In general, such logic is touching, like let's wait for the flash of a shot from the window. When you wait, it may be too late.
          1. 0
            23 August 2022 12: 53
            57-mm is a projectile and not very small - I'm talking about them. At the beginning of processing, there are 1,2,3 windows in turn, the enemy in the 11th window will simply go into the entrance, behind the 2nd-3rd wall, and then return .. and if on the roof? what if around the corner? and if he is in the 25th window and manages to shoot with an RPG before his turn comes? it is useless to fill everything with lead indiscriminately in the city, in turn, there is little sense in the end. Therefore, the city is difficult for combat - potential firing points are the sea and the relocation of the enemy is hidden - as a rule, it is not difficult, you still can’t do without infantry ..
            Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich
            In general, such logic is touching, like let's wait for the flash of a shot from the window. When you wait, it may be too late.

            otherwise it won’t work, if you don’t demolish all the houses first .. the second option is to occupy everything with infantry, and armored vehicles in support of detected targets, but these are losses ..
  43. +2
    21 August 2022 09: 23
    I put the question to a vote.
    Who for that Schaub to accept as a basis?
    Who for that Schaub to accept at a whole?
    And now in the case.
    Military tests have been (or are being) carried out, i.e. Statistical material has already been collected, which the specialists of the specialized institute, (I'm not afraid of this word) experts are analyzing (or already). After that, the conclusions are reported and a responsible decision is made.
    This is what democracy is.
  44. +3
    21 August 2022 09: 49
    BMPT is good and necessary equipment on the battlefield, even in conjunction with a tank ... but even independently ... as a new reading of the use of Shilka in urban battles and against snipers
  45. -4
    21 August 2022 09: 59
    Quote: Sirocco
    Many years ago, on the same resource, they buttoned up the topic that tanks are yesterday, have outlived themselves, etc. All these lamentations about the unsuitability of certain types of weapons remind me of the chatter of my hunter friends who, having bought an imported barrel, lift it up to heaven, blaming yesterday's Tiger, SKS, and Mosin, although a friend got game from a tiger no worse than from imports. To the question about the Second World War and the Mosin rifle, with SVT, they say how then the sniper worked and the war was won with such "crooked" Trunks, he did not receive an answer. As my grandfather said, (not a bad gun, but a bad shooter) to one young hunter, returning his gun, which he cursed. So it is in this case.

    Incorrect comparison. I had a lot of domestic trunks, as a result of natural selection, only foreign cars remained. They are more user friendly. Modern domestic crafts - unfortunately - are worse than even Turkish-made products. At the same time, the manufacturer didn’t give a damn about the user’s Wishlist from a high bell tower, which is why you have to saw and plan what you bought yourself, eliminating the hard-to-remove.
    1. -1
      22 August 2022 10: 52
      how do foreign cars behave when they get into the water, into the sand, into the swamp?
      1. 0
        22 August 2022 12: 54
        I'm not going to swim in the mud with them, and for my own money. It is more important to correctly and conveniently install the latest generation nightlight / warmer with the ability to remove / install without changing the STP, put good optics glasses from a well-known brand so that the eyes do not deteriorate and, by pressing the trigger, it is guaranteed to hit the target many times with a cartridge with a decent, and not diluted with dry chicken manure, gunpowder with a bullet of the same geometry and weight.
        There is also a desire to shoot from an individually tailored stock, with the ability to install bipods, searchlights, levels, etc. - pleasant for yourself, your favorite color, with rhinestones and an engraved image of your favorite animal.
        Here is such a funny fart monocle, I don’t like crowbars drilled on a planed birch log, which are ashamed to take into the forest - the crows will laugh.
  46. +1
    21 August 2022 10: 03
    I recommend reading the interview with the creator of the frame, what they did in general and everything will fall into place.
    I would shoot the designer sad
    1. 0
      21 August 2022 17: 30
      So shoot it? First you need to interrogate, clarify the motives. Why immediately shoot them, and so, the designers, there are few left.
      1. 0
        22 August 2022 22: 30
        He is an artist, he sees it that way. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7kbS43-M6s&ab_channel=Pers
        From 5min 50 sec
        1. -2
          22 August 2022 22: 42
          It's funny, I agree that the arguments about "Armata" are somehow strange.
      2. 0
        22 August 2022 22: 32
        In general, they put the bolt on those assignments
  47. -6
    21 August 2022 10: 06
    We need not a BMPT, but a heavy BMP with a 30 mm automatic cannon. And then, instead of a tank-BMPT bundle, there will be a tank-heavy BMP-infantry squad, which has many more options for action, and the presence of a heavy infantry fighting vehicle will allow more safe movement of infantry both to the battlefield and across the battlefield, significantly reducing losses.
    1. 0
      21 August 2022 12: 06
      Quote: ramzay21
      We need not a BMPT, but a heavy BMP with a 30 mm automatic cannon. And then, instead of a tank-BMPT bundle, there will be a tank-heavy BMP-infantry squad, which has many more options for action, and the presence of a heavy infantry fighting vehicle will allow more safe movement of infantry both to the battlefield and across the battlefield, significantly reducing losses.

      So, it already exists

      1. -1
        21 August 2022 12: 57
        That's just the point, that while is not present. Something went wrong with the project.
        1. +2
          21 August 2022 13: 10
          Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich
          That's just the point, that while is not present. Something went wrong with the project.

          All the same, they will not be abandoned, but will be refined and modified. It's easier than anything to create from scratch
        2. -3
          21 August 2022 16: 10
          Everything went well with the project, it’s just that it’s a little expensive for now and there are huge stocks of simpler tanks! Do you think why all the traitors of the Warsaw Pact are rafting Soviet tanks to Ukraine? But because it’s a pity to just leave it, they cost money, and when it doesn’t, they will replace it with an expensive American one!
      2. -2
        21 August 2022 14: 05
        Quote: Gritsa
        So, it already exists
        And even with a larger caliber, the same
        1. -2
          21 August 2022 16: 36
          This very large machine has just enough space for two grenade launcher modules in front along the sides.
      3. 0
        21 August 2022 20: 06
        So, it already exists

        There are at exhibitions and parades, but in the NVO zone they are not, as in combat units.
  48. -10
    21 August 2022 10: 27
    Although I have my own opinion about Skomorokhov, the article is correct. They made a BMPT, which cannot approach infantry positions closer than a couple of kilometers, however, like the T-90M. Therefore, the T-62 went to the Donbass. After all, even the vaunted panorama does not have bulletproof glass, and other devices with a thermal imaging channel cannot have bulletproof glass. Why didn’t they divide the devices by function, but put all their eggs in one basket ... And who writes about the successful use of the Terminators in the NWO, let him give at least one normal link with a photo of the Terminator after a real, not staged battle for a military commander.
    1. +1
      21 August 2022 16: 34
      In the performance characteristics of the 125-mm gun 2A46, an aiming range of 5000 m is indicated. Somehow, the T-90 does not fit with your two kilometers.
      1. -7
        21 August 2022 16: 56
        Sergey Alexandrovich, two kidometers is the distance when bullets fly from the PC into birdhouses with thermal imagers. And you tell me about the gun ... Using a thermal imager in a single optical device, we cannot put armored glass, understand? The tank goes blind
        1. +4
          21 August 2022 17: 00
          For couch theorists, after 600m, the tracers go out and the fire, truly effective fire from the PC, ceases to be effective. After 600m, you shoot the PC essentially at random, depending on your luck and how much experience you have. At a distance of 2 km, you are not just from the PC, you will not get anywhere from the vaunted 30-mm 2A42. Don't tell stories.
          1. -2
            21 August 2022 17: 08
            It looks like you are reading diagonally ... for example, on Oplot, there are separate sights, a day one with interchangeable bulletproof glass and a night one with a thermal imager with a steel armored shutter. We have everything in one sight with an armored shutter, but without bulletproof glass.
            1. +3
              21 August 2022 17: 15
              The T-62 went to the Donbass for completely different reasons. Perhaps it seemed to someone in the RF Ministry of Defense that it was too early to share the secrets of modern technology. Perhaps I really liked the possibility of firing with all the ammunition without reloading. Perhaps they are preparing crews for a collision with NATO using long uranium-core projectiles. But why did you mention the T-62 and I can’t understand the distance of two kilometers.
              1. -4
                21 August 2022 17: 30
                But why did you mention the T-62 and I can’t understand the distance of two kilometers.
  49. +4
    21 August 2022 10: 32
    1.ATGM "Attack". In general, the complex itself is good, if not for its obsolescence. When the "Attack" is on a helicopter, which still flies over the battlefield and everything is more or less decent with its review, this is one thing. And the code is, excuse me, ground combat, smoke, dust and all other interference, somehow the use of laser guidance does not look very good.
    2. if there is simply a delightful "Chrysanthemum", which just doesn't care about smoke, aerosols, dust?
    Mdaaa...! "Everything is mixed up in the Oblonskys' house..."! Well, there is no "pure laser" "Attack"! Initially, the Shturm complex / 9M120 Ataka missile was conceived with millimeter-wave radio command guidance! Laser guidance added(!) after ! This means that "Attacks" with a combined guidance system (radio command + laser) should be installed on the "Terminator"! Roughly the same with "Chrysanthemum"! The only thing is that the "Chrysanthemum" has a radar! But I have long said that with the radical modernization of the Shturm-S / SM, it is worth adding a radar, because it makes sense to modernize the Shturm-S / SM; because there are more such equipment in the troops than the "rare and exotic" "Chrysanthemum"! Yes, and "Attacks" appeared with a decent range (9M120M and 9M120D) ... Yes, plus laser-guided radio command!
  50. The comment was deleted.
  51. +6
    21 August 2022 10: 43
    How lucky we are, forum members!

    The author, who has his own opinion on the topic, different from the opinion of Alex TV, has been writing here for a long time about military equipment.
    I even like his articles, especially his discussions.

    It is unlikely that the author wrote directly from the battle and from the TANK-BMP combination. He didn’t even look at the forums where BMPT users, if they criticize anything, only criticize the small anti-tank missile system. But in general, users are happy - it’s difficult to kill them.

    But how lucky we are, forum members, the author is not a dentist! Hooray!
    1. -1
      21 August 2022 13: 31
      Can you give me a link to read such a forum?
      1. 0
        21 August 2022 14: 15
        Quote: Okak Okakiev
        Can you give me a link to read such a forum?

        So in the article itself there is a link
        https://topwar.ru/194308-ukraina-nu-i-gde-ty-bmpt-.html
      2. 0
        21 August 2022 20: 49
        hi
        For example, look at the "SVO" forum on Lostarmore.
        There was a thread with discussions, perhaps posted in the “Articles” section as a separate article.
  52. +3
    21 August 2022 10: 51
    Well...I'll have to say it again! As I said earlier: If BMPTs are needed, then there are 2 types! Type 1, like an assault “vehicle”... and type 2, like a “collective” KAZ tank! The "chassis" is one...weapons and equipment are different! I’ve talked about this more than once at VO and now I’m too lazy to repeat “the essence of the difference”! You can recall such a project (in my opinion, very awkward in its current form...) as the unmanned "Sturm"! If you also think about the fact that in foreign tank projects an automatic loader is added, but a 4th crew member remains to perform the functions of a UAV operator, robotic platforms and to interact with a network-centric space, then something worthwhile can be made from such an “Assault” !
  53. +2
    21 August 2022 10: 53
    BMPT is a hot topic, no doubt about it. Pay attention to the battles in the urban conditions of Donbass. An armored personnel carrier comes around the corner and fires almost point-blank. BTR-Karl! Kamikaze. Ask the fighters what they will choose, I’m sure it will be the BMPT.
    1. +2
      21 August 2022 13: 00
      Quote: Sergey824
      Ask the fighters what they will choose, I’m sure it will be the BMPT.

      Just tell me where it is faster to aim and shoot at the target, followed by retargeting....
    2. +1
      22 August 2022 09: 45
      For the “roll out, shoot, roll away” tactic, the dynamics of the car (how fast it can accelerate) and the reverse speed are important. The T-72 family's dynamics are not very good, and the reverse speed is generally sad.
      But this does not negate the effectiveness of BMPT in the city. The tactics just need to be different due to the nature of the platform.
  54. -1
    21 August 2022 11: 12
    IMHO, a tank turret with double-barreled 30-mm 2A38 cannons from the Tunguska anti-aircraft missile system located on the sides will be much more effective. It won't be a barrage, it will be a typhoon of fire, capable of sweeping away everything that a 30mm shell can handle.
    Well, finally, mature words about the problematic nature of “Terminator”. The author is absolutely right, an unprotected combat module will be destroyed not only by a cannon burst, but by a burst from a rifle-caliber machine gun with armor-piercing bullets.
    And installing a radar... can you imagine how many seconds a radar will survive in a combined arms battle, such as it is now on the territory of the Ukrainian Reich, when there is not only small arms fire, but also a hail of artillery shells? The radar antenna will simply be swept away from the combat module, as will the module itself. A close explosion of a 152-mm shell will put an end to it. Yes, and a 122-mm projectile too.
    Therefore, if we are talking about BMPT, then we must understand that this is a vehicle for combating short- and medium-range anti-tank weapons. It is unlikely that an BMPT will be able to do anything with an ATGM combat vehicle that launched an ATGM from a range of 4-5 km, simply because it is extremely difficult to detect this launch. The author is absolutely right about helicopters; here the BMPT nervously smokes in the side, especially if the helicopter operates using the “jump” method. Thus, BMPTs will have grenade launchers, anti-tank guns (if any) and man-portable anti-tank systems. Consequently, the BMPT must have fire maneuverability comparable to the fire maneuverability of an anti-aircraft gun system, i.e. the rotation speed of the turret should reach 120-150 degrees per second, so that the gunner, upon detecting an ATGM or grenade launcher crew, can turn the turret in a split second or per second and fire.
    In this regard, I do not agree about the uselessness of AGS. If you conduct overhead fire, the AGS will be able to cover manpower located, for example, behind a concrete wall or earthen embankment, which are difficult to penetrate for 30-mm shells. The grenade launcher dived behind an earthen rampart and was covered with overhead AGS fire.
    I will also note that the reasoning is that we will quickly remove the damaged combat module, replace it with a new one, and the vehicle will go into battle. Something tells me that the combat module accounts for 50 percent of the cost of a BMPT. So a disposable combat module system will be very expensive.
    Therefore, to develop the author’s idea, I will say that the BMPT should be:
    a) on the tank chassis - a well-armored turret with two double-barreled 30-mm 2A38 cannons on the sides and two AGS in armored containers for mounted fire;
    b) ATGM "Chrysanthemum" on a tank chassis: it has an ATGM with both a cumulative warhead and a launch range of up to 6000 meters, and a guided missile with a thermobaric warhead, excellent for combating portable ATGMs, grenade launchers and fire weapons in general, even in fortifications. In addition, "Chrysanthemum" has a combined missile control system:
    - automatic radar in the millimeter range with missile guidance in the radio beam;
    - semi-automatic with missile guidance in a laser beam
    In this case, the BMPT will act as a “sweet couple” - a cannon BMPT + a missile BMPT.
  55. 0
    21 August 2022 11: 49
    then the terminator’s place is behind the tank group, and on the front line, yes, a tank with a turret with two calibers - a machine gun and a cannon, with a large aiming angle - to shoot down a turntable, or somewhere else at a height that can be banged in a building, for example, in an infantry fighting vehicle only to drive around in the rear of the military police, she has nothing to do on the front line
  56. -4
    21 August 2022 11: 54
    I read it with great pleasure. The author's idea is simple and clear.
    But the very approach to the question - to do something that works instead of ostentatious - is surprising. Even the thought of simply “doing” something already sounds surreal.
    If I'm not mistaken, all that is available now is developments from the times of the USSR. Then a new government came...
    Therefore, the author’s approach itself is not so much unpractical, it is rather utopian. Well, overall - wonderfully written.
    1. 0
      21 August 2022 12: 16
      There is absolutely nothing utopian. Take the BMO-T body, attach the Epoch module to it, add a drone, and the machine is, by and large, ready. Except that there may be a delay with the design of 30-40mm grenade launchers; placing them so simply that they do not interfere with the main turret, but also work fully, is another task.
  57. +1
    21 August 2022 12: 23
    The BMPT is a truly “controversial” vehicle. In essence, this is an “infantry” tank, designed to primarily destroy infantry. He has an anti-tank system, rather, for “self-defense”.
    However, the fact remains a fact. Modern tank weapons, optimized, rather, for the destruction of their own kind, are not very effective in short-term combat. And it is not always effective in urban environments due to the limited elevation angle. “In theory,” immediately behind the tanks there should be infantry with their own armor, which should suppress the remaining “tank-dangerous” manpower. But in practice.....infantry cannot accompany tanks, because their armor is inferior to tank armor. Heavy infantry fighting vehicle? In such a “minivan” there is simply no room left for powerful weapons. Just look at Puma and Lynx. So either tea with soap or hands with sugar. Either a squad or a pair of automatic guns. It doesn't work any other way.
    I doubt that the BMPT’s mission was to protect tanks from the air. That's what Tunguska is for.
    But 30 mm at one time appeared in the SA, including for anti-aircraft shooting, for which there is even an increased rate of fire mode. The lack of radar on the BMP-2 did not bother me. In addition to a diverse military air defense system, it will do.
    Excuse me, but what to protect on the remote module? Power drives? You still have to hit them. I suspect they have bulletproof armor. Optics? It is vulnerable to exactly the same degree on modern tanks. Rockets? And who protects them more than from bullets? At least they're outside and not inside.
    By the way, Sturm once shot down a Phantom, so the ATGM is not so hopeless in the fight against helicopters. Considering that this is not the main task of the BMPT. It is unlikely that tanks need to be protected from tanks. In some cases, tanks need to be protected from infantry, and this is the main task of the BMPT. And here it is necessary to separate, because “everything at once” simply does not fit into reasonable dimensions and mass, otherwise the output will be “T-35”. And the T-72 chassis is a dime a dozen at our storage bases.
    1. -2
      21 August 2022 18: 04
      What are you talking about, dear? Which Puma, which Lynx? Is there a T-15 project? This is the kind of TBMP that the troops are waiting for.
      1. 0
        29 August 2022 07: 55
        My friend, I “carry” what I see. At the very least, there is a puma in the Bundeswehr. There are no T-15 armata in the Republic of Armenia. And now it’s no longer a fact that it will happen. Judging by the fact that there are orders for the T-90M. The Americans took on heavy infantry fighting vehicles twice. And both times - with zero results. Want is not harmful. Obviously, there are reasons why an LMP with tank armor and weapons stronger than the existing ones is very, very difficult to implement purely technically.
  58. +2
    21 August 2022 12: 33
    This is what “tank support” means: to sweep away with cannon fire everything that is unworthy of a 125-mm projectile, moreover, to do it as cheaply and safely as possible.

    Analytics from Skomorokhov? This can immediately be renamed zadneritika.

    Tank support is swift suppression from a rapid-fire cannon of tank-dangerous targets that can appear literally in one second: infantry (RPG) and helicopter, attack aircraft, vehicle (ATGM). After suppression, the hidden ground target must be finished off with an automatic grenade launcher (mortar trajectory) or the target must be betrayed by an self-propelled gun with a cluster shell.
    Do not forget that heavily armored targets and protected firing points must be hit by tanks or self-propelled guns.
    With the progressive development of guidance systems, the BMPT's rapid-fire guns must respond to incoming missiles, grenades, mines and shells (range 1 km). Plus KAZ is a close protection zone.
    Air defense functions are carried out by BMPT only in a 2 km zone, where a quick response is needed. For longer-range targets, vehicles already on the 2nd line with missile weapons (MANPADS and ATGMs) should operate, where the BMPT can guide missiles on the final part of the trajectory or serve as a two-way repeater for telecontrol signals.

    Disadvantages of the current implementation of BMPT:
    - lack of a protection system against damage by missile and barrel systems;
    - excessive armament with easily vulnerable anti-tank systems;
    - a single-turret configuration does not allow the creation of a BMPT with automated tracking/reconnaissance throughout the entire sector of possible counteraction and simultaneous operation on at least two targets.
    1. 0
      21 August 2022 13: 15
      Are you dreaming of a T-35?
      And how much will this structure weigh?
      For circular coverage there is a system for distributing targets, etc.
      1. -2
        21 August 2022 16: 43
        A mass of light automated combat modules with remote control has appeared. Where is the problem with the number of turrets like on the T-35? If desired, such modules can be placed on the roof of the armored personnel carrier at least 4 pieces, and they must be installed.
    2. -2
      21 August 2022 13: 25
      With the progressive development of guidance systems, the BMPT's rapid-fire guns must respond to incoming missiles, grenades, mines and shells (range 1 km).

      From this list, only incoming missiles seem to be the most important, whether from infantry or from a helicopter - they are the scourge of armored vehicles, and whose neutralization would greatly simplify the entire general list of targets.
      I just don’t think that 30mm barrels (as well as distances of 1km) are realistic for this, but something like a Minigun in a rifle caliber (with an effective range of up to 500m) could work.
      Well, yes, such an attachment should be a “second floor” above the main turret with a 30mm twin and four ATGMs
    3. -3
      21 August 2022 16: 17
      Quote: Genry
      a single-turret configuration does not allow the creation of a BMPT with automated tracking/reconnaissance throughout the entire sector of possible counteraction and simultaneous operation on at least two targets.

      For some reason, I have recently begun to doubt the need for BMPT (BMOP). Lately, thoughts have been more towards detection devices and tactical drones with loitering ammunition.
      1. +1
        21 August 2022 16: 29
        Quote: IS-80_RVGK2
        I have recently begun to doubt the need for BMPT (BMOP). Lately, thoughts have been more towards detection equipment and tactical drones with loitering ammunition

        That is, you don’t need panties, you just need socks and a shirt, right?
        1. -3
          21 August 2022 16: 43
          Quote: Repellent
          That is, you don’t need panties, you just need socks and a shirt, right?

          Hell knows. But the BMPT somehow doesn’t really fit into the structure, in my amateur opinion.
          1. 0
            21 August 2022 16: 45
            Quote: IS-80_RVGK2
            Fuck knows

            Exhaustively.

            Quote: IS-80_RVGK2
            But the BMPT somehow doesn’t really fit into the structure, in my amateur opinion

            And people say they like it what
            1. -2
              21 August 2022 16: 54
              Quote: Repellent
              Exhaustively.

              Leave my intuition alone, you bore and pedant. laughing
              Quote: Repellent
              And people say they like it

              You can't argue with people. They also talk about reptilians. So they probably exist somewhere.
              1. -1
                21 August 2022 16: 57
                Quote: IS-80_RVGK2
                They talk about reptilians too

                The Teminator heard, the Reptilian did not. Are you sure you're not confusing anything?
                1. -2
                  21 August 2022 17: 21
                  Quote: Repellent
                  The Teminator heard, the Reptilian did not.

                  You don’t see the reptilian, but it’s there.
                  1. 0
                    21 August 2022 17: 23
                    Quote: IS-80_RVGK2
                    you don’t see the reptilian, but he’s there

                    How is child trafficking? belay
      2. -3
        21 August 2022 16: 45
        Should tankers from damaged vehicles run to the nearest forest belt in the hope of shelter? No, a vehicle to evacuate them is needed immediately, and only two places for grenade launchers on the BMPT are not enough, they are needed like on the BMO-T.
  59. -3
    21 August 2022 12: 51
    This is what happens when the idea of ​​​​creating a BMPT (heavy infantry fighting vehicle) for the SA, already in the new Russia, was distorted into “tank support”. Pathetic attempts to at least somehow replace a heavy infantry fighting vehicle...
    1. 0
      21 August 2022 16: 12
      Quote: Sokolovsky_Yan
      Pathetic attempts to replace, at least somehow, a heavy infantry fighting vehicle.

      The point here is not about replacing the TBMP, but about the desire to remove motorized rifles from under fire. And to do this, TBMP will not be enough.
  60. -1
    21 August 2022 13: 03
    I believe that it is necessary to make the ZSU-57-2 only on the T-72 chassis and with modern means of target detection and tracking. Naturally, only for shooting at ground targets. The 57mm caliber is now gaining popularity among us. No anti-tank guns, no grenade launchers on the sides (is it even possible to physically manipulate them and see something through the sights?). You can have a ZPU with a 12,7mm machine gun on the roof like the T-90M.
  61. +1
    21 August 2022 13: 11
    The author forgot to add everything that a neutron bomb flies into the tank
  62. -4
    21 August 2022 13: 12
    Of course, the vulnerability of the module is a problem, I already wrote that all this stuff needs to be covered somehow, 2 automatic guns or one more powerful type 57 mm anti-tank gun, as for me, 4 is redundantly better, two but more serious and covered and good armor around the perimeter.
    1. +1
      21 August 2022 16: 47
      You don’t know that modern ATGMs work against vehicles equipped with KAZ in pairs.
      1. 0
        21 August 2022 23: 48
        Well, I’m writing two anti-tank guns, if with a delay of a few seconds, it’s also an automatic weapon, and it works in tandem with a tank.
  63. -3
    21 August 2022 13: 26
    One 57mm cannon and a coaxial heavy machine gun. In Syria, Stalin's sledgehammer still produces heat.
  64. The comment was deleted.
  65. 0
    21 August 2022 13: 36
    To listen to the author, our tanks and the “terminator” on the battlefield act as such “silent” targets...
    And the combination of an infantry fighting vehicle + a tank is generally beyond criticism; the effectiveness of this action is clearly visible in the example
    The APU is generally zero
  66. -4
    21 August 2022 13: 44
    The whole problem is lack of funds. (It’s just that a dozen Terminators won’t make a difference, but we now have tens of everything new) There are hundreds of promising and necessary developments, but where can we get the money? Russia lives on “its own”; this issue cannot be solved with a printing press.
    1. -1
      21 August 2022 16: 21
      Quote: South Ukrainian
      The whole problem is lack of funds.

      There's simply too much money. They donated 300 billion to Europe. Another thing is that effective managers put them under their thumb. Sending our soldiers to fight in slightly modernized tins from the last century.
      1. -2
        21 August 2022 16: 57
        Quote: IS-80_RVGK2
        They donated 300 billion to Europe.

        Any thoughts on how to get them back?
        Quote: IS-80_RVGK2
        Another thing is that effective managers put them under their thumb.

        We live in a capitalist state. If there is an opportunity, they steal (and there are many opportunities). How to deal with this? Probably, it is necessary for everyone to live approximately the same, as before (in Soviet times) But that is not what I wrote about. The existing military budget is clearly not enough for a lot. If the SU-57 costs 100 million dollars, then 10 aircraft is already a billion. And besides them, you need helicopters, ships, ammunition, drones and much more. Even if they didn’t steal, it still wouldn’t be enough.
        1. -1
          21 August 2022 17: 28
          Quote: South Ukrainian
          Any thoughts on how to get them back?

          Unless it is blackmail about the possibility of a nuclear strike.
          Quote: South Ukrainian
          But that's not what I wrote about. The existing military budget is clearly not enough for a lot. If the SU-57 costs 100 million dollars, then 10 aircraft is already a billion. And besides them, you need helicopters, ships, ammunition, drones and much more. Even if they didn’t steal, it still wouldn’t be enough.

          I once calculated that the cost of one oligarch’s yacht is the cost of several hundred BMP-3s. But you continue to believe that there is no money for anything. And here’s another question: what prevented us from properly arming the army when we still had these 300 billion? What prevented normal reindustrialization from taking place? And what good is it to me from your lamentations that there will be no money when the war comes to the threshold of my house?
          1. -3
            22 August 2022 04: 06
            In the Primorsky Territory there is a settlement called Barabash, where the division used to be stationed in the USSR. A chic town, a huge school, a boiler house, in short, the city-forming enterprise for Barabash. I was there a year ago, just ruins, empty openings in the windows, old people living there, officers who had nowhere to go in the 90s. Why am I talking? In the 90s, ghouls told us that it would be unprofitable for the state to maintain such an army, disband everything. But now, as you rightly say, it is very profitable to maintain yachts for these ghouls and their majors, to maintain their palaces, where these ghouls visit once or twice a year. I don’t look into someone else’s pocket, but somehow it’s very ineffective, maintaining yachts and palaces instead of the Army.
        2. -3
          21 August 2022 19: 20
          If they hadn’t stolen, it might have been enough, but we won’t know, since it’s a fantasy not to steal from us.
      2. 0
        22 August 2022 09: 56
        300 yards is in the USA, about 70 in Europe, the rest in Japan
  67. +1
    21 August 2022 14: 17
    Well, it seems to the average person that you should give the guys on the front line everything you came up with - with wheels and tracks on wings with a parachute and even a walker. with guns with machine guns with lasers and torpedoes, let there be 5 people inside or 4, it doesn’t matter. let there be two sights, three walkie-talkies and this monster will consume 10 liters per 10 km. It’s better to send the guys without a grenade launcher (he still can’t see where the grenade is flying), without a scope (in battle, a sniper will immediately break your scope), and you can save on fuel if the guys go on foot. This is such beastliness.
  68. +1
    21 August 2022 15: 26
    Comparing the Terminator with the T-35 hints that the author is completely out of touch
    1. PXL
      +1
      21 August 2022 15: 55
      The author came up with a new support tank with 30 mm machine guns. A great achievement of armchair tank-building thought.
    2. -2
      21 August 2022 19: 22
      But in my opinion, this is not a comparison, but a kind of historical parallel, and everything is fine with the author.
  69. -4
    21 August 2022 15: 28
    For what? Why? How to use?...
    Everything is simple:
    In general, everything is simple: it costs a lot of money.

    As soon as huge money appears on the horizon, groups are immediately organized that have an irresistible desire to appropriate it... Don’t we have enough experience with the Burbulis, Chubais and other millionaires from the gateway?
    And expecting results from scoundrels is tantamount to trying to win against a thimblemaker.
    1. -3
      21 August 2022 16: 50
      Here they criticize, I offer ideas and solutions. Why do you think about money is on other sites.
      1. -4
        21 August 2022 16: 56
        Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich
        Here they criticize, I offer ideas and solutions.

        The idea of ​​an invention for someone (something) is always the same, and the architect designing the bridge, as a rule, stood under it at the time of the opening of traffic...
        Skomorokhov’s analytical analysis isn’t enough for you?
        1. -3
          21 August 2022 17: 09
          If you have questions about money, go to other sites, isn’t it clear? Social justice can also be discussed there.
    2. -3
      21 August 2022 16: 56
      Thanks for the minus, I’ll take into account who you are for the future!
  70. The comment was deleted.
    1. -1
      21 August 2022 16: 13
      Quote from PXL
      It’s a pity that these are not Stalinist times. Then all the “innovators” would be gathered into one NKVD charaga and given the opportunity to actually implement their projects. If it turned out well, they would be released, rewarded and given various benefits; if not, they would be erased into camp dust. And now there is zero responsibility. Write whatever you want. Armchair experts don’t really fit into the army either...

      Yes... it immediately turns out that: one is crooked, the other is lame, the third is a pensioner, and only the fourth speaks directly as soon as possible... wassat
  71. +2
    21 August 2022 16: 03
    Or it could be done differently, but the author doesn’t care! The Terminator replaces a tank support platoon, and just think about it, just some 30 people, and for the author’s sake, well, they killed and killed, but it’s a pity for a fully armed armored vehicle, they say they need it! I don’t know who gave him such opinions, but I know from the combatants that they are very fond of this technique! And you can modify it as much as you like, just to help the soldier!
    1. -2
      21 August 2022 16: 53
      The tank support platoon does not replace the "Terminator", don't make it up. But the crew of a damaged tank cannot even evacuate the existing configuration, that’s the problem.
  72. 0
    21 August 2022 17: 41
    Is this an article in defense of that nonsense about the “terminator” that took place recently at VO?...Have mercy on our eyes, the topic has already been discussed many times.
  73. The comment was deleted.
    1. 0
      23 September 2022 13: 34
      I agree, common sense and warehouses will at the same time be unloaded and costs will be significantly reduced, and most importantly, all this can be done very quickly.
  74. -1
    21 August 2022 19: 11
    A heavy infantry fighting vehicle based on the T-72/90 will be many times more necessary and useful for the army than an BMPT.
    The Bakhcha-U BM is normally suitable as a weapon for a heavy infantry fighting vehicle.
  75. -2
    21 August 2022 19: 15
    Quote: Sancho_SP
    Instead of one tank and one bmpt - it's better to have two tanks)
    BMPT oprawdana z puskoj 57mm isredstwami PWO i REB protiw BPLA snarjadom 125 mm po pehote bit roztocitelno 57 mm namnogo desewle toze samohodnaja haubica i mortir 152 mm w gorodskom boje neobhodimy
  76. 0
    21 August 2022 19: 29
    Here they are breaking spears in the comments, but can someone write to me what the real effective, and not advertising, which is usually the maximum, and as far as I know they usually don’t like to work at the maximum, is the operating range of our 30-mm guns and the same range of enemy ATGMs, with which our tanks are fired at and maybe somehow look at it from this angle?
  77. The comment was deleted.
  78. -3
    21 August 2022 19: 52
    Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich
    Here they criticize, I offer ideas and solutions. Why do you think about money is on other sites.

    konstruktoru nuzno dumat o stoimosti i tehnologicnosti oruzja ono w seriju pojdet ne hwatit rotoj tankow wojewat dywizji neobhodimy na nih dengi nuzne po wasemu dumat i delat Rossja rozoritsa pocemu eksperty wsego mira scitajut T34/85 sedewrem tankostrojenja : on bojesposobnyj otnositelno desewyj i tehnologicnyj 2 tysjaci w mesjac stroili wase metody wedut k KONIGTIGER dorogij i postucno wypuskaemyj eto po karmane tolko USA-godowyj wojennyj budzet swyse 800 MLD USD razpilaj skolko ugodno teper ne 13 stoletje kogda bez deneg Mongoly wojewali na scet trophejew i grab eza uze uzurpator Napoleon I ucil cto na wojne samoje glawnoje dengi tolko rjadowyje soldaty o tom ne znajut i ne dumajut
  79. 0
    21 August 2022 20: 06
    So many letters. Let's leave all this to the military, who decide what and how on the battlefield.
    Now many expert political officers have divorced. In the end, on the topic of application, at least the deputy for those will express himself more realistically. Well, tech is now working with these machines - then they’ll tell you everything.
  80. The comment was deleted.
  81. The comment was deleted.
  82. -1
    21 August 2022 21: 12
    Offering:
    1. Instead of an anti-aircraft machine gun, install a 30 mm automatic cannon (or maybe 23 will be enough).
    2. It should not stand on the “commander’s turret,” but inside (one might say, inside the armored cap). Lifting angle up to 80 degrees. Naturally, the profile of the tank will increase, but nothing can be done about it.
    3. I propose to remove the coaxial machine gun altogether, and if left, then it should be coaxial with the above-mentioned automatic cannon. (I would replace it with a 23 mm gun, but only if the tank is rubber :-))
    What we have? One shooter is responsible for the main caliber and the main targets: enemy armored vehicles, bunkers, etc. The second shooter covers him, being responsible for the enemy infantry (grenade launchers, ATGM crews....) Here you have a tank and BMPT rolled into one.
  83. +3
    21 August 2022 21: 32
    drinks
    I think it's time for us to forget about armored vehicles.
    We have already reached all possible heights in improving armored vehicles and have won or will win all tank biathlons combined.

    The author of the article quite rightly emphasized the huge dimensions of the BT and the risks associated with it.
    Do not forget that the crew of a modern BT consists of 3 - 5 people who are surrounded by fuel and ammunition. No one in the comments was able to dispute the author’s argument about the risks associated with detonating the BC on the roof of the BT.

    Isn't it time for us to return to the roots of the art of war and be the first to do it? Shouldn't we remember a vehicle without a roof and a crew of one person?
    It's time, dear ones.
    I hasten to inform the entire VO forum that in the steppes of Mongolia, in this difficult hour, cavalry units are already training, which, IMHO, will undoubtedly soon enter battle along with the winners of other army games: Aviadarts, Tank Biathlon and something about cooks.
    I am attaching a video proof:
  84. 0
    21 August 2022 23: 05
    The author has a solid logic, but it is always based on assumptions that are accepted without evidence. And probably not everything is in order with the assumptions, since the Terminator was praised during the SVO. The question is different - the era of unmanned aircraft has arrived, so it would be logical to arm the Terminator with a radar and missile weapons with a range of up to 10 km to work on ground and air targets directly on the battlefield to cover tanks.
  85. The comment was deleted.
  86. -3
    22 August 2022 00: 12
    Quote: squid
    Well, it’s still not the same without anti-tank guns.

    Watch Pentagon Wars. The American generals there wanted to add everything to the Bradley infantry fighting vehicle being developed.
    We have a similar situation, with nuances of course. There are thousands of warehouses 72 and 64. The generals want the “good” not to end up. Moreover, crazy thoughts are rushing around: “let’s hang something on this park of tanks, a nuclear bomb, or a 1.5 meter caliber mortar.” It would be better if they didn’t scratch their Honduras, but think about how to visit the body control of this park and save the lives of tankers. It’s not a pity to send pieces of iron into battle.
  87. -2
    22 August 2022 00: 16
    A good attempt at analyzing the Terminator, only the conclusions are somewhat harsh and the solution was proposed a hundred years ago. Ideally, machines should die, not people. This is an axiom that does not require proof. Therefore, the development of the BRDM is moving in absolutely the right direction. Other issues, such as weapons, armor, and surveillance systems, must and will be developed. The author, on the one hand, criticizes the system for its excessive weapons, and on the other hand, demands the installation of perfect sky protection. How to manage without AGS in the mountains? The shortcomings of the surveillance system can be compensated for today if a UAV hangs over the attacking group (as an integral device), followed by a Pantsir. I hope this system will meet the author's requirements. Everything listed is in service, in one form or another. It was probably intended that way. It remains to be implemented or is already being implemented.
  88. Hog
    +1
    22 August 2022 00: 50
    The article is so-so. In places the author contradicts himself.
    The tank's armament could be disabled with almost the same success (by the way, the missiles were covered by small arms).
    An ATGM on a self-propelled PTK is good, but on a BMPT it is bad.
    Use against helicopters is possible, but no one calls BMPT anti-aircraft guns (we remember anti-aircraft machine guns on tanks and the same infantry fighting vehicles).
    According to the author, there is no pity for Shilka in the city.
    Etc.
  89. 0
    22 August 2022 07: 50
    Oh, these storytellers, give the author a Kalash and storm the city, maybe he’ll become wiser
  90. -2
    22 August 2022 08: 25
    The best way to protect a tank is to have a tank nearby. wassat
  91. The comment was deleted.
    1. 0
      22 August 2022 11: 06
      The best protection for a tank is 2 infantry squads on the sides or in front.
      Checked by time.
  92. -1
    22 August 2022 08: 46
    You just need to install a turret from a BMP-72 on the T-3, of course, having specifically reserved it. Install the remote control. The chassis pulls it calmly. That’s the support for tanks.
    1. 0
      22 August 2022 11: 11
      it will be one sub-tank next to a tank, with the same limited visibility. :))

      The main thing is an optical surveillance system, a thermal imager and a means of destroying enemy personnel over an area of ​​about 500 m.
  93. The comment was deleted.
    1. 0
      22 August 2022 11: 06
      High fire density means high ammunition consumption and high thermal load on the barrel.
  94. +1
    22 August 2022 10: 53
    What a fierce prejudice the author has.

    I have the opinion that everything is wrong.
    1) the Terminator tank support vehicle has already participated in
    battles
    In the battle near Kamyshevakha and Severodonetsk, there were hits 4 times, but without penetration, which was due to the tank corps.
    2) to protect the tank from the air (tank units)
    The original name was "wasp", now it is "Thor".
    The "Terminator"'s task is to be tank hunters (groups of 3-5 people with RG) and ATGM operators.
    For this purpose, an optical search complex was installed.
    3) testing of the AGS showed a positive result.
    4) KAZ is installed

    5) unification of the repair of the chassis with the tank.
    6) conversion from tanks in storage, which simplifies the technical process.


    A radar is not needed as a demasking factor where the main target is infantry units and anti-tank missile operators.

    PS

    "SHILKA" DESPITE THE fact that it is tracked, it is an air defense weapon.

    The use of "Shilka" in Afghanistan is due to the level of raising the barrels, which was not previously available on Soviet equipment.


    So there is no “conspiracy theory” here.

    But the author wrote the article Big..:)))
    1. 0
      23 September 2022 13: 43
      Sensible comment. Modern warfare is the effective interaction of various means of reconnaissance and destruction. To evaluate the Terminator, you need to understand how it is supposed to interact with other weapons and what practice has shown. The author only speculates and does not base his conclusions on practical application.
  95. -1
    22 August 2022 11: 03
    Let's "talk about the taste of lobster with those who have eaten it"! Any military equipment that takes part in hostilities should be discussed only by those who fight on it, and not by armchair amateurs who stupidly take up space on the pages of VO! This applies to all military equipment and weapons, as well as the strategy and tactics of their use! BMPTs are praised in the troops, including those participating in the Northern Military District, and the identified deficiencies are promptly eliminated by engineers and manufacturing plants!
    1. +1
      23 August 2022 07: 13
      Quote: polk26l
      Any military equipment that takes part in hostilities should be discussed only by those who fight on it, and not by armchair amateurs who stupidly take up space on the pages of VO!


      well, you just spat in the soul of local aircraft carrier lovers
  96. 0
    22 August 2022 15: 40
    He’s very good at the parade, and at showing off too. In battle - still classified.


    the author has not seen any reviews from those who have ever participated in such battles?
    on both sides? (that is, both with ours and with the Ukrainian)
    there is no secret there, and the reviews are the most positive
    You can google and read in 5-10 minutes
  97. +1
    22 August 2022 17: 47
    There was already a similar prototype described by the author, the project was called “Viper”.
  98. The comment was deleted.
  99. -1
    22 August 2022 18: 56
    another chat...
    I don’t know how this “topic” will help tanks in real life, I haven’t seen a description in a real battle paired with a tank, and not for show at the training ground...
    but I think it would be nice to give it to the assault units that storm cities...
    instead of infantry fighting vehicles and other transport "canned goods" ...
  100. 0
    22 August 2022 19: 04
    Special experience operations will show what is needed in battle. History knows such deniers. Everything can be improved and rearmed. Strengthen the armor of the combat module, etc. This type of BM appeared as a result of the database, which means there was a need.