Western media: “Terminator” - 52's ton tank killer, killer that even hell shakes

BMPT "Terminator" (Russia, Uralvagonzavod) at the international exhibition of weapons and military equipment "KADEKS-2012". Photo courtesy of Scientific Research Institute of Steel

During the Battle of Grozny, Chechen fighters completely defeated Tanks Russian Federation. Snipers pierced the thin armor of military vehicles from the roofs. At that time, Russia had not yet used anti-personnel armor, and the BMP-2 could not raise the guns high enough to fire back. Therefore, Russia began developing the “Terminator” - an armored support vehicle designed for military operations in urban conditions. About it writes the GIZMODO edition.

The BMPT (tank support combat vehicle), nicknamed the Terminator, is a new Russian armored vehicle designed to support tanks, mainly in urban environments. Its main task is the destruction of enemy infantry.

BMPT can change the tactics of hostilities and significantly improve the effectiveness of tank units. It is reported by Military-Today.

It is a universal anti-personnel ground vehicle capable of handling multiple targets. It is expected that BMPT will go into service in the Russian Army in the next few years.

Three units of a tank support combat vehicle were delivered to Kazakhstan, which is currently the only user of the BMPT.

The machine is protected by passive and dynamic armor. Active armor has small charges between the sheets of armor, which detonate when hit by ammunition. Inside, the machine is equipped with a Kevlar pad, which protects from the scattering of fragments when cracking armor.

BMPT (Tank support fighting vehicle) "Frame 99" - Terminator.

The machine is also equipped with anti-WMD protection and an automatic fire extinguishing system. Thus, the BMPT protection is equivalent to the protection of the main battle tank. The terminator has a new tower with weapons installed on it. The machine is armed:

two 30 millimeter cannons

two remote-controlled grenade launchers AGS-17D or AGS-30

four ATRAK "Ataka-T"

twin machine gun 7,62 mm

30mm guns have a double feed system and can use a wide range of ammunition, including armor-piercing tracer, fragmentation tracer, high-explosive fragmentation and armor-piercing sabots.

Missiles "Attack-T" can be equipped with a tandem or high-explosive (thermobaric) warhead. The maximum range of these missiles is 5 km. A combat vehicle can attack three targets simultaneously, as each weapon works independently of others.

The BMPT computerized fire control system is based on proven components of the main battle tank T-90.

It gives the opportunity to hit targets in day and night conditions. BMPT operates on the main battle tank chassis T-90, equipped with a new multi-fuel diesel engine B-92C2, developing 1 000 l. with.

In the future, BMPT may be equipped with a B-99 diesel engine capable of developing 1 200 l. with.

In addition, the Terminator has an auxiliary power unit, which ensures the operation of all systems when the main engine is turned off.

Comments

[TRex]

The armor is strong and our tanks are fast ...

There is still gunpowder in the powder flasks of our military-industrial complex and there is something to strengthen the reviving power of Russia. God forbid - keep up the good work, friends! It is good to see that my taxes go for the benefit of the Power.

[Mitek]

The article was written in my opinion not by the most professional author. Our tanks went to the first Chechen one without DZ blocks. (I saw it myself). In the ranks of the columns. Crews are recruited from the pine forest. Talking about combat coordination is silly. Motorized riflemen were not trained in anything. they boobies were hiding behind the tank, while they had to move ahead revealing firing points and pointing the tank at them. I don’t want to write about interaction. The overwhelming majority of casualties in the first Chechen war are caused not by the fact that the tanks are bad and the army is bad, but primarily by the stupidity of the high command. Therefore, despite the fact that it’s fashionable to water shit on our equipment, I’ll say our tanks are excellent. It is only necessary to use them correctly and train fighters not to paint fences and sweep the parade ground, but to the basics of tactics and other MILITARY sciences. It’s good that there are huge changes in this business now.

[Bezarius]

Yes, a very large part of the losses was due to fire in their ...

[crazyrom]

Anyone understanding, please explain to me why there are only 4 missiles on the terminator? It seems to me that it costs nothing to put 6 or 8 ... And add a couple of "Eagles" in case of a flying enemy ... This is clearly not a weight limit, where 52 tons can fit, another 50-100kg will fit.

[Lopatov]

They and these four cannot normally defend.

[albert]

For air defense "Tunguska" is.

[Jin]

Quote: albert

For air defense "Tunguska" is.

Tungusks nervously smoke, there is Shell-1C

[fight]

there are no armored caterpillars, but on wheels it's a piece of *****. Tunguska did not participate in any of the military conflicts and I consider it a failed machine, but put a missile with a homing head there and everything will change

[Jin]

Quote: albert

For air defense "Tunguska" is.

But in general, the thought is true, +

[Bashkaus]

maybe these missiles are 50kt each;) then one terminator and a detachment of motorized rifles to take Poland is enough;)

[crazyrom]

No, it’s painfully thin rockets. Watch the video in the article anti-tank missiles. But 6-8 instead of 4 would seem better to me, although I still think in terms of shooting games where you alone have to wet everyone ...

[NauruS]

see the program "terminator polygon !!" there the designer talks about the car, the question is why not more missiles are also raised, there, in my opinion, there is something connected with the dimensions !!

[huut]

Quote: NauruS

see the program "terminator polygon !!"

This video had to be inserted into the article.
In general, everything is rather superficially described, by golly, I understand the disadvantages posed by the article.
At the beginning of the video: "The weight of the Terminator is 48 tons ..." I look at the title of the article, then I look at the author ... Poorly tailored article. The car is undoubtedly a plus for the creators.

[Jin]

Quote: crazyrom

Anyone understanding, please explain to me why there are only 4 missiles on the terminator?

Colleague, not just 4, but as many as 4! Can you imagine a modern tank in battle? If not, then it's silly to continue the conversation! So the Terminator can easily overwhelm 4 tanks !!! No need to talk about Needles! Let's add a nuclear warhead to it, a vertical takeoff engine and a water cannon for diving! What if it comes in handy! "Bondiada" is drawn straight! Each combat unit must solve the tasks for which it is intended ... to combat air targets, the Armies are supplied with Pantsir-1C, a very capable "box"

[Hammer]

Quote: crazyrom

Someone who understands, please explain to me why there are only 4 missiles on the terminator? It seems to me that it costs nothing to put 6 or 8 ... And add a couple of "Eagles" in case of a flying enemy ... This is clearly not a weight limit, where 52 tons can fit, another 50-100kg will fit.

more missiles are not placed according to dimensional restrictions (well, in any case, the chief designer of this machine claims), and there is no point in putting anti-aircraft missiles on it. Firstly, the armament on it (30 mm cannon and ATGM "Ataka-D") is already capable of working (with sufficient efficiency) against low-speed air targets such as helicopter / attack aircraft.
And secondly - for faster and higher-altitude targets, radars for detection and guidance will already be needed, and there’s nowhere to put them on the BMPT. Yes and pointless. Military air defense should work against airplanes - Tunguska, Torah, Armor, Buki, S-300V / VM.

For me it would be better for the BMPT to develop a new gun and ammunition. For example, in a caliber of 45 mm with a projectile with ready-to-use striking elements and electronic remote detonation at a given point in space. The effectiveness of the machine against infantry (for which they actually created it) would have increased significantly. And against light armored vehicles increased efficiency. And they would also expand the firing angles for automatic grenade launchers and introduce thermal imaging channels for them ...

[lucidlook]

Since we are "remodeling" so cool, then we will add here the possibility of delivering infantry and we will get "Kurganets-25", only with better booking and greater weight.

[Papakiko]

Quote: avt

Another thing that confuses us is five people in a carriage. Isn’t it too much with, as they say, computerization and automation?

Many, very many!
For urban cramped conditions or very rough terrain, maybe good !? But even so, the "mass grave" comes out, apparently the laurels of the Soviet designers T-35 and T-28 are haunted.
Here it was discussed:
http://topwar.ru/4813-mnogobashennye-tanki-rkka.html
and here:
http://topwar.ru/2419-btr-t-iz-tanka.html

[Lopatov]

They needed more surveillance channels. Which, in theory, is justified if they are provided with adequate channels of destruction

[Tersky]

Quote: Papakiko

? But even so, the "mass grave" comes out, apparently the laurels of the Soviet designers T-35 and T-28 are haunted.

among the main advantages of the BMPT "Terminator" is the presence in the car three operators who can simultaneously fire at several targets. Now everything fell into place, is not it a colleague?

[Avenger711]

The T-28 showed itself to be so-so, it is difficult for the commander to command such a horde, but now the equipment has stepped forward.

[Bosk]

You are absolutely sorry .... but at least you yourself understood what you said ... The T-28 in 41, with the increased armor, even at the T-34 level looked pretty good, but the fact that it’s difficult for the commander to command is his position so ...

[Kaa]

Quote: Avenger711

T-28 showed itself so-so

The variants that had time to be screened fought completely, under normal command, this is an infantry support tank, even without the unfinished T-34 variants in 41, they were quite at the level (or higher) of the T-3 and T-4, not to mention " Skoda "and the English monsters. Only Man was right:" Personnel decides everything "- that is how the myth about the inefficiency of the T-28 was born. Another thing is, if you meant the T-35, then I agree with you.

[Jin]

Quote: Kaa

The variants that had time to be screened fought completely, under normal command, this is an infantry support tank, even without the unfinished T-34 variants in 41 they were quite at the level (or higher) of the T-3 and T-4, not to mention " Skoda "and English monsters.

Unconditional + for knowledge of history!

[lucidlook]

I really, really would like to see this on video. It’s straight that at the same time - one ATGM, the second of the cannon, and the third with a grenade launcher would cover a conditional enemy at the firing range. And so that all three, of course, are right on target ... different, with a deviation in azimuth of at least 15 degrees.

[Weterok]

I’m also very curious to look at teamwork - it’s still desirable to be surrounded by buildings and distances up to 300 meters

[Avenger711]

In the case of BMPT 2-4 arrows are justified.

[Papakiko]

As noted below:
bazilio
The car is interesting. But there are questions. Why was it impossible to cover the MTO from above with at least a minor armor plate? In the video, when viewed from above, this is the most vulnerable spot in the rear hemisphere. When operating in the city, the enemy can easily throw a simple Molotov cocktail into this area and that's it, the car will stop. The second question is why it is impossible to "put on" what kind of mask in the frontal projection on the tower (well, or the turret, what is the correct name)? in frontal projection, the tower / turret will be the easiest target. Hitting a turret will not kill the vehicle, but it can disable some of the weapons. In addition, look how good the 3 guidance devices look - knocking them out from medium distances I think it will not be so difficult. Thirdly, is it not possible to somehow protect the ptura? the more if the ATM will be with a thermobaric warhead. TK with an ATGM, of course, the target is small, it is difficult to hit, but if it still hits and the ATGM explodes, at least there will be damage to weapons systems and USO. I may be wrong, which is why I want to know the opinions of others.
By car very necessary, it is understandable and that it is developed from the experience of battles.
BUT-BUT-BUT-BUT-BUT
Why later 80 !! years old so many crew with modern automation systems.!?
Why are weapons all naked?
Let's put 20 people with all kinds of weapons in an on-board KAMAZ and let's call it MPDPiT fulio for us to look at some "zamoremokiyants" with theirs MRAP, RCVS.
We will fight meat!
And not FUY minus.
In this form, the BMPT is a "tin can" - a "mass grave"!

[S_mirnov]

I don’t see any feat in hanging on a heavy platform of light weapons! It was possible to equip 100 pieces of machine guns at the tank base for shelling the upper floors of tall buildings.
The defeat of tanks in Grozny - all the more you show illiteracy of the command of the RF Armed Forces. Or direct betrayal of the commander in chief!
Tanks have nothing to do with it! There is a saying "Foolishly you can break the Kui!" or "for a fool the crystal Kui will not last long!"

[Jin]

Quote: Papakiko

Why are weapons all naked?

What stupidity, ah !!!! Are you offering rocket mines like submarines ??? Do not carry nonsense, right! Colleague, apparently you are far from the armored forces, well, do not ruin the bullshit, please! Some wise guy + pasted you ... horror, I will correct, excuse me!

[Black Colonel]

What does the mine have to do with it? At least bulletproof screens could be placed, at the same time there would be at least such protection against cumulative ones.

[lucidlook]

And why, in fact, stupidity? Technically it is possible, moreover, there were such solutions in metal. They are quite workable. Here you are, Object 150, aka IT-1:



Well, yes, there is no 30mm gun, but nobody suggested hiding the gun, as I understand it.

[Genera]

Read carefully: Snipers pierced the thin armor of military vehicles from the roofs. At that time, Russia had not yet used anti-personnel armor, and the BMP-2 could not raise the guns high enough to fire back. Therefore, Russia began developing the “Terminator” - an armored support vehicle designed for military operations in urban conditions.

[Moritz]

Quote: Papakiko

Why after 80 !! years, so many crew with modern automation systems.!?

Yesterday, the program "Polygon" showed the Topol-M installation. So there is a control panel for ground stops, on which there are only five buttons and a digital display, seemingly 5 kg weighs and dimensions are rather big. Therefore, it seems to me that 3 gunners weigh and take up less space than our "modern" automation.

[Piligrim]

I agree! Many, many 5 people !!!

[Oleg Rosskiyy]

Quote: Pilgrim

I agree! Many, many 5 people !!!

Come on, 10 more will fit on the armor.

[Jin]

Quote: Pilgrim

I agree! Many, many 5 people !!!

Where would you come from already! Judging by your status, you agree a lot! And how many people are in the crew of Abrams, you do not know, dear ??? Moreover, there is a range of tasks, a few already ...

[Jin]

Quote: Papakiko

Many, very many!
For urban cramped conditions or very rough terrain, maybe good !? But even so, the "mass grave" comes out, apparently the laurels of the Soviet designers T-35 and T-28 are haunted.

I, at the beginning, reading your comments, thought that you are more competent .... I am convinced of the opposite. You see, a complex of weapons is involved in the Terminator, which, in principle, cannot be handled by a crew of 3 !!! Do you think the developers are dumber than you and me? Given the low projection of the machine and its passive-active armor, the chance of crew survival is very high IMHO

[Avenger711]

Translated into Russian, this is called betrayal. To kill several thousand people without fulfilling the task, so that later the population would be against the war, let Chechnya roll anywhere, if only the boys were at home.

I am not talking about stupidity in principle, the tactics of battle, including in the village, were taught to everyone in the training manuals.

[Dyagilev]

And where is the comment to which?

[DERWISH]

I support! + especially this criminal negligence with the jurisdiction and with the ill-considered protection and location of the entire column of the Maykop brigade, and indeed this operation is at the top of the crime of corruption and cynicism of the military leadership of the Chechen war !!!

[Eric]

They were "unexpectedly" re-targeted. They did not perform their task, but the task of 81 MSP, if my memory serves me right. The task of blocking REScom, due to the dense fire, could not be completed, they were entrenched at the station, while the route was being corrected, they were blocked. The initial task is to blockade the Rodina state farm. Like so. I will ask you to correct it if I was mistaken!

[Eric]

Correct myself, the initial task of the 131st combined detachment was to block the state farm. And then redirected.

[Jin]

Quote: Eric

I will ask you to correct it if I am mistaken!

I won’t tell you about the task assigned to the regiment, but the fact that they were entrenched in the railway station is an absolute ... They burned the equipment there ... a lot. I talked with the officers who were there ... general madhouse of course, tankers blame infantry, tank infantry, madhouse !!!

[Eric]

Well, they began to "park" the equipment at the station square. And in front of the station there was a five-story building from it and beat on equipment, plus from the tracks, from the back of the station.

[Igorboss16]

Mitek,
In Chechnya, our guys were put because of banal betrayal and the ill-conceived plan of military operations, I’m generally silent about material support, if we had done everything correctly, then there would have been much less human casualties

[Jin]

Quote: Igorboss16

In Chechnya, our guys were put because of banal betrayal and the ill-conceived plan of military operations, I’m generally silent about material support, if we had done everything correctly, then there would have been much less human casualties

You +, briefly about the main thing!

[Black Colonel]

War is a mistake of politicians who could not prevent it. And ordinary citizens always pay for such mistakes (or betrayals). I advise you to read htpt: //cruz-a.livejournal.com/78247.html

[Genry]

This BMPT is a hunter for people and not for tanks, here the IR channel must be supplemented with a T-channel (in the T-range it sees the contours of people through the walls, as in a movie like "Mission Impossible").

[Jin]

Quote: Genry

This BMPT is a human hunter, not a tank hunter.

You, dear, before writing such crap, read the TTX Attacks ... you are fed only that which is not a military secret ... no need to draw stupid conclusions on the basis of this !!!!

[Weterok]

The project manager clearly said that the machine is primarily intended for the fight against infantry and light anti-tank weapons. so that the missiles are auxiliary in order to disable the pillboxes or, in extreme cases, tanks ....

[APASUS]

Quote: Mitek

The overwhelming majority of casualties in the first Chechen war are caused not by the fact that the tanks are bad and the army is bad, but primarily by the stupidity of the high command. Therefore, despite the fact that it’s fashionable to water shit on our equipment, I’ll say our tanks are excellent. It is only necessary to use them correctly and train fighters not to paint fences and sweep the parade ground, but to the basics of tactics and other MILITARY sciences

So I’m saying that you don’t need to appoint a person who didn’t go through a military conflict to a post above the colonel. He didn’t sit at the base of the rear, but lay in the soldiers’ trenches. I’m not talking about the Minister of Defense !!

[aureole]

Absolutely agree. Moreover, not only MO. The state should be governed and, if necessary, sent to the death of thousands of people only by one who really he himself carried out such an order.
And to amend the Constitution: not to allow people who have not completed military service in the deputies and government (if you want to be a politician and bring benefits to your people - be nice, prove it). Prince Harry - and he flew off somehow in Afghanistan.

[politruk419]

So sure my general! But there are a lot of women in the State Duma .... enough for the whole Shock Women's Battalion named after A.F. Kerensky!

[Weterok]

fully support +++

[Moritz]

Quote: APASUS

So I’m saying that you don’t need to appoint a person who didn’t go through a military conflict to a post above the colonel. He didn’t sit at the base of the rear, but lay in the soldiers’ trenches. I’m not talking about the Minister of Defense !!

just that our Minister of Defense met all your conditions

[crazyrom]

Quote: Mitek

Our tanks went to the first Chechen one without DZ blocks. (I saw it myself)

But still, a couple of Terminators there would not hurt at all. Who played the Battlefield on the tank knows when the grenade launchers surrounded you, you even see them, but there’s nothing to shoot them with, the tank gun takes a long time to reload, and the machine gun often doesn’t get enough of them. And the terminator flashes through fences, shelters, houses, everything, and everyone gets tired.

[cth; fyn]

Duc is not easier how to do Slovaks? put a 30mm cannon on the tank at the rear of the turret with a separate observation and aiming channel? They turned out pretty nicely to make the tank more dangerous for infantry and helicopters.

[Jin]

Quote: cth; fyn

They turned out pretty nicely to make the tank more dangerous for infantry and helicopters.

Maybe you’re right, but the tank is not designed to deal with infantry and, especially, helicopters !!! You understand, there is no such universal unit that would fight against any threat ... There is a tank, there are means of support and only this way and how it works ... Stupidly, just a tank is just a tank ...

[Moritz]

Quote: crazyrom

But still, a couple of Terminators there would not hurt at all. Who played the Battlefield on the tank knows when the grenade launchers surrounded you, you even see them, but there’s nothing to shoot them with, the tank gun takes a long time to reload, and the machine gun often doesn’t get enough of them. And the terminator flashes through fences, shelters, houses, everything, and everyone gets tired.

Prince Harry also said that if you play well in Battlefield, then war is so-so, Easy Level.

[lucidlook]

In addition, there were cases when detonating plates were pulled out and (obviously) sold out of the existing dynamic protection elements that remained on the tanks.

[nchyornyj]

Absolutely to the point!

[zanoza]

For completeness of information.

[Kite]

The side branch in tank building does not cause me enthusiasm. Not a tank and not an armored personnel carrier, anti-tank missile ammunition (in carbon fiber containers - haha, 4 times ), the infantry are not lucky, and the cost of production is like a tank. For counterguerrilla (punitive) actions, maybe a thing, and only that.

[Tersky]

Quote: Kite

The side branch in tank building does not cause me enthusiasm.

Colleague, in the presence of this "side line" in Grozny, our losses of armored vehicles on the streets of the city would be ten times less than the actual ones ..

[zanoza]

Quote: Tersky

our losses of armored vehicles on the streets of the city would be

Elevation angles weapons BMPT look! Opinion will change ... (regarding the use in the city and mountains)

[Tersky]

Quote: zanoza

Elevation angles

Do you suggest firing from 10 meters? I mean, from under the walls of the house? Then you need an anti-aircraft installation .. The angle in 45 is quite enough to hit a high-altitude target at a distance of 300-400 meters, and given that a grenade launcher can be used against a BMPT, the target should be hit much like from a greater distance

[Avenger711]

The BMP-1 in Afghanistan has also flown around the corner, and you usually get ambushed in a counter-guerrilla war in a place where it’s not so easy to get the enemy. The offensive along the streets in the city on other principles is small, than the battle in the attacked column.

[Bosk]

I agree ... in order to knock down a flashlight, it is undesirable to stand under it.

[zanoza]

Quote: Tersky

enough to hit a high-altitude target at a distance of 300-400 meters

Well yes. He will also wave a white flag so that they notice with BMPT. In and hitchthat every firing point in the city is HOW TO AN AMBUSTER. From each GATE, shoot, beat from the roofs and upper windows.
Hit when you do not expect, from close range and for sure.
Know the weaknesses of enemy equipment - it uses the enemy.

In Afghanistan, 45 degrees were not enough for the 1 infantry fighting vehicle, there were 2 infantry fighting vehicles with 75 degrees.

[Per se.]

Quote: zanoza

In Afghanistan, 45 degrees were not enough for the 1 infantry fighting vehicle, there were 2 infantry fighting vehicles with 75 degrees.

In Afghanistan, Shilki was also used, and 23mm ZU-23-2 anti-aircraft guns were installed in the bodies of trucks for shooting in the mountains, so what? BMPT bothers whom? One 5-man crew is a lot, and right there they advocate for a heavy armored personnel carrier or a heavy infantry fighting vehicle so that the infantry sit behind the armor, shoot into the loopholes and embrasure, no matter that there is a crew with a landing force of 12-13 people. The infantry will still have to get out, and in the BMPT the crew replaces the infantry platoon in terms of efficiency, being behind the armor and on the tracks. BMPT is needed, and whoever was against its adoption, counterintelligence should deal with those. Increasing elevation angles, shielding anti-tank missiles, the issue is being solved.

[Jin]

Quote: Per se.

In Afghanistan, Shilki was also used, and 23mm ZU-23-2 anti-aircraft guns were installed in the bodies of trucks for shooting in the mountains, so what? BMPT bothers whom? One 5-man crew is a lot, and right there they advocate for a heavy armored personnel carrier or a heavy infantry fighting vehicle so that the infantry sit behind the armor, shoot into the loopholes and embrasure, no matter that there is a crew with a landing force of 12-13 people. The infantry will still have to get out, and in

Colleague, you +

[lucidlook]

Quote: Per se.

and in BMPT, the crew replaces the infantry platoon in effectiveness

It does not replace, since the vulnerability of RPGs to both the entire machine (the base of the T-72) and weapons (the absence of even bulletproof booking of the tower) remains.

Quote: Per se.

Increasing elevation angles, shielding anti-tank missiles, the issue is being solved.

That's when / if they do, then we'll see.

[Jin]

Quote: Tersky

but given that against BMPT can a grenade

Yes? And you, dear, ever shot from a grenade launcher ??? You are a simple cowboy! 300-400 meters ??? Well, you are just a sniper!

[lucidlook]

Understood nothing. Please explain how you reason? Just keep in mind that during the assault on Grozny, 102 infantry fighting vehicles of various modifications were lost, which had elevation angles of 74 degrees.

[Kite]

Yes, I agree with a particular example of the fighting in Grozny. But, a properly planned military operation, and not a demonstration of force, would have made it possible to do without massive losses in that example. Grachev hinted that with "untied hands" he could have wiped this city into dust with two regiments of the Airborne Forces (well, if the city was a stranger, not his own, Russian, and in this case: a handful of militants were going to demonstrate the power and determination of the authorities and sober their minds, only thought too well of the enemy, overestimated their mental abilities)

[Tersky]

Quote: Kite

Grachev hinted that with "untied hands" he could have wiped this city into dust with two regiments of the Airborne Forces

Yes, he did not hint, but spoke in plain text, and gave the command to storm Grozny on December 31, being a "blue", a fucking strategist ...

[Eric]

I apologize for wedging myself, but:

- Before entering Grozny, a cipher program was received: to carry out the disarmament of the illegal armed formations using the full range of combat means, in the form of military operations.

Before entering the Grozny assault units:

From the records of the radio communications of the assault squads
May 9.05 - the brigade commander ordered 5 BMPs to be sent to him - completed.

<< Meanwhile, the scouts overcame a field on the southern bank of the Neftyanka.
At 9 hours in the "Jackal 17 (4)" square ("Jackal" - the coordinate grid of the city of Grozny on military maps), a platoon of senior lieutenant Valery Danilov discovered a Dudayev tank, and subsequently two Urals and an armored personnel carrier.
At 9 hours and 24 minutes, scouts reported on the connection with the enemy tank maneuvers.
- What happened, "Olymp" (call sign of the scouts and in particular BMP-2: # 012)? Why did you stop? - the company commander asked him.
“A tank begins to move in our direction,” Valery answered Tyrtyshny.
Colonel Ivan Savin, according to the recollections of the chief of intelligence of the 131st brigade, Major Roman Kuznetsov, sets the task for Captain Oleg Tyrtyshny to suppress the firing points of the Dudayevites. >>

As our ATGMs fired, generally put out the light.
Draw conclusions dear gentlemen, what kind of demonstration of power can be discussed here, when this is already a direct challenge to the warring group ...

[tomket]

with the correct interaction of infantry and tanks, there would be no losses at all in the Terrible, and different "terminators" would not be required

[Botanologist]

there would be no losses in Grozny at all, and different "terminators" would not be required

Well, if my grandmother had a fuy, she would be a grandfather. Who guarantees that tomorrow again somewhere in the city we will not squeeze out bearded men? For example, in Syria, or Angola ... And it is not a fact that there will be great command and good interaction.

[George]

I apologize for the interference, but if as you say:
And not the fact that there will be great command and good interaction.
then no terminators will help. Only the coordinated actions of infantry and armored vehicles.

[tomket]

about Syria and Angnola, it's like Blucher reported that under our blows the foundations of capitalism in the world would collapse in some places. In general, it would be nice to send a dozen 2 terminators "to Syria and test the concept in practice, identify the advantages and design flaws in practice.

[Jin]

Quote: Botanologist

Well, if my grandmother had a fuy, she would be a grandfather. Who guarantees that tomorrow again somewhere in the city we will not squeeze out bearded men? For example, in Syria, or Angola ... And it is not a fact that there will be great command and good interaction.

Nice to ply competent people ...

[Jin]

Quote: tomket

With the correct interaction of infantry and tanks, there would be no losses in the Terrible at all, and different "terminators" would not be required

I put you +, but do not confuse x with a tram handle! Terminator-NECESSARY, REQUIRED, in the army machine !!! If Shoigu will not engage in her lobbying for mass production, I will make darts from his picture ...

[Eric]

Even with the right interaction, the losses would be huge. The distance between the opponents is minimal. A similar proximity is dictated by ambush tactics, or a simpler fire attack. Mortars are hard to use. For ours in the shooting space, namely columns in the streets. But this is BEFORE the capture of strong points by ours.

We have the following picture:
- one of the means of fire is already absent.
- The question causes a ban on helicopter support. Although then she was only assault (su-25). And the goals were by no means Dudaevites.
- the size of the incoming group is not equivalent even to the number of defenders. And the main rule of storming the city, at least 3-fold superiority in manpower. Again, minus us.
- tanks without DZ. There was no time, although there were guys who managed to deliver at least something.
- We won’t even disassemble non-training. Here I’ll spend more nerves than printing energy.

An interesting fact: evacuation columns departing from the station at the exit fell into fire bags. Columns help, too, were ambushed at the entrance to Grozny. Subsequently, asking for help, Savin was told that help was coming from Lenin’s CPKiO. Plus paratroopers. In reality, help did not go, but he was deliberately misled, instead of organizing an evacuation, he waited in his position to aggravate his position (without knowing it). Finally, when the evacuation route was proposed, just to the Lenin park, it was already too late. Plus, with a real choice of the point for evacuation, promotion there, a column of one hundred pounds would fall into the trap.
The group led by Rokhlin completed the immediate task, but was in no hurry to help with the 131st, the Samaras who occupied the station's goods were already exhausted.
Many demobilizers had to be paid before sending, but they were kept right up to the entrance to Grozny, that is, the demobil arrived in Mozdok and on their traffic control devices, which were determined by operation, but they were commited before the assault, no one thought that they would have to enter the city. As a result, conscripts from school received at the entrance.

Yaroslavtsev, who headed the 81st SME if my memory serves me, had to go to the railway station area by 16:00 p.m. like, the bet on the surprise factor disappears. Despite the fact that the assault squads entered around 9:00, I apologize for the inaccuracies in my head problems, and as a result with memory.

Summing up (I'm not a strategist, I'm sorry), the main factor that played a fatal role was the fact that they urged the army on top and set impossible deadlines for such an operation. This is our main misfortune.
I will add here, urgently new means of target designation and artillery guidance are required, avionics systems are required that maximally filter targets on the battlefield, a friend or someone else. Regarding BMPT, I personally don’t like the concept, we don’t need it, we need a different path - purely my opinion. Yes, of course, its running capabilities and security at the level of the main MBT, but still, the car weighs 45 tons. In general, the experience is rich, there remains analysis, development of solutions, and then TTZ.

[lucidlook]

But how then did ours take Berlin in the 45th? Or was there a dynamic defense on the T-34 and IS-2?

[Strategy]

Well about the battles in Grozny is written in the book by Andrey Antipin "Lev Rokhlin: the life and death of a general". It can be used as a textbook or training manual on tactics, the only pity is that the book is extremely rare.

[Weterok]

http://lib.rus.ec/b/159058
here you can read it

[Dyagilev]

The fact of the matter is that no later than two months in such a war, only the "terminator" was reliable

[Jin]

Quote: Tersky

Colleague, in the presence of this "side line" in Grozny, our losses of armored vehicles on the streets of the city would be ten times less than the actual ones ..

Colleague, you are absolutely right! The kite froze something ...

[Moritz]

Quote: Tersky

Colleague, in the presence of this "side line" in Grozny, our losses of armored vehicles on the streets of the city would be ten times less than the actual ones ..

the clearest example is how, using this fact, the manufacturer in the shortest possible time tried to impose junk on the army according to the old Soviet memory. It seems to me that this tank support apparatus itself will need the support of a platoon of machine gunners.

[DERWISH]

to save many lives, this is much more effective than the same shilka and what else is needed for wax operations in urban conditions or in the same foothill villages

[sesame]

production costs - like a tank
-about what? Platform T-72 which remained from the Union in unimaginable quantities and now stand idle. Or it’s better to put a modern T-90 under the fire of grenade launchers (I note, made from scratch, and not inherited) not intended for close combat.

[Kite]

sezam, are you sure that remaking the old is cheaper than making the new?
If you just remove the turret from the tank and put in another weapon module, it can be a little more economical, only in the order of overhaul will you have to change everything except the hull, and the hull will be significantly modified to ensure the installation of new units. Well, is it cheaper?

[marshes]

Quote: Kite

Are you sure that remaking the old is cheaper than making the new?

Last year, Kazakhstan Engineering signed an agreement with Uralvagonozavod on the conversion of old T-72s into BMPT and TOS-1A.

[Kite]

Then do not complain about the "cut" of the budget! Once, you are not interested in the value of this contract (the fact of the transaction is indicated, but the financial volumes are not indicated).

[marshes]

Quote: Kite

Then do not complain about "cutting" the budget! Once, you are not interested in the cost of this contract.

They did pretty good prophylaxis there at one time, hardly anyone would risk it.

[Marek Rozny]

Kite, for several years they harshly punished the "haulers" in the Moscow region. After this, no big scandals were heard in law enforcement agencies regarding the "cut". I have personally known the little man in the Defense Ministry, who has recently been in charge of supplying arms to the troops, for many years - people are "communistically" ideological (in a good way).
Regarding BMPT-shek themselves: Kazakhstan bought samples - tested it, tested it in exercises, like everything was buzzing. It was decided to saturate the troops with Terminators and Pinocchio. Only hodovka decided to use the T-72, of which we have a sufficient number. Paired with conventional BMPT tanks, this is a useful thing. I think that Shoigu will also appreciate them and take them into service in the Russian army.

[Bosk]

If a column of such a side branch in the forest jumps out onto a classic column ... I would not be surprised that this side branch of the classics will put it and will go further.

[Kite]

Quote: Bosk

If a column of such a side branch in the forest jumps out onto a classic column ...............

- By the way, about battles in the forest: can this machine drive away from the clearing without risking to remain unarmed, hitting the knot with a launch container, and if it falls down? And anyway: tank battle in the forest! ?

[Kite]

What kind of emotional people appreciate the comments! Well, this vehicle is definitely not a "tank killer", but an anti-guerrilla weapon against forces that do not have the usual set of PTSs. Moreover, this "terminator" must use the missile ammunition as quickly as possible, even at a long distance from the enemy, otherwise it may suffer from its ammunition. Well, how many "partisans / partisan carts" will he destroy from 3-5 km, if the battle is not in the southern Russian steppe?

[Per se.]

Quote: Kite

Well, this car is definitely not a "tank killer"

The article was written by a girl, she clearly got excited about "killing tanks", anti-tank missiles are not an end in themselves for this machine. Of course, it is advisable to cover the containers with an armored screen, they will definitely do this, if there is a desire. BMPT is needed not only to eliminate terrorists, but for its direct function, - escorting tanks to suppress enemy infantry and helicopters. Will it be worse with BMPT tankers?

[Jin]

Quote: Per se.

anti-tank missiles are not the end in itself of this machine. Of course, it is advisable to cover the containers with an armored screen

Well, yes ... but BMPT itself by a force field is desirable !!! And supply a laser! And a couple of T-1000 Terminators to protect against enemy grenade launchers!

[Per se.]

Quote: Jin

Well, yes ... but BMPT itself by a force field is desirable !!!

I appreciate your humor, Jin. Probably, it is necessary to clarify what I was talking about. The fact that fighting tanks is not the main task of the "Terminator", I hope you won't argue? The fact that containers with PTRs, and the rifle complex itself, can be reinforced with a light U-shaped screen around the tower (similar to the screens on the towers of the German T-III, T-IV), I think, too? There are figures here who, not without sound logic, are sure that small arms can destroy anti-tank containers on the BMPT, damage the tower complex, strengthening its protection, it will not be worse.

[Lopatov]

Belarusian version:

[atalef]

Quote: Spade

Belarusian version:

Why was it covered with carpet?

[Lopatov]

This is a radar absorbing coating.

[Jin]

Quote: Spade

Belarusian version:

well ... Belosussky is not an option!

[Kite]

Guided missile 9M114. Technical description and instruction manual. 9M114 TO. Military Publishing House of the Ministry of Defense of the USSR, M., 1982.
- for those who want to know more about what kind of plastic pipes are attached there.
By 1 / effectiveness of these guns, too, the data is in the public domain.

[Lopatov]

In fact, everyone writes that there is 9M120. Although, in principle, they should be interchangeable. And yet, is the documentation on 114 missiles in the public domain?

[Weterok]

I understand (if not right - correct) that the base of tanks that go everywhere for cancellation and which are proposed to be modified giving a different meaning to the car ... if so, then the car will initially cost a third cheaper ...

[s500]

Correctly, the major general was just tired of hearing in the coming years, they would commit, and in what guards didn’t the Russians want to wail them, they couldn’t finish the chob.

[fktrcfylh.h09]

more new products and not Kazakhstan

[omsbon]

Great car, we were missing one!

[bask]

Quote: omsbon

Great car, we lacked one

Maybe there was a shortage of the BTR-T manufactured in 1999. And not a single unit was not delivered to the troops. During the 2nd Chechen campaign. "On the BTR-T, install a 23 mm cannon AZP" Amur "- 2 -A7 ZSU" Shilka , A couple of AGS ,, Flame ,, And that's all the BTR-T which will deliver to the battlefield and support with fire. Why else BMPT ,, Frame ,,?

[Lopatov]

As an armored personnel carrier, the Ukrainian version is better, with access to the stern.
But there is one small but important nuance. The landing in the car reduces ammunition. What is not good.

[bask]

Quote: Spade

BTR is better than the Ukrainian version, with an exit

It is better with a stern exit. Who argues. But it is necessary to do and accept in troops. Enough to ride on armor.

[Lopatov]

Come on, there is a heavy armored personnel carrier based on old tanks, of which we have a bunch of them in line to be melted down. In any case, this kind of modernization will be cheaper than the new Kurgan and other promising vehicles.

[Jin]

Quote: Spade

Come on, there is a heavy armored personnel carrier based on old tanks, of which we have a bunch of them in line to be melted down. In any case, this kind of modernization will be cheaper than the new "Kurgan" and other promising m

Hi, here I agree with you completely, that’s how, moreover, successfully, Israel acts

[Lopatov]

Welcome.
Just the Israelis are economic. Sometimes we should take an example from them. Stupid disposal of old tanks will not bring much money, if not at all, at a loss.

[Jin]

Quote: Spade

if not at all unprofitable.

and she will ... without options

[Per se.]

Quote: bask

Why else BMPT ,, Frame ,,?

BTR-T will deliver infantry to the battlefield, and support it with fire, and BMPT for the battlefield and replace the platoon of this infantry under fire. This is the difference, as in the significantly greater firepower of the BMPT compared to the APC.

[donchepano]

Quote: omsbon

Great car, we were missing one!

BEAST MACHINE !!!

[sniper]

A controversial article and a controversial car, in my opinion (I'm not an expert), cars of this class need to be made in the form of modernization of tanks of obsolete models, and not on a new platform, well, the security of the weapons and its power raise questions, as well as elevation angles. .. But, I repeat this opinion of the amateur ...

[Jin]

Quote: sniper

Controversial article and controversial machine

In vain you ... a very necessary box!

[Alexander Romanov]

Quote: omsbon

Great car, we were missing one!

We still lack her.

[Vadivak]

Quote: Alexander Romanov

We still lack her.

Hi Sapsha, does Nazarbayev need that lit? Or run in Kazakhstan knows him

[aksakal]

Quote: Vadivak

Hi Sapsha, does Nazarbayev need that lit? Or run in Kazakhstan knows him

- I know a chela working in the Agency for Military-Strategic Research under the Ministry of Defense of the Republic of Kazakhstan. They came to the conclusion that Kazakhstan is unlikely to be attacked by anyone's regular troops, but the regular bandit formations - a hundred pounds. These operate mainly in the city, so there a regular tank with a 120 mm cannon and a coaxial machine gun is less preferable than this "Terminator". On the basis of the conclusions of these guys, it was decided to purchase these machines. I support.
You just approach from the point of view of large-scale aggression against Russia, as Germany did. From this point of view, the function of the "Terminator" is not at all consistent, some kind of stupid branch of tank building. Only nobody will attack like this, as Germany did. But to train militants and send them to the same Caucasus or the same Tatarstan (a new facility) - it will be one hundred poods. In urban battles and actions in "greenery", the Terminator is preferable for love, the only thing I would have improved would be to replace one 30 mm cannon with a 57 mm cannon with the possibility of detonating shells right above the enemy's heads, and the shells are stuffed with arrows - an analogue created by a Swedish company " Bofors "(BAE Systems). And to a platoon of such "Terminators" I would attach one good UAV for reconnaissance purposes.

[Cossack23]

it would be great, but for this it is necessary to disperse the entire high command, so as not to be clever.

[Jin]

Quote: aksakal

with 120 mm gun and coaxial machine gun

125mm smoothbore ... also NSVT "Cliff", (now changing to "KORD") on the tower 12,7 ... but at the expense of your opinion on the Terminator I completely agree

[Tersky]

Quote: Alexander Romanov

We still lack her.

Hi Sasha!

In turn, to date, there is not a single such machine in service with the Russian army. This was reported by RIA Novosti. "Of course, it (" Terminator ") has a huge export potential, but we are all thinking whether to adopt it or not," D. Rogozin said.

well, money is like armor .. ..n’t using any projectile

[bask]

Quote: Tersky

so money they are like bro

There is a lot of money in the country. But the soullessness and disregard for the SOLDIER is the main reason ... For which BTR-T has not been in the army since 99 and BMPT 0 in the army. But I believe that it’s worth disposing of the old MBT T55, T62, T72 , T80, this is a crime. With high-quality Soviet armor. Only the creation on the basis of their hulls. BTR-T .. Not one tank for re-melting. Now that the BMP BTR fleet is outdated and does not meet modern requirements, this is vital.

[stalker]

The beginning of the article was delusional, but our tanks fought there in such conditions that they couldn’t dream of the West, withstood numerous hits of various RPGs and despite the fact that many didn’t have airborne assault rifles, the boxes were empty, they died mainly from mines, land mines and blocking in the crowded city blocks and the stupidity of the command in the use of armored vehicles in the city, so many examples have already been, they passed the great war, took Berlin. Eternal memory to the fallen soldiers! And if on the topic, I will say this, if this terminator is used in approximately the same conditions as in Chechnya, then it can’t last long without infantry, and most importantly it has limited ammunition safety, especially missiles. The ideal application is of course in interaction with infantry and tanks.

[tronin.maxim]

The machine is necessary but stretching the rubber will cause the terminator to become obsolete. Although min. Defense gave way to hard to say about the fate of this machine. I think over time there will be more information on this issue!

[Mikhado]

Well, all the same, the flimsy platform for weapons is doubtful, for all the necessity of such a machine, especially ATGMs are defenseless.
The simplest and most angry option is a good old 57 mm machine gun in a standard tank turret with good aiming angles vertically, with the same ATGMs in the aft armored box, CORD in remote execution.

[Lopatov]

Namely, 40 mm, 57 mm, with ammunition, providing remote detonation over the target. In general, there are many options for weapons, some even offer 120-122 mm with a short howitzer barrel.

[bask]

Quote: Spade

Namely, 40 mm, 57 mm, with ammunition, providing remote detonation over the target.

Who is minus. ??? .. Lopatov correctly says the 57 mm S-68 anti-aircraft gun, which has now been modernized, by order of Vietnam’s money. In the Central Research Institute Petrel, The most promising caliber for the BTR. With remote detonation. Warhead. The problem is only in the absence of modern ammunition.

[Lopatov]

Come on, it’s just that someone unnecessarily trusts our military generals, who provide the military-industrial complex with requirements for creating new equipment.

They say ours are already working on new ammunition with inductive data input into electronic fuses. In any case, the serial "Tornado-G" already has induction input

[ICT]

Quote: Mikhado

The simplest and most angry option is the good old 57 mm

and the idea has been hovering for a long time, the reincarnation of the ZSU-57-2, SHE AND MODERN TANKS OF THE BLOOD CAN SPORT AND THE INFANTRY MORE SERIOUS CALIBRATE OFS will support

[bask]

Quote: TIT

and the idea has been around for a long time, the reincarnation of ZSU-57-2,

Our 57 mm. S-68 mother’s more powerful than 40mm Bofost On the BM-SV-90 .. NATO everywhere on all BMP switches to a caliber of 40 mm. Only on the German BMP ,, Puma ,, 30 mm gun.

[avt]

Quote: Mikhado

Well, all the same, the flimsy platform for weapons is doubtful, for all the necessity of such a machine, especially ATGMs are defenseless.
The simplest and most angry option is a good old 57 mm machine gun in a standard tank turret with good aiming angles vertically, with the same ATGMs in the aft armored box, CORD in remote execution.

Another thing that confuses us is five people in a carriage. Isn’t it too much with, as they say, computerization and automation?

[Papakiko]

Quote: avt

Another thing that confuses us is five people in a carriage. Isn’t it too much with, as they say, computerization and automation?

Many, very many!
For urban cramped conditions or very rough terrain, maybe good !? But even so, the "mass grave" comes out, apparently the laurels of the Soviet designers T-35 and T-28 are haunted.
Here it was discussed:
http://topwar.ru/4813-mnogobashennye-tanki-rkka.html
and here:
http://topwar.ru/2419-btr-t-iz-tanka.html

[nickname 1 and 2]

Must put in a series!

[cth; fyn]

HER, garbage, it is necessary to modify! for her and the BMP-2 it’s already a threat, as it starts to water everything from its rate of fire and so it flies off the combat module.

[Jin]

Quote: cth; fyn

HER, garbage, it is necessary to modify! for her and the BMP-2 it’s already a threat, as it starts to water everything from its rate of fire and so it flies off the combat module.

It will fly off if BMP-2 can reach the shot distance ....

[dirty trick]

Three units of a tank support combat vehicle were delivered to Kazakhstan, which is currently the only user of the BMPT.

interesting car! and what are our plans? when and in what quantities the equipment will go to the troops ?!

[Lopatov]

No delivery plans. The machine cannot perform the functions that are assigned to it.

[Proud.]

???? Didn't understand what anti-personnel armor was? What did snipers pierce "thin armor" from? Grenade launchers, yes, they struck. They fired on the sides and rear of the car. The angle of elevation of the BMP-2 cannon is quite high, up to 74 degrees, but this is not the reason . The mediocre use of technology, the heady attitude of military bureaucrats, the lack of tactics and underestimation of the enemy. The experience of using armored vehicles, in urban conditions, during the Second World War was not taken into account, or was forgotten. ...

[Vadivak]

Quote: Be proud.

anti-personnel armor?

Victor deliberately introduced a "new term" into the search engine - except in this article, there is no such definition anywhere, on this occasion I recall 12 chairs' Waves fell on the pier and fell with a swift jack!

[Lopatov]

It looks like talking about body armor. From the context, you can understand.

[Tersky]

Quote: Vadivak

specially introduced a "new term" into the search engine - except in this article there is no such definition anywhere

Only the top-secret "development" of Tolik from the nano, Skolkovo "project"

[erased]

During the battle of Grozny, Chechen fighters completely defeated the tanks of the Russian Federation. Snipers pierced the thin armor of military vehicles from the roofs. At that time, Russia had not yet used antipersonnel armor, and the BMP-2 could not raise the guns high enough to fire back.

After this nonsense, it’s somehow difficult to read further. However, this is apparently an anti-advertisement of Soviet / Russian armored vehicles. No sniper can penetrate the armor of the tank, and BMP-2 too. The BMP-2 gun is capable of processing the upper floors at an angle of 74 degrees. It was specially created back under Afghanistan.
Well, of course, the stupidity of the military leadership of the times of the first RFC, when convoys were driven into the city, was kicked again. It’s even fair.
As for BMPT, the car came out interesting. However, even since the second RCHV, a lot of time has passed, but everyone has not accepted it. Build a structure or think how to apply?
BMPT is needed, but where and in what quality? It wouldn’t work out again, as always - we’ll enter the state, and there we will see ...

[Prohor]

The first Chechen, forgive me patriots, the Russian and Soviet army. Yes, if someone does not remember, most of the "field commanders" in those days were former SA officers, many of them went through Afghanistan. The reason for the defeat was this, not the technique ...

[Guun]

I agree with you. Many field commanders of Ichkeria passed the Soviet military school. By the way, there are also Soviet experts among the Taliban in Afghanistan. The war in both Afghanistan and Chechen conflicts is terrible.

[urry79rus]

nonsense, read my comment above

[Jin]

Quote: Guun

I agree with you. Many field commanders of Ichkeria passed the Soviet military school.

Everything is correct, but here Ichkeria, with a capital letter in vain ...

[urry79rus]

some kind of stupidity .. But the aliens, or Fort Bragg graduates, fought for the federals? ... Also, SOVIET OFFICERS who graduated from the same Soviet military schools, but were unlucky with their superiors. There were traitors in power in the country.

[Jin]

Quote: urry79rus

some kind of stupidity .. And the aliens, or Fort Bragg graduates, fought for the federals ?.

In the first, a lot of conscripts were 19-19,5 years old ... Want more? Write in a personal ....

[bask]

Quote: Prokhor

The reason for the defeat was in this, and not in technology ...

I disagree Prokhor. First, the Russian troops did not defeat anyone..A REASON ,,, Failure ,,,,, in the total betrayal of the EBN of Berezovsky and other as yet unidentified traitors of the Motherland. They have not yet been responsible for the deaths of thousands of SOLDIERS AND OFFICERS OF THE RUSSIAN ARMY ., BUT APPLICATION BTR-T significantly reduced losses in battles in urban conditions. And from improvised landmines.

[zanoza]

Quote: erased

The BMP-2 gun is capable of processing the upper floors at an angle of 74 degrees.

But what can BMPT:

[b] Automatic gun, number × caliber, 2 twin × 30 mm,
Technical rate of fire, rds / min up to 600
Power type AP single-tape from stores in BO
Angles of guidance, city .:
- in the horizontal plane 360 ​​(with a tower)
— in the vertical plane -5 ... + 45
The complex of guided weapons, mark “Attack-T”
PU pointing angles, city .:
- in the horizontal plane 360 ​​(with a tower)
— in the vertical plane - 5 ... + 25

somehow does not fit with the concept of using in battles in the city. Not enough elevation angle will be

[cth; fyn]

At least 60 is necessary, 45 are very few!

[Jin]

Quote: erased

No sniper can penetrate the armor of the tank, and BMP-2 too.

In general, you + ... but in particular ... And you, what do you think that a sniper must be armed with a sniper rifle? And if the dude shoots sniper with RPGs? It’s clear that he will be called a grenade launcher ... but the meaning is not lost ...

[Cynic]

Quote: Jin

must a sniper be armed with a sniper rifle? And if the dude shoots sniper with RPGs?

How strange it is to hear from you.
Sniper shooting implies, among other things, the presence of sniper weapons.
Of course, you can add eight times to an RPG instead of a regular one by two and seven, but only a sniper weapon is not only a sight!
And if we recall the existence of large-caliber sniper rifles! Gauges then, from 12.7mm to 20mm.
By the way, there is / was a Soviet experience in installing sniper sights on PTRs, though it’s a completely different conversation about other goals.

[Lopatov]

Sniper - the concept is very ambiguous

[Cynic]

Quote: Spade

the concept is very ambiguous

For the adversary

[patriot2]

It is interesting how many such support combat vehicles and in what time frame our defense industry is capable of producing for the needs of the Russian army, because the combat vehicle needed is for the troops !?

[Marek Rozny]

There are no such cars in the Russian army. The Kazakhs bought an experimental batch and now intend to increase their number with the Uralvagonzavod due to rework from the old T-72.

[dojjdik]

I do not like the name "terminator" pro-NATO; rename to "Siberian" and the cost is not indicated in the article if it is exported to Iran, for example

[Rebus]

Quote: dojjdik

I do not like the name "terminator" pro-NATO

The word "terminator" comes from the Latin terminare - to limit.
The term terminator is used in:
1) astronomy to indicate the boundary between the illuminated and unlit parts of the surface of a planet or moon.
2) biology to indicate the portion of DNA that determines the stop of transcription and the end of mRNA synthesis.
3) a technique for designating a device for absorbing pulses at the end of a long signal line.
In short, the name does not contain anything NATO or pronat, but I agree with you, the name should be understandable .....

[atalef]

Quote: Rebus

The term terminator is used in

By the way, the words Term and Terminator are cognates

TERM (from the Latin terminus - border, limit),

The term (mythology) - among the ancient Romans deity of borders, under the auspices of which were border stones and pillars, considered sacred.

[Rebus]

atalef,
I totally agree

The term is a special concept, an artificial sign used in a particular area of ​​knowledge, thinking, and practical activity. A word or a combination of words that accurately identify a subject.

[tomket]

interesting, but if, for example, if we were to keep in good shape, the ISU-152 would remain and instead of t-72 enter them in Grozny? Would tryndets all in Grozny ???? (p .... c all-one of the nicknames of ISU)

on the second photo the tanker under the "terminator" has relieved the need or is it already flowing from him ?????

[edeligor]

Quote: stalker

for a long time he can’t hold out without infantry,

What city?! Rear and side blind car!

[Tersky]

Quote: edeligor

What city?! Rear and side blind car!

Colleague, have you watched the video carefully?

BMPT has a modern developed automatic fire control system (LMS) "Frame". The gunner’s sight includes a thermal imaging channel, an optical channel, ground-based control equipment for the laser-beam guidance channel of the ATGM (developed by the NCC VKT FSUE “GRPZ”) and a laser rangefinder. The commander’s panoramic sight has an 360 ° viewing sector. The panoramic sight has an optical, low-level television and laser rangefinder channels. If necessary, the commander can display the image of the gunner’s thermal sight on his video device. Automated LMS has a digital ballistic computer, a set of automatic sensors for firing conditions and an automatic target tracking system, which greatly simplifies and increases the effectiveness of guided weapons at once over the entire range of BMPT speed with roll and differential of up to 15 degrees.
The machine is also equipped with a NAVSTAR / GLONASS navigation system.

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

The management of the weapons complex is duplicated - the commander has the ability to conduct effective fire from the entire weapons complex located in the tower. Jobs operators automatic grenade launchers equipped with stabilized sights "Agat-MP" (day / night).

[Pimply]

It’s very controversial that the concept is that the machine itself

[Lopatov]

The concept is absolutely not controversial, just the car does not correspond to it.

Rough: attack on a platoon strongpoint. Tank platoon, infantry company. The first line is tanks and BMPT. Tanks "work" for their purposes, BMPTs for anti-tank weapons in trenches and other shelters. Maximum speeds. The infantry dismounts as close to the enemy as possible: firstly, this will allow the artillery to support the attack with fire longer, and secondly, a modern fighter is equipped so that he will not be able to run after tanks for a particularly long time. After dismounting, the infantry clears the VOP.

Why BMPTs are needed: tanks with their cannons firing along a flat trajectory are not very effective against enemy infantry covered in trenches, and vice versa, this infantry, saturated with anti-tank weapons, is very dangerous for tanks

[Kite]

Quote: Spade

The first line is tanks and BMPT. Tanks "work" for their purposes, BMPTs for anti-tank weapons in trenches and other shelters. Maximum speeds. The infantry dismounts as close to the enemy as possible ...

- where does the infantry come from in your concept?

[Lopatov]

The best option is heavy armored personnel carriers - they can operate almost in the first line. Somewhat worse are the classic BMPs, which, due to their worst booking, will be forced to operate at some distance. Even worse, wheeled armored personnel carriers, there may be problems with cross-country ability.

You see, the classic infantry chain with tanks now has little chance. Tanks move at the speed of an infantry, and therefore are more vulnerable, in addition, the infantry limits the capabilities of the KAZ, which, we hope, will enter the troops.
The infantry is also very vulnerable - it’s not worth counting on the fact that the enemy will have fewer fire weapons.

[Kite]

Quote: Spade

the classic infantry chain with tanks now has little chance. Tanks move at the speed of an infantry, and therefore are more vulnerable, in addition, infantry limits the capabilities of KAZ

- and this can be speculated, but the question was about a tank attack with BMPT support.
By the way, will KAZ not harm missile ammunition of a nearby BMPT? (like infantry)

Quote: Spade

attack on a platoon stronghold. Tank platoon, infantry company.

- then both the rocket battery and the assault squadron, ...... But, someone should find this platoon stronghold and start the BS (of course, having suffered the first losses).

[Lopatov]

Quote: Kite

By the way, will KAZ not harm missile ammunition of a nearby BMPT? (like infantry)

Of course it will hurt. Not only that, the infantry is more protected than these missiles. It's like the 120th rocket (9M120) There is a transport and launch container made of something like fiberglass. One splinter, and at best, the rocket will simply not fly anywhere, and at worst, if either the kick-out or the sustainer engine is damaged, it will fly, tumbling, "to whom God will send"

You probably do not quite understand. I am for BMPT, but I do not think that the current version meets the requirements.

[webdog]

Shovels, missiles are in armored guides.
withstand splinters and armor-piercing bullet 12 mm (protection class 6A)
everything is provided. heavier armor is not required.
I think so.

[Lopatov]

Where do you see them, these "armored guides"? I can't see. Some TPU, which are quite well pierced by fragments.

[Kite]

Quote: Spade

I am for BMPT, but I do not think that the current version meets the requirements.

I understood you, and immediately, only I am neither for nor against, I just suggest not to admire without thinking and drive this car into the series, the remark is not for you personally, but since the communication is public, then for everyone reading. Is this BMPT enough to support tanks on the PB? No! And a heavy armored personnel carrier is generally a twist of thoughts, to invest in the creation of a tank, but to deprive the vehicle of its firepower (weapon) - ?!

[Lopatov]

About the fact that this drive a car in a series is not worth it, absolutely agree.
For heavy armored personnel carriers: how many tanks do we have in line for remelting? for 2010, only T-55 1500 units stood.

[Jin]

Quote: Kite

KAZ will not damage missile ammunition nearby BMPT? (like infantry)

stop already! Than???????

[bask]

Quote: Kite

does infantry appear in your concept?

Please note ,,, troops enter a village full of militants armed with RPGs and ATGMs under cover of BIR-80 .. There are no more comments .. What is the first line? BTR-T is simply necessary for these operations and is now in Dagestan.

[Kite]

And I’m not too lazy to answer: Lopatov described his vision of the battle, in the first line tanks and infantry fighting vehicles, then infantry dismounted from somewhere, but there is no airborne squad in the BMPT! So the question arose about the non-mentioned infantry delivery vehicles. And now I’ll throw a provocative question. Fight is not imagined without infantry? Do you want to have infantry protection next to tanks? So, okay, will we deliver to the battlefield on heavy, super-protected armored personnel carriers and force the infantry to go out in the hottest place?

[Lopatov]

There are situations in which infantry is indispensable. But .. The less infantry moves on its own, the more individual protection it can be equipped with. Up to shields, like the Ministry of Internal Affairs. Plus the problem of replenishing BC. The closer the car, the less you have to carry around.

[Jin]

Quote: Kite

- where does the infantry come from in your concept?

Do not cling to the words of the BMP and the armored personnel carrier ... where did she still come from ???

[Kite]

Quote: Jin

Do not cling to the words of the BMP and the armored personnel carrier ... where did she still come from ???

- I do not cling to words, but in this way I remind you of the need for a full description. Do you think that following BMP and BTR tanks is natural? So do I. Then, in our ideas, BMPT, like and does not bear anything extra that MBT + BMP + Tunguska / Torah, etc. ZSU does not have.

[urry79rus]

Where in modern warfare did you see a platoon stronghold in the field? what kind of trenches? If it came to this, then for this purpose there is artillery from a battalion mortar to ... In short, the enemy stronghold in the field should cease to exist even before the infantry and tanks approach ..

[Lopatov]

If you think that in modern warfare, defense has completely outlived itself as a type of hostilities, then you are very mistaken. Trenches dug, dig, and will dig.

[webdog]

Pimpled, got out again and immediately with delusional texts ...
I wonder what else you gurgle?
you are not a specialist, and your judgments are closer to fantastic.
Pupyrchaty, disrespected by me, try to think before writing anything.
Thank you for the attention)))

[webdog]

funny video)))

[Lopatov]

In theory, a good thing for the city. The control panel is too big.

[loki565]

For the assault on the house with the terrors, I launched a couple of times forward from the bumblebees and waved it and suppressed fire through the windows from the machine gun. In my opinion, the AGS is still not enough

[Jin]

Quote: Pimply

It’s very controversial that the concept is that the machine itself

One hundred years, one hundred winters! What is controversial?

[Lavrik]

It is useless to consider the "Terminator" outside of connection with other combat vehicles. After all, infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers, having insignificant armor protection compared to tanks, are forced to move from cover to cover hundreds of meters behind them and still suffer significant losses. For good, you need an infantry fighting vehicle with protection equivalent to a tank and capable of moving in battle formation next to it (practically on the same line) and pouring enemy infantry with its fire to neutralize or destroy it. And such a machine could be the Terminator. But he has a huge drawback - there is no troop compartment. Therefore, it can only supplement BMP and armored personnel carriers in MSV, MSR. And these are additional machines, and, therefore, funds.

[IRBIS]

"During the battle for Grozny, Chechen fighters completely defeated tanks Russian Federation. Snipers pierced the thin armor of military vehicles from the roofs. At that time, Russia had not yet used anti-personnel armor, BMP-2 couldn't lift guns high enoughto return fire. "

I didn’t read further because I realized that the author of this article is a man who is absolutely far from technology. And from the military - like Alpha Centauri. The car may be good. Only it’s better to present it to specialists, and not to a girl who has gone crazy with delight.

[Prohor]

"That's right!"
Red Army Sukhov.

[Nester]

Regarding whether such a technique is needed or not, I think we need to ask those who ran around the Gorda neighborhoods under the fire of a machine gun and snipers. I didn’t run, therefore, I can’t judge whether the Terminator is needed or not needed. But to reduce the crew, while strengthening the protection of the remaining and better to protect optics and weapons - I think the designers can do it. And as for the application - in skilled hands and h..r balalaika.

[Kolyan 2]

Lopatov Today, 09:47 ↑ ↓ new -1
No delivery plans. The machine cannot perform the functions that are assigned to it.

Justify and not scribble. who can write silly komenty here and without you enough. And if you don’t cut the topic, then better keep silent, you’ll be smarter

[Lopatov]

Do you chop hard?

What is the objective of BMPT? Protect tanks from covered infantry saturated with anti-tank weapons.
Where can infantry take refuge? Buildings, engineering structures and trenches. With the first and second tanks themselves will do fine, but with the infantry in the trenches, no.
For this, tanks need to either increase the howitzers of HE shells, which isn’t good, or to obtain sophisticated and expensive ammunition with remote electronic fuses, which, when triggered in the air above the trenches, can hit targets in them.
So we need BMPT. What can hit infantry in trenches? AGS, mortars, howitzers, automatic guns with shells with a remote electronic fuse.
Which of these does the Terminator have? Only two AGS, stabilized in the vertical plane. Is that enough? No.

Do the troops need a machine that cannot fulfill the functions assigned to it? I think no. And you, as I understand it, think so, because it looks cool, and it has as many as two automatic guns?

[Avenger711]

What does howitzer mean? :)
In general, there are enough light howitzers in the troops, trenches will be erased to powder, the ability to fight with the enemy in a mass of shelters is much more important.

[Lopatov]

Howitzer - the ability to hit covered targets. Roughly large angle of incidence of the projectile.
According to the howitzers in service: firstly, you can’t drive them out for direct fire, the armor is shatterproof, and secondly, with a closed OP for point targets, there is too much expense. For example, for an unarmored ATGM system, these are 300 152-mm shells, or 100 cluster fragmentation shells of the same caliber

[Avenger711]

A tank gun by definition has a flat trajectory. However, there is no need to load the tank with work for purposes for the destruction of which there is a mass of funds, starting from grenade launchers and light mortars and ending with 152 mm self-propelled guns with aircraft. Why I do not expel them to direct fire, I do not understand, this directly contradicts their purpose, to stand somewhere in the rear and distribute everything that is indicated. To reduce the consumption of shells for point targets, you can use adjustable ammunition.

Artillery steers and pedal.

[Lopatov]

Flooring. And you need a mounted howitzer to hit targets behind cover.
Why it is impractical to use artillery with a PDO for firing at point targets, I have already written. It hurts a lot. Either a lot of shells (and the enemy detects the firing guns at this time), or expensive guided ones, which also have their drawbacks.

[Demon_Ex]

Avenger711

Do not listen to Lopatov, this genius of tactics and strategy. To combat the trenches in battle at a distance of 600 meters to 2,5 km, conventional automatic grenade launchers were not badly shown. This was still done in Iraq, up to 1,5 grenade launchers were grouped in a small area 50 km from enemy positions. Each calculation was issued by ammunition. Due to the high density of fire, all living things were carried out, despite the large dispersion at such distances. Well, our troops work well with Cornflower. With a good gunner and spotter, they do wonders. After a minute shelling, the trenches are backfilled. Well, in a normal battle, artillery first works.

[Lopatov]

50 grenade launchers. Cool.
But there is a little problem
50 divided by three, we get 17. So many grenade platoons we need.
Divide by 3, we get 6 - so many motorized rifle brigades we need to rob.
So, in order to capture the platoon stronghold, we are collecting 17 grenade-platoon platoons with personnel of 374 people and 51 vehicles on which they will get there.
The enemy will be grateful. He will say "Wow! Excellent, Demon_Ex!" and will be immensely grateful to you.
The idea is very interesting, but not applicable in practice.

Do not tell any more fairy tales about "supervassilki" with a separate railway line for the delivery of ammunition.
Platoon stronghold, 300x200, task-destruction. 700х6х3 = 12600 min. 12600 boxes plus I don’t remember how many tanks with charges.
Plus one hour and 45 minutes. Considering that the firing platoon will be spotted the largest in 5 minutes, they still have an hour and forty minutes to mix it with the ground with feeling, sensibly, with an arrangement. "Wow! Excellent, Demon_Ex!"

Whose side are you on, my friend?

[Demon_Ex]

You are a comrade, apparently not familiar with reality. In order to guarantee to cover an area of ​​300x200, you need 7500 minutes! Learn respected arithmetic 82 mm standard covers 8 sq.m. They forgot that the artillery does not hit at random, but at previously reconnoitered positions. For this, there is artillery reconnaissance, as well as intelligence in general. With proper adjustment, the Vasilkov battery fires 5 volleys per minute, guaranteed to cover 70-80% of targets. Learn materiel. You still haven't answered where in Chechnya they eat a snake! And if you know, you should suspect the effectiveness of nomadic mortars in Chechnya.

[Lopatov]

Quote: Demon_Ex

In order to guarantee coverage of an area of ​​300x200, you need 7500 minutes!

Maybe in order to "cover" and 7500 is needed, but in order to suppress - 4200, and destroy - 12600. "Cover" is a term from a slightly different sphere.

Quote: Demon_Ex

Learn respected arithmetic 82 mm standardly covers 8 sq.m.

With a dupel drunken SOB, platoon commanders and gunner, they and more square. kilometers can cover, but usually mortars shoot at specific targets. By the way, 8 sq. Km with the task of suppressing the infantry sheltered is 420 min. It will be too much.

Quote: Demon_Ex

With proper adjustment, the Vasilkov battery fires 5 volleys per minute

Practical rate of fire "Cornflower" 100-120 rounds per minute. And it does not depend on any "adjustment".

Quote: Demon_Ex

You never answered where a snake is eaten in Chechnya!

Only after you answer where the elephants are fried

[Demon_Ex]

Shovels you are a troll and another liar! Moreover, not far, 8 sq. M is the area where 100% of the manpower will be hit by shrapnel during the explosion. And the imagination is clearly deprived of imagination, if you can’t imagine almost 500000 mines on a 300x200 m site. They didn’t even think about the carriers, about the change of aim, too, and that there were 4 mines in the salvo in particular. But fortifications and trenches are not specific goals? And you can’t even imagine what they can do with drunken reckoning during the hostilities if they fail the operation. For Vadim Smirnov, everything happens as with Maxim Sviridov! Mr. Lopatov is an elementary Internet troll. He claims to have participated in hostilities during the CTO in the North Caucasus. At the same time, he does not know about one of the places where 19 MSD participated in the battles; there is a characteristic attraction.

[urry79rus]

I agree, dear and absolutely unnecessary toy

[IRBIS]

To fire a projectile in the air does not need some special, expensive electronic fuse. Either a simple remote handset is used, or a regular OFS is fired at. The calculation of such a shooting is not a very difficult task. And no additional material costs.

[Lopatov]

You mean, a remote fuse, shells with GGE are prohibited by the convention, and therefore the tubes are used only for lighting.
Clock fuses do not provide the necessary accuracy. In addition, as far as I know, tankers do not.
A ricochet is not always applicable, in addition, in order to shoot so that the projectile explodes after a rebound over a point target, a first-class gunner with great experience is needed.

[ViPChe]

Modification of the car is necessary - it is clear. However, it does not give a hint about the concept of using the BUSV in the troops. To add up the required performance characteristics, the order of application and the sufficient availability of equipment is the main task of the Ministry of Defense and General Staff. It's early to say gop. And the need for such a machine in urban combat can be justified by an elementary example: the Airborne Forces in Grozny battles "on hand" carried and greatly appreciated each attached T-72 unit, ensured their immunity from defeat from RPGs, and from elementary fire from small arms and contact with "living" spirits. Tankers were responsible for the maximum destruction of firing points in buildings, strong points with an effective range for TP. The result of the takoko tandem is undeniable. A BMPT will reduce human losses, although this issue requires a deep study of tactics of use.

[Podojdi]

The main thing is that he enters the arsenal, and not as usual, they will buy a couple of pieces, at best, and will shout that everything is under control.

[8 company]

During the battle of Grozny, Chechen fighters completely defeated the tanks of the Russian Federation. Snipers punched thin armor of military vehicles from the roofs. At that time, Russia had not yet used anti-personnel armor.

I wanted to write that the author is impossibly stupid, but noticed in time - he is a woman. Author - do what you understand. Admins - why publish such crap?

[stranik72]

Quote: Mitek

The overwhelming majority of casualties in the first Chechen war are caused not by the fact that the tanks are bad and the army is bad, but primarily by the stupidity of the high command.

It’s not enough for your application to have a computer, to be able to read and write, you need to be able to think, tanks went without DZ, because it was stupid in parts (the reasons are also interesting in themselves) the lack of helicopter escort of columns is also explained by the lack of the necessary resource for helicopter departures. The explanation here is that there was no money for the war; there were not even enough bulletproof vests in the army; there were restrictions on the use of weapons and operations. Moreover, many measures to conduct the 1st Chechen war had to be coordinated with the Security Council i.e. with Berezovsky, and he, like all the Jews at the top of the Russian authorities of our time, did not work for the benefit of Russia and will not work. Well, the commander in chief of that time, Yeltsin was a traitor to all times and peoples of the 20th century in the history of world civilization. And how under such conditions to wage war without terrible losses.

[Lopatov]

No, he is in many ways right.
The first assault on Grozny was carried out by the Avturkhanites with the support of armored vehicles controlled by mercenaries. They entered the city in columns, believing that the enemy would be frightened and raise his legs up. Such an "assault" was naturally repulsed, the assaulters suffered heavy losses, primarily in equipment.
The results of all this were not communicated directly to the military commanders, and the "New Year's assault" that began a few months later was carried out according to the same scenario. I really don't know what it was, stupidity or betrayal. Well, then, as lucky as anyone. Some suffered relatively small losses, others "hit" as a reinforced battalion of the Maikop brigade.
The commander of 693 SMEs, after they started shelling their convoy from the buildings, leaned out of the tank’s hatch to the waist and ordered the commanders of other vehicles to do the same. And only in this way did the panic stop and they were able to turn around and get out of the fire with relatively small losses.

ps Apparently only Rokhlin had all the information, and took all his artillery with him to carry out this "police" operation. Contrary to the imperative prohibitions of the authorities.

[Eric]

The map would be the military of the time that the faction commanders had.

[Strategy]

What cards ?! According to one of the regiment commanders who entered Grozny on New Year's Eve 1994/95, the first WRITTEN orders and instructions began to arrive only in March 1995. Who will prove what now?

[ViPChe]

TB 503 msp on the T-72 before the first exit of the regiment from the PPD to the war (December 1994) was "rejected" due to the replenishment of spare parts from the transported T-80 kits (!?), The presence of 1 bucket and 1 probe for 7 units. technology and the complete absence of machine-gun boxes - belts were folded into the boxes of spare parts. But the main thing is the "specialists" from the T-80 training manuals and even the gunners-operators of the BMP. In short, tears ... The battalion was left in the PPD for re-staffing and replenishment with everything necessary, although it was not possible to solve all the problems. This was the situation for all the tankers of our large country.

[urich]

30mm guns have a double feed system and can use a wide range of ammunition, including armor-piercing tracer, fragmentation tracer, high-explosive fragmentation and armor-piercing sabots.
The first time I hear about the caliber shells for the 30 mm gun! Enlightenment ignoramus! Skint the link if there are any

[Strashila]

Confuses the caliber of guns 2x30 mm, weak in urban conditions. The combination of 2x57 mm is already something. Elevation angles of 45 degrees, of course you do not need to pull 85 degrees to the zenith angles, 70 degrees are enough, both in the city and in the mountains. Open ATGM modules, the same is not good, the screens withstand 120 mm hit, this is an extreme, but the opponent’s 30 mm projectile should be kept, as an extension can be attached to the screen with an active defense system.

[Avenger711]

Instead of ATGMs, flamethrowers or rockets with a high-explosive warhead are better.

[Lopatov]

Everything is just fine here. These missiles have a cumulative, cumulative tandem, high-explosive, voluminous and even non-contact warhead for hitting air targets.

[Avenger711]

Then, in general, this is not ATGM, but just a missile being controlled.

[Lopatov]

I guess, yes. As far as I am aware, the last exclusively cumulative missiles were 9M113, "large" missiles for "Fagot" - "Competition" - BMP-2

[Kolyan 2]

Lopatov Today, 12:04 ↑ ↓ 1
Do you chop hard?

I am not very in this topic, therefore, I do not write. Take a look at my comments and you will see that I write rarely and only where I understand

[Lopatov]

I'm sorry.

[SEM]

The need for this technique was dictated by the results of 2 Chechen warriors, before creating any kind of weapons they rely on history and draw from it tasks that they then try to solve in creating samples and Terminator is a correctly solved problem that still needs to be verified and modernized according to the results of a real test .....

[Avenger711]

The idea of ​​the car was clearly outlined back in the Second World War, when anti-aircraft guns were used in urban battles. Similarly, "Shilki" were used in Afghanistan. The development of a special vehicle with tank armor, but without any expensive radars that are on modern anti-aircraft guns, is quite obvious. We also take into account that in an anti-guerrilla operation, the need for 125 mm guns is less, government troops, by definition, are able to ensure the concentration of such barrels if necessary.

[AlexMH]

No one argues about the fundamental need for a heavily armored vehicle with universal weapons for combat in urban and rough terrain. Modern tanks, even with additional equipment (the Americans put a kit for battles in the city over on the Abrams) are not suitable for such conditions - an excessively powerful gun with small angles of rise / fall, weak side and aft armor, insufficient visibility. The question of whether it should be an infantry fighting vehicle (with a landing party) or just a fire unit is debatable, here the military should think (if they can) based on the experience of urban battles. Still, you can't put a lot of troops in a heavy armored personnel carrier, and the volume of the troop compartment is more difficult to book ... On the other hand, even heels of paratroopers can very successfully interact with the armor. But the choice of the T-72 / T-90 chassis for this vehicle does not make sense - an outdated transmission, initially weak side armor. I generally keep quiet about Ukrainian crafts. Therefore, in my opinion, it is necessary to make such a car on a new chassis. And the external placement of weapons is generally not justified - one hit into the tower from anyway, and half of the weapons are out of order. Thus, it seems to me that we need a car on a new chassis (hydraulic transmission, new suspension), weighing about 55..60 tons, with powerful circular armor, an active protection system, a small troop compartment in the stern (like the Merkava approximately), armament should be under the armor, installed missiles - make it possible to fight tanks if necessary. Perhaps this will be done on the chassis of the "Armata", but there is a fear that the military will again say "This is too expensive, remake us a couple of hundred T-72" and something similar to the BMPT shown, but worse, will come out.

[Tagir-abzi]

Great car !!! it is a pity that ours will not be allowed to arm the army !!! who? - Jews and Americans are our enemies. privatize defense plants and all! will depend on our enemy

[webdog]

here is an objective interview ...

[DERWISH]

heels of such in karahami with full ammunition and a couple of shiloks to heights, and it seems to me human losses, we wouldn’t have it for such purposes, it’s a justified expenditure of funds because human losses are not measured by anything !!!

[bazilio]

The car is interesting. But there are questions. Why was it impossible to cover the MTO from above with at least a minor armor plate? In the video, when viewed from above, this is the most vulnerable spot in the rear hemisphere. When operating in the city, the enemy can easily throw a simple Molotov cocktail into this area and that's it, the car will stop. The second question is why it is impossible to "put on" what kind of mask in the frontal projection on the tower (well, or the turret, what is the correct name)? in frontal projection, the tower / turret will be the easiest target. Hitting a turret will not kill the vehicle, but it can disable some of the weapons. In addition, look how good the 3 guidance devices look - knocking them out from medium distances I think it will not be so difficult. Thirdly, is it not possible to somehow protect the ptura? the more if the ATM will be with a thermobaric warhead. TK with an ATGM, of course, the target is small, it is difficult to hit, but if it still hits and the ATGM explodes, at least there will be damage to weapons systems and USO. I may be wrong, which is why I want to know the opinions of others.

[gen.meleshkin]

Such weapons will allow you to redesign the old T-70 and get a brand new weapon.

[washi]

For wild tribes - the perfect weapon. We have many such tribes in the south. There are almost no aviation, modern means of vocational training, too.

[BARKAS]

It will be interesting to install a combat module on Kurganets-25, and is there any sense?

[Tagir-abzi]

I love you Russia for people with a great mind !!!

[homosum20]

Modern war is unlikely to go "front-to-front". This will be the capture of fortified areas and industrial complexes, which are mainly located in cities or suburbs. Such a machine will be simply irreplaceable in these stripping operations. Nowhere is there a word about the purchase by our Ministry of Defense.

[understudy]

Quote: Be proud.

What did the snipers use to pierce the "thin armor"?

Languages ​​of journalistic. Bo is the worst weapon in modern conditions.

[cth; fyn]

Languages ​​of journalistic. Bo is the worst weapon in modern conditions.

HMMMMM ... maybe we can equip the RS-24 with them?

[gallville]

Do not like the car. I will explain why:
1. Caliber 30mm - not fish, not meat, for open infantry; excess for BTT is not enough.
2. 30 mm is not suitable for infantry in the trenches - the trajectory is flat.
3. For infantry on the floors of buildings - a weak fragmentation effect.
4. Gas stations have low visibility and poor stabilization
5. ATGMs are not protected.
6. For 5 (FIVE) a person is clearly not enough volume in the car - significantly aggravates the working conditions of the crew.
On tactics - application in combined arms combat in general questions. Classic example:

The enemy is an infantry company in the city of about 90-120 people l / s in a high-rise building.
In this case, according to the statute, they must act against us
Motorized Rifle Battalion:
- 3 motorized rifle companies (+ -imilar in composition of the enemy 10 infantry fighting vehicles about 90 people)
- battery of 120mm mortars - 9 pieces.
- grenade platoon
- reconnaissance platoon and stuff.
Tank company as a means of reinforcement - 10 Tanks.
Total:
against 90-120 enemy about 30 infantry fighting vehicles 10 tanks and 9 mortars. Where to stick BMPT there and even in the city? If by tactics:
1. Mortars work on the roof.
2. Tanks fire medium and basement
3. BMP located STRAIGHT behind the tank (to protect against direct shots from RPGs and petro-guns) they fire on the upper floors of the building (100mm cannon with OFS shells and a 30mm cannon) in which the anti-aircraft machine gun on the tank helps them.
4. Infantry under cover of this fire makes its way into the building.
5. In the building, according to the target designation of the infantry, the tank can hit targets inside. 120mm does this with 99% efficiency. If it’s high, then a 100mm or 30mm gun (I personally would prefer 57 caliber, but this is to Kurgan).
And now the attention from the sides and behind the HOUSES should be cleaned up and have military security.
So where to stick BMPT? Instead of BMP, so where to put them? leave next? it means that someone needs to be protected, that means the number of infantry falls; if it falls, it means that additional forces are needed, hence the supply staff and so on.

Now about me - BMPT security at the moment, any ATGMs and tanks are affected by modern ATGMs and artillery shells.
This means that the best defense of equipment from defeat is the defeat of dangerous means for it - in total, it is a matter of reconnaissance and target detection.
At the same time, it is possible to protect the same BMPs from portable RPGs that are not much inferior in terms of fire power to BMPs - the same nonsense is an example. This is the very reservation you need:
a) on the march
b) in case of an attack from the front in the city (return infantry the enemy in cleaned houses) in other cases, this protection will not help. Any tank, bmp, or even bmp will blow the shot of a tank or ptur into the side.
Personal opinion: The creation of a BMPT is an attempt to compensate for a failure in tactics by a technique, but without knowledge of tactics, no technique will save.

[lexalex]

Laid out on shelves! I agree on all positions! Especially about tactics - its technology can not be replaced ....

[Crang]

This car will never be put into service. And the reason for this is not insufficient funding, but the dubious effectiveness of such a technique. 15 years have passed since the appearance of the "Frame-99" project, but there are still no visible "inclinations" of the Ministry of Defense in this area. Modern main battle tanks are characterized by high versatility, and this vehicle is essentially just a deteriorated tank. Well, in fact - compare this "Terminator" with the modern T-90A.
1. Both vehicles are protected to the same degree from PTS.
2. The absence of a large-caliber cannon makes the Terminator an easy target for any modern MBT at medium and short range.
3. The "Terminator" missile launchers are located openly and there are only four of them. They are easily put out of action by small arms fire. In the tank, the entire ammunition space is inside and you can hit at least the entire AZ with missiles (22 pcs.).
4. 7,62mm machine guns and 30mm grenade launchers - all this is garbage compared to a gap of 125mm OFS.
5. On mines and landmines, both cars will equally explode.
It turns out that the only advantage of the Terminator over a tank is the presence of 30mm automatic cannons. But this problem can be solved. For example, the T-10M tank had a pair of 14,5mm KPVT machine guns as an auxiliary weapon, which could "saw" any armored personnel carrier in half. Some Swiss and French tanks had automatic 20mm cannons paired with the main cannon, with vertical guidance independent of the main cannon. And the concept of "Terminator" itself is not new. This is the reincarnation of pre-war vehicles with anti-personnel weapons - T-28, T-35. So, "maybe hell will shudder." Hitler, who sits there, has nothing cooler than the "Tigers", but some T-80U, seeing this "Terminator", will say - "Teks-teks-teeks .."

[Cynic]

Quote: Krang

So, "maybe hell will shudder." Hitler, who sits there, has nothing cooler than the "Tigers"

Well, if Armata is a platform, then there must be components of this platform and the more. all the better !
But in principle, there will be something to redo the output cars

[Bosk]

I would not be very surprised if, in the event of a grand conflict (such as an army for an army), then the tank in the classical sense of what it is now .... is waiting for what happened at the time with the battleships, because now it’s not the same weapon of a breakthrough, it’s necessary the tank platform is supposed to think something new, perhaps in the direction of the Terminator ... maybe somehow differently, I hope the fellow theoreticians are working on this.

[cth; fyn]

A tank in a field is not a warrior until it is covered by infantry, it became clear from the Second World War.

[Tatarus]

10 terminators in Syria and the war is over.

[Papakiko]

Even one T-1000 is enough for the eyeballs, maybe Rambo or the "Universal Soldier" and suddenly "Robocop". And that would not be trifling with "stranger" with "predator" or "people with the letter X".
Lists YYY grandiose choose sir.

[lexalex]

The car was made for some reason. "Mow" infantry in an open field at the time of a psychic attack? But where have you seen this? What's the use of this set in an urban setting? What can you see from a tank in the city? Put at least 20 observation devices - it will be a blind mole ... If there are ruins, etc. around the building. How many operators do you need? All the same, you cannot do without assault groups! Anyway, the style of the article is a bad translation without its own brains, what is it worth only - "armor cracking"? And if the enemy praises the weapon, then he is happy that you are going to fight with this ... It is worth considering.

[cth; fyn]

In urban conditions, she will be able to process the upper floors, which tanks and infantry fighting vehicles cannot.

[EDW]

Maybe I'm wrong, but the car is no longer relevant. Yes, once it would have saved hundreds and thousands of lives, but why not equip a modern tank with anti-personnel weapons, all the more, I assume that this is already provided there.
In general, the car was five to ten years late.

[marshes]

In Afghanistan, “shilohs” were highly valued by our officers and soldiers. There is a convoy along the road, and suddenly a fire from an ambush, try to organize a defense, all the cars are already shot. There is only one salvation - "Shil-ka." A long line at the enemy, and a sea of ​​fire in his position. Dushmans called our self-propelled gun "shaitan-arba". They determined the beginning of her work immediately and immediately began to depart. Thousands of Soviet fighters "Shilka" saved their lives.

In Afghanistan, this ZSU fully realized the ability to fire at ground targets in the mountains. Moreover, a special “Afghan version” appeared - as a radio equipment complex was dismantled on it, due to which it was possible to increase the ammunition load from 2000 to 4000 rounds. A night sight was also installed.

An interesting touch. The columns, accompanied by "Shilka", were rarely attacked not only in the mountains, but also near settlements. ZSU was dangerous for manpower, hidden behind adobe duvols - the projectile fuse was triggered when it hit the wall. Effectively, “Shilka” also hit lightly armored targets - armored personnel carriers, vehicles ...
- ZSU "Shilka" and "Tunguska" proved to be very good as a means of direct fire support for both tanks and motorized rifle funds; despite their relatively weak armor, they suffered less losses compared to other types of armored vehicles, even after the European "well-wishers" provided the Chechens with printed manuals, which recommended that the ZSU be disabled in the first place; typical of the first months of hostilities was the defeat of the Tungusok missiles in the missile launchers, since they were unarmored, and there was no order to unload the missiles before entering the battle - most likely due to traditional Russian bungling; both "Shilki" and "Tunguska" were hit most often in the tower, in the chassis (with a loss of progress) only three vehicles were hit in total;

[cth; fyn]

Thank you Bolt, very informative .

[rennim]

A good idea, but at the moment I think that this machine has too weak weapons for this chassis ... To conduct a battle in urban conditions, it needs a flamethrower ... and SZO with high-explosive fragmentation shells ... There are few missiles for fighting tanks ...

[cth; fyn]

So she only needs to be protected from tanks since they’ll cover her chariots of death, they’ll go in the same ranks, so that's enough.

[Nechai]

Quote: Spade

get into your armament complex and expensive ammunition with remote electronic fuses, which, working in the air above the trenches will be able to hit targets in them.

The BTV SV SA was also armed with non-electronic ones - shrapnel shrapnel, with ready-made slaughter elements. They were removed from the stock, not humanely ... In our b-to-100mm OSH-5 (?), With the exact name, I’m not sure how much time has passed. For detonation, it was displayed offensive (the corresponding ring on the fuses). The target was processed by a platoon .. At the first shot, D was set with a benchmark, and the optimum was determined. Even when getting acquainted with these shots on the directrix we tested it - in the growth target laid on the bottom of the trench the full profile of the holes was NOT CALCULATED! BUT I repeat, SUCH AREA OF AMMUNITION, WAS CONSCIOUSLY TAKEN FROM THE ARMY !!!

[Lopatov]

GGE ammunition? They were taken away from everyone. The tankers, the gunners, the aviation. It was a good thing. 3SH1 122mm and 3SH3 152. On the tube, the installation "Sh" - for self-defense fire.

There was such a topic: tanks attack, and these shells are triggered above them. "Umbrella". There is no need to be afraid of infantry anti-tank weapons at all, everyone who tries to get out of the shelter instantly turns into a hedgehog.

By the way, although they were banned, but when the Abkhazians took on the firing positions of the D-30 howitzers left by the Georgians, such shells (3Sh1) were found there. Not Soviet-made.


But the American tankers have this, it’s also not a very humane thing:

[Kite]

I myself witnessed a similar experimental volley of battery. The minimum number of lesions in targets imitating an infantry company (260 with something stuffed) is 18 fragments in a stuffed animal.

[BARKAS]

In our "Akatsiy" battalion, there were such 3Sh2-152mm shells in ammunition, unfortunately we never used them against the enemy, but the facts of their use by other units were myself, I found several such arrows in the ruins, it was in the 95th year also told about the use 3SH2 in Afghanistan, the fuse was placed on shrapnel and when fired, the projectile exploded a few hundred meters from the gun, mowing everything in front of you.

[Lopatov]

Precisely, 152 mm - 3Sh2. I forgot a lot.

[BARKAS]

Moreover, I remember from the characteristics of 3Sh2 the projectile explodes 6 meters above the ground, the radius of destruction is 300 meters, so it’s unlikely that a hedgehog can be made out of a stuffed animal.

[Lopatov]

He is not alone. There the divisions were supposed to shoot, or even regiments. This is one of the options for a mobile firing zone.

[cth; fyn]

The machine is good, but even the BMP-2 can put it out of action by firing the combat module, it will simply hit the box with cartridges and ATGMs, and beat the optics.
Someone previously suggested how to correctly make a combat module, but I can’t find that article, it was too painful for a long time, or rather a comment in this article, the only thing I remember is the replacement of 2x30mm with one 6 barrel and hide everything under an armored hood ( box of cartridges and ATGMs).

[crazyrom]

Wait, this 2 bmp will turn into a sieve long before it hits the terminator. Or get a rocket from a distance of 5km.

[bazilio]

Quote: cth; fyn

just hit the box with ammo

at the terminator, the cartridges for guns are hidden inside the machine. but a successful hit can break the tape. it’s also possible to bring down a TK with ATGM, surveillance devices can also be knocked out in the light.

[Misantrop]

There was such a topic. At one time I was very surprised to learn that the anecdote about the rubber bomb (the one that "the bomb continues to jump") was not a joke. They tested it in Afghanistan. The plane enters over the gorge at a decent speed, a cassette with molded rubber balls the size of an orange is dropped. The speed is supersonic, the ricochets are unpredictable. They say that the gorges were swept out very neatly. And no environmental pollution

[Cynic]

Quote: Misantrop

anecdote about a rubber bomb (the one that "the bomb keeps jumping"

Defense of Sevastopol. On coastal batteries, shells end, and separate powder caps are available, as are rubber plugs.
As a result, we have the covering of the advancing infantry column with such peculiar shells!
It seems the offensive was stopped for a week!
Met in memoirs.

[marshes]

By the way, on the BMPT photo, which consists of V.S. Kazakhstan, the past upgrade and differs from the Uralagon model.

[Nechai]

Quote: Spade

By the way, although they were banned, but when the Abkhazians took on the firing positions of the D-30 howitzers left by the Georgians, such shells (3Sh1) were found there. Not Soviet-made, and American tankers have this, which is also not a very humane thing:

Thanks. For clarifications and photos. On the "Umbrella" on the shells were radio fuses. Tuned to the appropriate frequency of the battalion network. With a salvo of artillery, TB on r / station for transmission. Accordingly, the signal power level increased, reached max, when flying over our tanks and began to subside - BLOWING! The idea of ​​individual instant disablement - KTD-2 on BMP-2 - was implemented. And how would a laser monster work, based on the Squeeze tank! BUT...
So it turns out that we accelerated to the goal. But gentlemen for themselves, have their own rules ...

[Lopatov]

Quote: Nechai

On the "Umbrella", the shells were equipped with radio fuses. Tuned to the appropriate frequency of the battalion network. With a salvo of artillery, TB on r / station for transmission. Accordingly, the signal power level increased, reached max, when flying over our tanks and began to subside - BLOWING!

I haven’t heard such a thing. Something experimental, not a radio fuse. I will have to ask Batu about this.
The radio fuse is still in use, there the principle is different. A coarse micro-radar that measures height. As soon as it reaches, the shell explodes. From the pros, everything works at the same height, i.e. shooting is most effective. Of the minuses, they are expensive, and therefore our RAVists are constantly hungry about them, and there are almost none in the troops.

On "Compression" - everything was much cooler. Among other things, the anti-tankers had such things: "PAPV"

http://www.bnti.ru/des.asp?itm=4668&tbl=02.21.

Each anti-tank battery of motorized rifle regiments. In theory and against snipers they could work. The old equipment of the American fighter included glasses for protection against laser radiation. But ... It is inhumane to damage the eyes of the enemy.

[stranik72]

Lopatov
The gentleman’s key word was THE OVERWHELMING PART OF LOSSES, but there is no such thing as stupidity in our army, but I repeat once again in the 1st Chechen there were no funds even for combat coordination of units, training interaction, there were problems with communications, I am silent about the training of pilots there was no fuel or ammunition for training flights, “you’ll train there on the spot,” so, first of all, most of the losses were on the conscience of the authorities who gave the command to carry out the operation of an unprepared army in a stage of regression. Most of the generals and officers fulfilled their duty with honor and professionalism, while the sons of more than 10 generals and more than 30 colonels died, thereby “excusing” the generals and senior officers from shame.

[Lopatov]

Yes, I understand all of this. But could the “leaders” from the command of the North Caucasus Military District and above do anything? At least not to repeat Avturkhanov’s mistakes.

[Nechai]

Quote: stranik72

in the 1st Chechen there were no funds even for combat coordination of units, practicing interaction, there were problems with communications, I’m silent about the training of pilots, there was no fuel or ammunition for training flights, “you’ll train there on the spot,” so first of all, a big Some of the losses are on the conscience of the authorities who gave the command to carry out the operation of an unprepared army in the stage of regression.

Evgeny, this is how the situation was modeled by puppeteers in order to PROVE the IMPOTENCE OF RUSSIA as a state. It didn’t work out.. The subtype of “working on mistakes” began an even more rapid destruction of the aircraft... After 08.08.08. - the same thing - .. la! They can still hang stars! - now you’ll get a “new look”! And sign...

[Lopatov]

I remember how then journalists defecated in madness about the army. A powerful information attack from those who were formally their own. And the most striking contrast is with the coverage of “Desert Storm”, where the Americans elegantly squeezed all this “freedom of speech” in a vice.

[Patton5]

I may not discover America, but BMPT was not the first in this class http://btvt.narod.ru/3/bmpt_future/bmpt_future.htm

[ymNIK1970]

Holy shit! Again carriage The corral is pushing this madly. Well, is it really impossible to look at Omsk cars? This is heaven and earth! They're definitely going to boil the management's grief in this car and send it to Syria. Let them show what it's good for.

[loki565]

What Omsk car do you mean?

[Svetovid]

Rafael Complete solution for updating combat vehicles

[loki565]

We need to better protect the ammunition and the automatic loader. I hope in Armata it will be better thought out than in T72

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urRSlnrx970

[loki565]

We need to better protect the ammunition and the automatic loader. I hope in Armata it will be better thought out than in T72

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urRSlnrx970

[loki565]

We need to better protect the BC and the automatic loader. I hope in Armata it will be better thought out than in T72

[Cynic]

Quote: loki565

We need to better protect the BC and the automatic loader.

I read a comment from a person who laid out the video frame by frame, there was an explosion of cumulative ammunition under the bottom.

[panda]

The T-72 was hit by an ATGM, the gunner survived, got up and ran away, saved thanks to body armor and fire-resistant clothing

[Cynic]

Quote: panda

The gunner survived, got up and ran away, saved thanks to body armor and fire-resistant clothing

Mmmm, the burning temperature of black powder is 2138 degrees Celsius, as we understand for smokeless powders used in tank artillery systems little bit more !
It's not just an unlikely assumption, it's more than an incredible assumption!

[Volkhov]

Quote: loki565

We need to better protect the BC and the automatic loader. I hope in Armata it will be better thought out than in T72

The tanks are the rebels themselves (after major repairs from the Russian Federation), the Syrians have a different series (72A, not 72 B), color, have side protection, rarely cost zen. machine guns, tankers in military uniform, not sports uniform.
The tank fired its ammunition, except for the armor-piercing blanks; their charges burned out, but there was no detonation. The explosion was carried out by the rebels themselves so as not to give the tanks to the Syrians, although even a burnt one can share spare parts with the chassis.
The T-55 series ended, the terrorists were given the T-72, but they couldn’t supply them, they hid from the planes between houses and burned themselves. This war will devour all Russian weapons, and a lot of people.

[Cynic]

Quote: Volkhov

Tanks - the rebels themselves (after major repairs from the Russian Federation) the Syrians have a different series (72A, not 72 B),

Please decipher it, otherwise it works what the hell . You can understand how

Quote: Volkhov

Tanks - the rebels themselves (after major repairs from the Russian Federation) the Syrians have a different series

[Volkhov]

What to decipher - look at the rollers (they are larger than usual, from T-55), such centaurs were assembled in the fall in Ukraine for someone (T-72 rollers are in short supply), perhaps Spetsremont does this too. Soviet-made Syrian tanks with normal rollers, they look shabby, but these are identical, fresh, from the same batch. The Empire of Good provided the mercenaries with tools, but supplying them is more difficult.
gurkhan.blogspot.com/2013/01/72-2_16.html
Here we are talking about big skating rinks.
If there had been no supply of tanks and artillery, the Taftanaz airfield would not have been captured, but without personnel units with the entire supply structure, the matter still does not go well, which means the Empire will send an army at hand, only the Ukrainian one is too small, so they will drive the Russian one. The coalition boasts of the membership of 130 states, “50 countries and organizations” are gathering in Paris tomorrow - this is big business and there are unskilled workers in it.

[Jin]

go crazy.. I wouldn’t wish such a death on an enemy... as if it doesn’t happen, the ammunition didn’t detonate... why were they standing there to replenish ammunition? They loaded gunpowder into the conveyor, but didn’t have time to charge? (For those who are not in a tank, let me explain, the loading is separate, the powder charge in a cardboard sleeve (completely burned when fired) and the projectile itself are placed in the automatic loader, separately, then when choosing the type of ammunition... the conveyor rotates, the trays are folded and the rammer inserts projectile + charge into the barrel, the gun is placed at the “loading angle”, there are even marks on the shield and on the gun, they are aligned)... It’s clear what happened in the video, it looks like gunpowder burst!!!

[Volkhov]

There were hardly any people there - there was no movement in the neighboring tanks; rather, there was a guard lying behind the caterpillar tracks. They used up all the anti-personnel, the tanks were placed in the basement, a mercenary will not sit in a tank without shells.

[Svetovid]

BBQ happened

[loki565]

Looks like they hit me with something more powerful than an RPG7, maybe an ATGM or a foreign surprise

[Cynic]

Blew up with a shaped charge. You need to look frame by frame, they installed it under the bottom.

[Cynic]

Most likely the Vampire worked

more details

[Cynic]

Quote: Svetovid

... happened

Is your own fried chronicle not enough?
Of such a type

and this is just the beginning

[loki565]

There is nothing scarier than an aborigine with a bag of waste and a can of gasoline

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAyhzd_C30o

[loki565]

There is nothing worse than an aborigine with a bag of waste and a can of gasoline!!!!
It's true that Bradley is here, but the video is definitely on topic

[Andrey58]

The idea is interesting, but there are questions about the commander’s vertical viewing angle. Weapon protection is weak, especially ATGMs. It wouldn't hurt to add KAZ. In urban conditions it is a necessary thing. The range of weapons and their placement also raises questions. Is there nothing at all in the rear hemisphere? At least they installed an AGS or a machine gun. In the city they can attack from all sides.

[loki565]

There is also practically no armor at the top of the MTO, only grilles. In urban combat conditions this is not acceptable; any RPG from the upper floors will damage or destroy the MTO and the BMPT will turn into a target.

[panda]

If I see this Terminator in battle, I will blow all this weapons to hell with either Barrett or a 50 cal Browning machine gun.

[Cynic]

Quote: panda

I'll see you in battle

Ours would gore a calf and a wolf

[Jin]

Quote: panda

If I see this Terminator in battle, I will blow all this weapons to hell with either Barrett or a 50 cal Browning machine gun

The main thing is that “this Terminator” does not see you at first... By the way, what prevents you from fighting any of your equipment in this way of “blinding”, for that matter?

[lucidlook]

The euphoria from this vehicle is not entirely clear, given that it does not protect against helicopters and attack aircraft - the main means of destroying tanks in open spaces. And in urban conditions, it is just as susceptible to attacks from RPGs in the upper and rear projections as the same tank that it is supposed to support. Or do I not understand the meaning of the word "support"?

It would be a different matter if (!) a decision was made to remove OFS tanks from the BC. Then, yes, we need equipment for infantry work. And in this case, the rapid-fire cannon and grenade launchers are very suitable. However, shrapnel and concrete-piercing shots are also nothing...deliver.

But nevertheless, the question of protection against the main threat - A-10 type weapons - remains open. Was it really that difficult to add at least some air defense systems? Or is this not required under current doctrine?

[gregor6549]

Agree. Euphoria often clouds common sense. But common sense and an elephant in a china shop (i.e., the Terminator in an urban setting) didn’t seem to be close at hand. It is possible that the Terminator will still work as a combat vehicle escorting tanks and infantry in the field, but in this regard, the Tunguska looks like a more suitable option, although the Tunguska also has its drawbacks, in particular the vulnerability of mounted weapons from even small arms fire. But at least the Tunguska can hit both air and ground targets, and in conditions of poor visibility, because The range of Tunguska sensors allows this.
And it’s better not to go into cities with tanks. They'll burn it. Moreover, there is somewhere to shoot at them and something to use.

[Eric]

The Tunguska has the main drawback for the targets you have identified: the ammunition for its guns is very small, it can shoot it literally in a few seconds. And Tunguska’s armor is weak.

[sprsnc]

If the engine was moved to the front, the car would be better!

[lucidlook]

The more the center of gravity is shifted back, the easier it is for the car to take ditches. The more the center of gravity is shifted forward, the easier it is to overcome “wall” type obstacles. The closer the center of gravity is to the geometric center, the more balanced the car is.

The case for moving the engine to the front must be very strong. For example, they say that this protects the crew in the event of a shell hit in the forehead. But then you need to calculate what percentage of armor-piercing shells that penetrated the frontal armor can not and then punch through the engine as well.

Moreover, if we consider the engine to be such a powerful element of armor, then it is logical to leave it at the rear, as an additional passive defense for the stern, which does not have such powerful armor as the frontal elements - this is the first thing. And secondly, weapons and sensors are usually directed forward, thereby making it difficult for infantry to aim and fire. But as a rule, there is nothing behind, there is nothing to shoot back and there is no one to cover. Well, except for the infantry... which this vehicle is intended to replace.

Of course, I risk incurring sudden anger and a terrible minus, but nevertheless, I note that personally, the Ukrainian version of the BMPT-64 seems to me much more interesting in this case.

[Per se.]

Quote: lucidlook

but nevertheless, I note that personally, the Ukrainian version of the BMPT-64 seems to me much more interesting in this case.

You reason intelligently when you talk about engine placement, and immediately mix two fundamentally different cars together, in your liking for the Ukrainian model, based on the T-64. There is no doubt that it was a talented and successful decision by the Kharkovites, but this is not a BMPT, but a heavy infantry fighting vehicle, which is inferior in firepower to the BMPT, since it was created primarily for transporting infantry. These cars are not competitors; it is not entirely correct to compare them that way. Also, BMPT can be converted from obsolete T-72, and there are practically no T-64 left in Russia; transferring the engine forward, like with the T-64, will not work as well with the T-72 and T-90, unless you buy more suitable ones for this purpose engines from T-64. The BMPT is needed, no matter how much you can argue, it needs to be tested in battle, and give the floor to the grateful infantry and tank crews.

[lucidlook]

But I didn’t say that they were the same! I just said that on the battlefield it personally seems more logical to me next to tanks. And that's why:

1. As I already said, the BMPT does not protect against attack aircraft. This role, as I understand it, will continue to be performed by Tunguska-type air defense missile systems. What's left?

a) hunting enemy tanks and armored vehicles. Yes, there are ATGMs. But the T-90 also has them. In addition, it seems quite strange to me that shooting tanks in a conventional oncoming battle is assigned to a vehicle that is less armored (in the turret area and weakened zones) than the MBT itself. If, of course, we again assume that such battles will take place at a line-of-sight distance of 5 km... then, in theory, yes, the BMPT will be able to knock out something. But these are artificial, testing conditions. Besides, how do you assess the Terminator’s chances of maintaining combat effectiveness after being hit by a modern BOPS? I won't give him even a percentage.

b) cutting off infantry. On the battlefield this makes sense. But again. Is the power of OFS less when working with bunkers than the same 30mm? I don't compare grenade launchers at all. And so far, no one is going to remove OFS from BC, which means there must be some niche in which OFS is not applicable or poorly applicable, but 30mm works. Maybe I have a bad imagination, but so far I can’t imagine this. I could agree if there was a mortar there to knock out the enemy from behind cover... but it’s not there.

at) work at firing points in urban environments. I already once gave a quote about the tactical formations of infantry and tanks during the Berlin operation in 1945. There the infantry walked in front of the tanks, next to the tanks and behind the tanks. If the BMPT was initially conceived as a replacement (at least in part) for motorized rifles, then I immediately have a question - how will it fight enemy fighters armed with RPGs? Why is it so much better than a tank? IMHO - nothing, and in some ways even worse (for example, the absence of a machine gun turret)

Let me summarize. In my opinion, on the battlefield next to tanks, the vehicle will not be able to have a decisive impact on enemy armored vehicles and infantry. It will not be able to replace existing anti-aircraft equipment. In urban conditions it will not be able to replace infantry. So where does it belong?

Now, why does it seem to me that the BMPT-64, although it is a different vehicle, and I don’t argue with you on this, looks more interesting. Only and exclusively in terms of combat in the city. Initially, I think that infantry is needed. Without it, you can’t go anywhere, until they invented the HCR ;-) So it’s the infantry that needs to be supported. What is required for this, I think you know as well as I do, I won’t list it here, the post is already too long.

And as you rightly noted, the BMPT-64 is a heavy infantry fighting vehicle. Yes, it is, and it seems to me that it is more needed to support infantry supporting tanks. And by the way, in one of the weapon options it does have an Igla air defense system. And you shouldn’t forget about the evacuation of the wounded.

Regarding the engine transfer, you are absolutely right. Technically, everything is not easy here, but if the Kharkovites could figure it out, then maybe ours can too? But no, so why not cooperate? What's bad about it?

[Per se.]

Yes, everything new raises questions, I already said earlier that the T-34 at one time demanded evidence, which cost its chief designer Koshkin his health and life, but the “unusual” tank was accepted into service. It’s a pity that with the BMPT no one so zealously argued for the need for an army of this vehicle, which would be better called a specialized tank. I like your argument, lucidlook, I’ll try to speak on it. Hunting enemy tanks and armored vehicles. Well, it should be noted right away that such a task was not set for the BMPT, for this there are tanks themselves, and the BMPT PTR is more likely for self-defense from enemy tanks, and coaxial 30mm machine guns can cope with light armored vehicles. I will also add here your passage regarding the fight against attack aircraft. BMPT can fight combat helicopters, the destruction of attack jet aircraft is an air defense task. Cutting off infantry. A classic tank uses a machine gun to fight infantry (mainly coaxial with a cannon, plus an upper one on the roof of the turret); here the BMPT compares favorably with a tank, not only cutting off infantry, but also specializing in its destruction. Agree, the BMPT rifle complex can have different modifications, including with a 57mm cannon or a 120mm universal mortar, but, I think, the declared option is more successful against infantry. Work on firing points in urban conditions. I think you won’t argue that 30mm machine guns pierce the brickwork of many houses, as well as the fact that BMPT can work on upper floors and mountainous hills (the elevation angle can be increased even more during modernization). And finally, in my opinion, it is impossible to ask why BMPTs are better than tanks; they complement each other, saving the lives of ordinary soldiers, who, without a doubt, need both heavy and amphibious infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers, just as the infantry itself will always be needed in any armored vehicle.

[lucidlook]

I would agree with you, if not for the fact that during the notorious New Year’s assault on Grozny alone, the losses of infantry fighting vehicles of various modifications (including those with 30mm 2A42 with an elevation angle of 74 degrees) amounted to a total of 102 vehicles out of 120.

I agree about the effectiveness of rapid-fire guns in urban conditions, but let me remind you that none of the BC tanks are planning to remove the OFS, but their power is much higher and allows them to solve, among other things, the tasks of destroying enemy firing points in the city.

You know what this car reminds me of - the memorable IT-1 in a new (and I won’t say better) reincarnation.

Quote: Per se.

infantry will always be needed with any armored vehicles.

Yes, yes and again - yes! Absolutely right! There are countless examples of this, you are absolutely right. It remains to find out from the motorized riflemen what they need more - BMPTs or heavy infantry fighting vehicles? And, you know, judging by the Kurganets-25 project, they made their choice. Let's wait, sir

[Strategy]

It is important not only the performance characteristics of the weapon, but also the tactics and methods of its use. Grozny, from the point of view of “pure war,” is not an example at all: after all, in fact, the war took place in a city where civilians lived, among whom were militants. And it was difficult to use troops in Grozny or other populated areas of Chechnya, because they contained citizens of the Russian Federation. Try to select a peaceful one from a non-peaceful one during a battle if you can’t see whether he is armed or not. Here, the setup, first of all, on the part of the top political leadership, which in fact did not qualify this armed conflict in any way (to establish constitutional order - the formulation of amateurs and provocateurs), did not determine the legal status of the federal troops and militants, which in turn did not allow us to determine the forms nor the methods of using military force. As a result, we have what we have: the innocent “murderer” Ulman, etc. By the way, former military commandants of the regions of Chechnya and Grozny are still being quietly dragged to the prosecutor’s office...

[lucidlook]

I completely agree about the tactics. And again, as an example, Berlin/1945.

[Denis_volgograd]

Gorgeous device, I like it :))! It’s a pity that the missiles are unprotected.

[Dmitry 2246]

A car is necessary. Especially in motorized rifle units. The generator allows monitoring around the clock. This doesn't happen on other machines. It's a pity I didn't have such support.

[Setrac]

Once upon a time, at the dawn of tank building, the British divided tanks into males and females, so the Terminator is a female.

[max702]

Here is a link to a more thoughtful design in my opinion http://btvt.narod.ru/3/bmpt_future/bmpt_future.htm
The article competently discusses the advantages and disadvantages of the BMPT, pay attention to the year of development.. everything was invented a long time ago, and the new electronic equipment (mm radars, thermal imagers, cameras, compact UAVs, etc.) makes the unit very formidable. In my opinion, the era of tank battles is gone irrevocably, and the modern army suffers losses mainly from sabotage and partisanship, whether tank will fight tank is another question, but armored vehicles from infantry are dying from around the corner every day, I see that it is necessary to install a gun from NONA and 30mm and 7.62 in the tank turret. yes, a spark cord module with an AGS on the roof, here you have a device for fighting tank-dangerous infantry

[Strategy]

I saw the first sample of BMPT produced by ChTZ back in 1990 at the Chebarkul test site. This is necessary - 20 years have passed, and the vehicle is still not in service. It seems that its development follows the practice of combat. After all, if the BMPT had been the first in Chechnya, there might have been fewer criticisms now.
Now, like the others, I will “theorize”:
1. First, let's start with the task of this machine - tank support on the battlefield. First of all, the destruction of "nausea" - small и unobtrusive targets with minor armor appearing on a short time и moving secretly and fast and available on the battlefield in large quantities. From here -
2. The ability of the BMPT crew to quickly and at maximum range detect, select and hit targets, which is achieved:
a) a wide overview of high-resolution optics both in the purely optical range (in terms of color and lines or pixels), and in optoelectronic (thermal imaging and IR modes), etc.;
b) more eyes in the crew and observation devices. The number of eyes on the crew could be reduced if ground objects had a friend-or-foe identification system. Consequently, the advantages of preemptive fire are realized, which is not so important for protecting surveillance devices and, consequently, reducing viewing angles.
3. A fairly large number of rapid-fire weapons, controlled separately by crew members (3 targets at the same time - wow!). About the number of ATGMs - this is NOT the MAIN weapon, since defeating heavily armored targets is NOT the MAIN task of the BMPT. This is the essence of creating this type of weapon - the “division of labor” between tanks and BMPTs on the battlefield. Tanks will hit “heavy” targets without being distracted by “nausea” targets. By the way, in the 1990s, one of the ideas when creating the BMPT was to assign it precisely the task of fighting “heavy” targets. This, of course, requires good interaction on the battlefield and the creation in the future of an “electronic tablet” for target distribution on the battlefield.

4. Fighting air targets is not the task of ground strike weapons at all. Its simultaneous implementation (with the installation of an air defense system) would greatly distract from the main task and would require inclusion in the air defense control system and, therefore, the installation of additional weapons and equipment, as well as an increase in the number of crew members. And then the commander’s head will definitely go spinning. In general, it seems that the universalization of not only weapons, but even household appliances leads to a decrease in the quality of the tasks performed, in contrast to SPECIALIZED weapons (tools). This again can be discussed in the case of complete automation (robotics) of weapons. However, it is impossible to qualitatively automate processes that have not been studied in their manual or semi-automatic execution (what I mean is that BMPT has not yet been used IN PRACTICE).
5. About booking. Again, we start from the tasks. If we reserve this vehicle, it will become a tank and will acquire its properties to the detriment of its own, which are necessary to perform its tasks. Here, I’ll say it again, the primary implementation of fire capabilities seems to be, and let tanks fight tanks. What was surprising was the calling of contact dynamic protection “active armor”. It seems more correct to create active protection (like "Drozd").

[Strategy]

6. Well, and the number of crew members. Their increase serves to increase the survivability of BMPTs on the battlefield (review, lead in opening fire and firing at several targets), and not for “mass burial” in one armored hull. Increasing the number of crew members is not so much the vulnerability of several people at the same time, but rather an increase in the ability to reduce such vulnerability. Plus, a larger number of people in the crew generally facilitates combat activities, which are carried out not only on the battlefield, but also during the march, when positioned on site, fortification equipment, in reconnaissance, etc. IMHO

[yuniy technik]

BMPT without a gun equivalent to an MBT - “this is just ridiculous”! See lm-kuppermann.livejournal.com/6946.

[Strategy]

The link does not work.

[decanter]

"It is expected that the BMPT will enter service with the Russian Army over the next few years." - key quote, and even they will only supply and not saturate the troops.....a few years later, another president, another minister of defense and again a sharp turn... like now.... just a few months ago they trumped Serdyukov and now they just as famously cancel his orders

[loki565]

Regarding the tank: “The cynic rather the Vampire worked out” WAS ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. Shot from the roof of a building by a Vampire into a tank turret. By the way, where did they get RPG 29 or is it just video editing?

[Cynic]

Full version ?
As for the version, I don’t know, I don’t know, but the fact that the hosts shown are complete... that’s for sure! Especially the videoCorrespondent! Well, who doesn’t know now that being behind the RPG is, to put it mildly, not recommended!

[Cynic]

Quote: loki565

or is it just video editing?

About it ?
From here http://topwar.ru/index.php?newsid=23255

[kukuruzo]

you can feel the difference between our weapons and the USA... it seems that our emphasis is more on practicality... the car looks impressive, if you put well-trained pilots in, establish coordinated interactions... you will have a strong attack wing

you can feel the difference between our weapons and the USA... it seems that our emphasis is more on practicality... the car looks impressive, if you put well-trained pilots in, establish coordinated interactions... you will have a strong attack wing

[vikruss]

Yes, this doesn’t look like an edit, But where did they get Vampire_RPG 29 from, you ask, but Russia has established their production in Jordan, if my memory serves me correctly... here are the first fruits of innocent , And that’s just beginning, I’m already silent about how this whole “business class commerce and privatization” can one day deal with China.

[Hunter 2-1]

I watched the video, this is an awesome weapon. With such a weapon you can easily overcome a company. It’s not in vain that our efforts were made to make an excellent weapon.

[Gainulin]

The question is, what part of all this weaponry can the Terminator use on the move?
Not to mention the COURSE grenade launchers, but the 2 EXTRA people are their operators.

[jandjella]

I recently found it on the Internet

[Weterok]

were there any comments on the photo?

[zhe602]

Such a machine will allow you to save many of your soldiers in battle!