Errors of the domestic military-industrial complex: BMPT "Terminator"
The Military Review has already published two very interesting articles with analytics regarding the Terminator BMPT:
1) Ukraine. Again, light vehicles replace the BMPT;
2) BMPT "Terminator": expensive, unnecessary and old?
It is noteworthy that these articles consider the issue from different angles, which is undoubtedly good. Each individual person certainly perceives the world through the prism of his personal experience, which does not always reflect the full picture. Thus, the more points of view, the greater the chance that it will be possible to describe the phenomenon more or less close to reality.
In this regard, I would also like to comment on the situation around the "Terminator" - adjusted for my habit of perceiving any human activity exclusively as a team game. That is, with an emphasis on how each element (in this case, BMPT) fits into the big picture.
Logic errors
It is necessary to start by mentioning one common error in reasoning, which was not mentioned in the articles mentioned, but often flashes in the comments. I'll give you an example.
Just yesterday I watched a video where an armored personnel carrier covered the removal of the wounded.
The thought flashed once again: “Where is the BMPT ?! After all, just right!”
The thought flashed once again: “Where is the BMPT ?! After all, just right!”
Reasoning in this way, in any situation one can say – if only I had been there танк! If the guys were "under the protection of tank armor" - they would not have died. And you can't argue with that. But it is impossible to replace all transport with tanks.
Moreover, even in the United States, the country with the largest military budget, the number of tanks is an order of magnitude smaller than that of medium and lightly armored vehicles.
And since there are dozens of times more light equipment, there will also be more episodes with its participation. And no BMPT will change this situation.
But what it will really change, in the case when we already have a not too large military budget, is to reduce the number of modern tanks. And by modern tanks, I mean not only the level of protection, but also modern fire control systems, commanders' panoramic sights and a gunner's thermal imager.
As a result, it is necessary to clearly separate “speculations”, the reason for which will always be simply the fact that there are always more lightly armored vehicles, from real combat situations where our equipment lacks armor.
Play on the contrast
One of the main arguments in favor of the "Terminator" is the lack of security of the means that today provide support for tanks.
But the whole point is that the targets for calibers up to 30 mm are most of all in the combat zone. But a normal, protected carrier of this weapons no.
As you can imagine, the phrase "normally protected media" is rather vague. From the fact that the protection of the BTR-82 weighing 15 tons is not enough, it does not follow in any way that a 50-ton machine must certainly become the solution. Between the numbers 15 and 50, as you understand, there are more options.
Since we have already decided that we will talk about efficiency and optimality on an army-wide scale, the question arises - what degree of armor is optimal?
To do this, we must take into account a lot of factors - the degree of saturation of the modern battlefield with weapons, as well as the fact that an increase in the mass and complexity of protection inevitably reduces the number of such types of equipment.
Fortunately, we can not get carried away with the calculations, but simply write off the result from those who were engaged in these studies professionally - the US Army.
The optimal solution is a machine weighing 25–30 tons, with the possibility of increasing up to 30–35 tons due to factory (!) Additional protection kits, including dynamic ones. The number of such vehicles in the troops must be at least (!) equal to the number of tanks, so that everywhere (!) the possibility of their joint action is provided. It is better if you can achieve more.
This mass (unlike the 15 tons of the BTR-82) is already enough to "curb" the recoil of the 30-mm gun in its full version, and not with the recoil momentum stretched over time, as on the BTR-82A. With all the consequences in the form of shot energy, rate of fire and accuracy.
At the same time, such a machine should confidently (at close range) “keep” 30 mm in the forehead and 12,5 in the sides.
Now I propose to consider an example from Mariupol.
After watching this video, let's analyze the quote:
The crews of the BMP-2 in the second video and the BTR-82A in the third are Heroes whom I would respectfully hug and say to them a long phrase, where of all the words, only two were not obscene, these are “complete psychos”. A crazy risk cans. Which worked precisely in these cases not as infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers, but as a cover firing point in the first case and a means of destroying an object in the second. That is, like a BMPT.
Firstly, the definition of "tin cans" is quite appropriate.
Secondly, the sentence is structured as if this risk was due to the fact that they performed "atypical" roles for themselves. While on the video, the BMP cannot fulfill its direct duties on the battlefield due to the extremely low security.
What we saw makes us draw a very disappointing conclusion - we “for starters” do not even have a normal infantry fighting vehicle.
Thirdly, none of the above can replace the tank as a "means of destroying an object." The 30mm cannon is not a competitor to the 125mm. Ideally, the overall picture of the battle should look like this - the infantry, moving under the reliable protection of the BMP, occupies the buildings, carrying out observation from there and imposing a small-arms battle on the enemy. During the battle, the positions of the enemy and the key elements of his defense are revealed, which are eventually broken by the tank.
What should be a normal infantry fighting vehicle?
In his article, Aleksey Kuznetsov tried to convey the fact that the performance of even the simplest combat missions on armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles often borders on a feat. And it shouldn't be.
We have already clearly seen how our most massive BMP is shot in the “forehead” from a 30-mm cannon, not at the training ground, but directly in combat conditions.
While back in the early 80s, the same Germans attended to the creation of an infantry fighting vehicle that would hold 30 mm in the forehead and be protected from the sides from the KPVT (14,5). And this is by the time of 1980!
German "Marder" 1A3 weighing 33,5 tons and with a capacity of 6-7 paratroopers
Why is it so important? Because the infantry is still involved in the battles and, despite the progress in robotization, it will do so for a long time. In order for the infantry to enter the battle, it must be delivered to the 1-2 line of contact. At the same time, the vehicle should not only deliver the infantry, but also provide it with a comfortable, safe landing. Having delivered the infantry, the infantry fighting vehicle, unlike the armored personnel carrier, should not immediately retreat from the dangerous area, but, on the contrary, should remain in order to take an active part in the battle. Since in this case the time spent on the contact line increases, it becomes necessary to provide an appropriate level of protection.
Based on the foregoing, the American Bradley can serve as an example of a truly normal BMP.
Another improvement that is urgently needed in our army is the installation of a commander's machine gun turret on tanks, combined with a panoramic sight. Such a solution began to be implemented only recently, so only the latest batches of T-90M are equipped with a machine gun.
Analysis of a specific combat mission
A tank and a BMP-2 take off. Together they rush to the “problem” object. The infantry fighting vehicle conducts practically continuous fire on everything from where a gift to the tank can fly.
The task is clear. Let's think about whether the "Terminator" is the most effective tool for solving it?
The task can be solved with two tanks instead of a tank + BMPT pair. Caliber 12,7 is enough to fire suppression on enemy manpower in urban combat. But at the same time, the tank remains a tank and, in addition to a machine gun, has a 125-mm cannon.
That is, the first tank works on the windows that it was aimed at, while the commander, due to the panoramic observation device, will be able to control what is happening, correcting the actions of the gunner, and will also fire on suppression from a machine gun at the moments of reloading the main caliber.
The second tank also "prophylactically" waters dangerous areas of 12,7 mm, which, as we understand, in urban combat and the task at hand does not differ much from a 30 mm gun. But at the same time, this second tank can also periodically "throw" land mines into the windows. And this is a completely different “song” than “30”.
An example of working with different calibers is shown in the video below.
The task can also be solved by the combination of "tank + infantry fighting vehicle".
The tank also fires a machine gun in addition to the cannon. The infantry fighting vehicle fires from a 30-mm cannon and machine gun, while being able to use various grenade launcher systems mounted on the turret as modules.
The security of the BMP, taking into account all the screens and sets of remote sensing, is enough to protect against 99% of wearable RPGs. The Javelin cannot be fired from the depths of the building. TOW complexes are massive, their indoor mobility is limited, and preparation for battle takes a long time, which is a unmasking factor. Only shots with a tandem warhead pose a real danger, but they are not very common among “wearable” systems, plus they still need to be hit.
In the announced options, we do not have to "mutilate" the tanks, and we get a normal infantry fighting vehicle, which provides the infantry with greater safety and saves significantly more lives than the Terminator.
Conclusions
One may wonder - what does this have to do with BMPT? After all, we are talking about the shortcomings of the BMP.
Yes, the most direct thing.
Since the "Terminator" in a number of examples is presented in a favorable light solely against the background of the available models of equipment.
I urge you to pay attention to the fact that this “favorable light” is due to a greater extent not at all to the “success” of the Terminator itself. He is conditioned unacceptable a low level of compliance of modern Russian infantry fighting vehicles with the modern realities of the battlefield.
Thus, trying to argue the usefulness of the "Terminator", you can very easily shift the focus and emphasis from the truly critical gaps that lead to colossal casualties among personnel.
First, we need to saturate the troops with truly modern infantry fighting vehicles, which will cost less than a tank, provide greater versatility due to the troop compartment, and at the same time be able to carry a comparable set of weapons (30 mm + missiles). Fill the troops with modern tanks - with panoramic commander sights and a machine gun.
And after this saturation, evaluate the real expediency of the BMPT! Which will be extremely doubtful.
It is dangerous to argue the advantages of the Terminator against the background of the available BMP samples for two reasons at once:
1. The appearance of the “usefulness” of such a machine is artificially created.
2. As if the issue of the absence of modern infantry fighting vehicles in Russia is becoming insignificant. After all, if the "Terminator" appeared, then the problem was solved? And it wasn't even close to being solved. Worse, it hasn't even been truly updated. And today, thousands of Russian soldiers on the line of contact are forced to move around the battlefield on all the same "tin cans". And against such a background, I'm not afraid of this word, disaster I really see blasphemous reports of how well the "Terminators" protect tanks (!) With their 30-mm guns.
As for the BMPT itself, I am convinced that the concept acquires at least some common sense only (!) When armed with a more powerful caliber (for example, 57 mm) with the ability to fire at a high rate, both with high-elongation kinetic ammunition and projectiles with controlled detonation (according to enemy manpower).
Information