Terminator Reboot

69
In September 2013, the Uralvagonzavod is going to show the general public a new version of its heavy support combat vehicle at the traditional arms exhibition in Nizhny Tagil tanks (BMPT) "Terminator", which was created on the basis of an upgraded version of the main battle tank T-72. According to Oleg Sienko, General Director of the Uralvagonzavod Research and Production Corporation, today the enterprise is developing a new concept for the Terminator for T-72 tanks being modernized and withdrawn from service. According to Sienko, the new combat vehicle will be close to the existing one, but will have a completely different concept. The main difference is the decrease in BMPT crew members.

The BMPT is actually a multi-purpose and well-protected tracked fire support fighting vehicle, which has powerful armament, high maneuverability and advanced fire control devices. BMPT "Terminator" is designed to solve the following tasks: defeat tanks and infantry fighting vehicles of the enemy; defeat lightly armored targets; the defeat and suppression of the enemy’s tank-dangerous manpower, including armed armed ATGMs, RPGs, small arms and shelters. BMPT can be used at any time of the day or night.

Work on the 199 “Frame” object, which is known in the press as the “Terminator” and even on the official site of “Uralvagonzavod” appears under its unofficial nickname, began in the second half of the 90 of the last century. At the same time, at the beginning of the 80-s, the experience of combat training of troops, as well as the results of research, showed that making a breakthrough of a well-prepared enemy defense using traditional schemes for using BMP and tanks becomes problematic. It happened because of the mass saturation of the defending troops with manual and portable anti-tank weapons.
Terminator Reboot

Experience in the use of armored forces in Afghanistan and Chechnya also had a role. The fighting in Grozny, when modern MBT turned out to be virtually defenseless against individual grenade throwers hiding in houses and in the folds of the terrain, influenced the choice of the concept of a future BMPT.
The fact is that to combat such threats, the armament of modern tanks is excessive and, at the same time, ineffective due to insufficient rate of fire. Weapons that are used to destroy the enemy’s tank-dangerous manpower should not necessarily be powerful, but they must be fast-fired and have the ability to quickly redirect from one target to another. In addition, the new combat vehicle, unlike the already existing infantry fighting vehicles, which, on the whole, satisfying the above-mentioned weapon requirements, should also have an MBT reservation. It was assumed that it would still not be possible to avoid fire contact with the enemy, while booking armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles was categorically not enough to withstand, not only hits from rocket launchers, but even shelling from large-caliber small arms. Thus, the idea of ​​a BMPT, in fact, a tank equipped with small-caliber weapons, came into being.

In the case of the 199 “Frame” Object, the developers decided to follow the path of creating a combat module equipped with various weapons and installing it instead of a tank tower. Several variants of such modules were created, until the creators on the latest version of BMPT stopped at the following weapon composition that they considered the most effective: 2-e 30-mm automatic guns 2А42 (900 ammunition), having X-feeds, 4-e anti-tank guns Ataka-T missiles equipped with thermobaric or cumulative combat units, as well as a PKMT 7,62-mm machine gun (2000 ammunition ammunition). In addition, two 30-mm AGS-17D automatic grenade launchers (according to 300 grenades per barrel) were mounted in the frontal part of the BMPT case. True, these grenade launchers have a fairly limited sector of fire. But this should not be considered a big problem of a combat vehicle, since its main armament is 30-mm guns, and AGS-17D can be used to a greater extent in order to save projectiles to guns in some cases. All the ammunition of the car is taken out of the zabronevy volume.

In order to control all these weapons, a crew of 5 people was needed: the commander, the driver, the gunner, as well as the 2-s of grenade launcher operators located in the nadgussenichnyh niches. The resulting combat vehicle in terms of body armor was not inferior to the T-90A tank, while due to the use of the dynamic protection "Relic", even surpassing it. The front of the "Terminator" case has a protection that is equal to MBT T-90, but unlike a tank that provides protection against anti-tank weapons within the course angle ± 35 °, the "Terminator" is able to provide reliable protection against anti-tank melee infantry weapons in limits 360 °. In this case, it is possible to use additional fabric screens equipped with elements of dynamic protection, which are installed in the event of the mass use by the enemy of anti-tank melee weapons.

At one time, the military said that one BMPT in combat effectiveness outnumbered the 2 motorized rifle platoon - 6 BMP and about 40 manned infantry. The introduction of such machines into the tank battalion would increase the effectiveness of the combat unit by 30%. One such machine could simultaneously fire on 3-m various objects on the battlefield. The military planned to use the car as follows - 2 tank and 1 BMPT in the field and 2 BMPT and 1 tank in urban combat.

Despite this, the car did not start to enter the troops, the military are in no hurry to buy the development of the Ural tank builders. Plans to accept the Terminator BMPT for armament and delivery to the troops were postponed several times and were never fulfilled. Currently, the only operator of this combat vehicle is Kazakhstan, which in 2010 has signed a contract for the supply of 10-like machines.

According to the head of Uralvagnozavod, the new concept of the BMPT Terminator was created at the request of potential buyers who already have large T-72 tanks in service and are limited in cash. It is worth noting that not every country can afford the luxury of a tank crew of 5 people, which is necessary for the basic "Terminator". It is because of the potential interest of such customers that the development of a new concept was initiated. The updated car will be available from 25 to 28 in September at the Staratel training ground. According to Sienko, the new BMPT is likely to be called “Terminator-1” or “Terminator-2”.

The Terminator BMPT can effectively deal with enemy tanks and other armored vehicles, as well as repel air attacks from attack helicopters or low-flying aircraft. For this, the combat vehicle is equipped with guided missiles with a firing range of up to 5 km. All projectiles and missiles that are included in the Terminator’s ammunition are unified for all Russian combat vehicles.

At one time, Dmitry Rogozin, who in August 2012 visited the Nizhny Tagil exhibition “Defense and Defense - 2012”, confessed his love to this car. According to him, “Terminator” is a great car with amazing combat power, which is indispensable in the conditions of the city and makes a big impression during specialized exhibitions. There are no similar developments in the West, so Rogozin decided that he would personally accompany potential foreign buyers who would be interested in this BMPT. According to the Russian Deputy Prime Minister, “Terminator” has a rather large export potential.

Speaking to reporters at the IDEX-2013 armory, which takes place in the UAE, the head of the UVZ said that India is still interested in continuing the licensed assembly of the Russian MBT T-90С. According to Sienko, the Indian side receives only the most positive feedback on this program, and the number of combat vehicles assembled in India is already in the hundreds. To organize the licensed assembly of Russian tanks in India, serious funds were spent from the Indian budget. Currently, India is interested in the contract from the large-unit assembly moving to the full localization of the combat vehicle with the subsequent modernization of already released tanks. And this guarantees the non-stop nature of this process.

Information sources:
-http: //vz.ru/news/2013/2/18/620883.html
-http: //lenta.ru/news/2013/02/19/terminator
-http: //dokwar.ru/publ/bronetekhnika/terminator_boejaja_mashina_podderzhki_tankov/13-1-0-39
-http: //www.uvz.ru/product/70/39? print = 1
-http: //vooryjenie.ru/18/981-bmpt-quot-terminator-quot.html
Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

69 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +18
    20 February 2013 08: 57
    Is it true that criticism has finally reached the Urals? A good idea - and such a controversial set of weapons on an excellent chassis.
    I would like to see, finally, 57 mm with good vertical angles, ATGM lifting installations in anti-fragmentation containers, the Arena would look good.
    Well - wait and see.
    PS - The Syrians would have such a toy, that would be for them zasra "rebels" surprise wink
    1. +10
      20 February 2013 09: 09
      57-mm against manpower is redundant (even 30-mm are redundant), but it is necessary to protect containers with ATGMs and MSA from small arms, because it must operate in a closed area, and some sniper may well get into the lens of the guidance system, then the Terminator will be half blind.
      1. +3
        20 February 2013 12: 27
        For the 2A42 gun (30 mm), three main projectiles were developed.

        1. OFZ shell (shrapnelhigh-explosive incendiary shell)

        2. FROM the shell (shrapnel-tracer)

        3. BT shell (armor-piercing tracer shell)

        In discussion gun caliber It is worth considering the types of ammunition used by these systems.
        Having burst in the room where the sniper, grenade launcher, machine gunner, and a 30-mm projectile were able to suppress the firing point, and if 3-4 shells fly in?
        1. Avenger711
          +1
          20 February 2013 15: 53
          He will not suppress horseradish, the fragments mostly fly in the direction of the projectile’s flight, i.e. basically everything will go to the walls. Need a powerful high-explosive charge. I would even think about a 76 mm quick-fire.
          1. +5
            20 February 2013 18: 30
            In my opinion, the caliber does not need to be increased, firstly, the BMPT mission is not to fight with tanks, but with infantry in urban conditions, to cover tanks from RPGs and infantry crews, 30 mm cannons will do their job perfectly, they flash almost all city buildings, but high-explosive fragmentation the shells will destroy the calculation of RPGs or petroes that were seated in the apartment from above, for those who saw the size of the shell and the results of the shooting understand, the caliber does not need to be changed until it is enough. To fight tanks, you need to increase the number of petitions to 8, if only if you reduce the number of crews, it is necessary to separate the responsibilities of the crew members, who should be able to shoot from what. Next, tests were carried out to combat BMP-1 and BMP-2 tanks in the USSR, another 73 mm gun thunder BMP-1 did not cause damage to the tank, they seemed to be testing the T-72 tank, there were a couple of hits of armor penetration, the tank was not combat ready, then the bmp-2 went to the line with the first burst of 2a42 demolished all the monitoring devices and part of the dynamic defense — the tank went blind, the cannon jammed the second burst, the tank lost combat capability the 3rd line went to the rear and knocked out the engine, the tank lost mobility. Here is the result of the action of the 30 mm gun, it will still serve us, so we don’t need to think like amers like the bigger the gun, the cooler !!! And a little cobra can kill an elephant !!!
            SOZIN2013
            I also consider it necessary to increase the attack load of Attack T from 4 to 6, of course, an armored casing, grenade launchers, I think, you should leave it only to replace it with the AGS 40 and increase the elevation angle! As for security, you can not do without Relic, Arena and trellised screens.
            I support you here.
            With a MANPADS needle in question !!! Do I need it ???
            1. 0
              21 February 2013 20: 36
              Quote: Esso
              With a MANPADS needle in question !!! Do I need it ???

              And the ATGM will not cope? After all, if there is a danger of an air attack, it is best to have a specially trained Tunguska nearby.
      2. +2
        20 February 2013 13: 21
        A lot has already been said on this topic, at least http://forums.airbase.ru/2009/03/t66489--bmpt-s-30-mm-pushkoj-nichem-ne-pomozhet
        -tanku.html. And besides ATGM? 5 crew man, two of whom were introduced to control the exchange rate grenade launchers with sectors comprising 6 ° towards the longitudinal axis of the machine and 28 ° towards the side.
      3. Avenger711
        +2
        20 February 2013 15: 51
        Yah? Especially when you need to destroy walls and stones? 30 mm has long been considered a rather weak option, with the right tactics, you can BMP-2 just put behind the tank, the same eggs will be.
      4. 0
        20 February 2013 20: 58
        Who will give him a lens to shoot? This is completely calm, and when it’s standing, it’s a difficult task, but for a moving target it’s not realistic at all.
        1. 0
          23 February 2013 18: 46
          From the window of the house, about three hundred meters, if it’s good to take a position, they won’t see a sniper. BMPT hesitates, so it gets a bullet. For greater probability, you can put a machine gunner. The probability of hitting is very different from zero. Now, if you put a second duplicate lens.
          1. 0
            14 July 2016 14: 30
            the meaning of modern technology (BMPT, BMP, Tanks) is precisely to detect with the help of thermal imagers first and destroy without entering the distance of destruction or even before the enemy has time to shoot, if there is no way to break the distance beyond the range of destruction of the enemy (let's say ATGM will shoot almost any city street to the full length). If the BMPT approached the sniper 300 meters, and he was the first to shoot, then the unit commander, together with the chief of staff, made a mistake both in planning the operation and in training personnel. And the intelligence unit, it is generally unknown what they were doing. In modern warfare, when very powerful and sophisticated types of weapons are used, it is not the one who has more or the most equipment / missiles / planes / anything who wins, but the one who first discovered the enemy and struck.
            This is the situation with the sniper - they should have found him for a long time and just passed on his coordinates to either the tank or the BMPT, and these machines, as soon as they leave the corner, immediately shoot at the window of the apartment where the sniper sits, even if in the window itself he is not there.
            And if you drive up close and then wait when they fire at you, then you can crap with any of the best weapons.
    2. w.ebdo.g
      +3
      20 February 2013 09: 41
      dynamic protection fabric screens ...



      combat module diagram:

      The scheme of the combat module used on BMPT.

      1. armored tower, 2. roof, 3. shoulder straps, 4. turret rotation mechanism, 5. bolts

      The features of the new weapons complex - BMPT combat module are:

      -use of a removable block of weapons;

      - sights, autonomous drives of the main and additional weapons and the turret turning mechanism, made with the possibility of providing, together with the fire control system, control any number of types of primary and secondary weapons, but not less than four, without type restrictions;

      -placing all elements of the fire control system, turret rotation mechanism, electrical equipment and a rotating contact device as part of a unified combat module, made in the form of a monoblock;

      - execution of a monoblock with the possibility of attaching a shoulder strap and a rotating contact device to any vehicle that has a constant electric current source, the required dimensions and the corresponding load capacity.

      6. remote weapon unit, 7. racks, 8. bearing bearings, 9. cradles, 10. replaceable primary weapon, 11. autonomous drives, 12. replaceable secondary weapon, 14. cradle mounting flanges, 15. cradle vertical guidance drive, 16 . sight, 17. tracts, 8. ammunition, 19. store, 20. electrical equipment, 21. video viewing devices, 22. control panels, 23. ballistic computer sensors, 24. ballistic computer, 25. power transverse beam, 26. voltage amplifier , 27. a voltage converter, 28. a rotating contact device.
    3. w.ebdo.g
      +13
      20 February 2013 10: 14
      not the topic, but interesting ...

      Developed by the designers of the NGO "Basalt", the tests of the device have been fully completed, and its adoption is being prepared

      Design

      Structurally, the RPG-30 grenade launcher is two parallel tubes in which rockets are located. Exits of pipes are closed by petal rubber membranes. Aiming devices and trigger single. The grenade launcher has a mechanical folding sight.

      In the larger diameter grenade launcher tube, the main tandem cumulative reactive anti-tank grenade PG-30 of 105 mm caliber is placed. In many ways, this grenade is similar to the rocket of the earlier RPG-29 grenade launcher, which, according to reports in real combat conditions, successfully hit modern M1 tanks Abrams, Challenger 2 and Merkava.

      In a smaller diameter tube, a missile simulator of a target is located. The projectile has a trajectory and a radar signature that are identical to the main grenade and is classified by active defense complexes as an attacking grenade attacking a tank, causing them to fire.



      Principle of operation

      The grenade launcher is designed to destroy modern armored vehicles from short distances. Bringing a grenade launcher into combat position is carried out by raising the bar of the sight and cocking the trigger.

      Being at a distance of a shot to an enemy tank, a fighter with a grenade launcher takes aim and presses the trigger. This triggers the propellant charges of both shells. The smaller target simulator leaves the barrel first, and after that with a slight delay - the main grenade PG-30.

      A target simulator approaching the tank is detected by the active defense complex, classified as an attacking grenade and triggers the active defense complex. The projectile of the active defense complex with a directed field of fragments or an explosive wave destroys the target simulator. Since all KAZs are developed on the basis of minimizing third-party destruction so as not to damage their equipment or infantry, their destruction area is relatively small and not capable of hitting the main warhead following them.

      The cloud of fragments and explosion plasma formed after the destruction of the target simulator reflects the probing radio waves of the KAZ detector, thereby masking the approaching main anti-tank grenade. Re-detection of an anti-tank grenade is possible only after it leaves the cloud of fragments at distances substantially shorter than those necessary to counter the threat with active defense systems.

      For repeated defeat of the attack means on the same trajectory, the active defense complex requires reloading or retargeting of projectiles. For this reason, in one direction, none of the modern and developed active defense systems can repeatedly hit a threat in less than 0,2 - 0,4 seconds after the first attack. The PG-30 main grenade achieves its goal in less time, therefore, even without taking into account the detector’s limitations, none of the modern and promising active defense systems can hit the PG-30.

      After reaching the armor of a tank or other armored vehicle, the leading charge is the first to detonate - this detonation triggers the dynamic protection of armored vehicles and opens the main metal armor of the tank. The main cumulative shell penetrates the main layer of armor, affects the crew and equipment inside the tank, causes a fire and detonation of the ammunition
      1. Suvorov000
        +3
        20 February 2013 12: 46
        An amusing little thing, it is necessary to send a dozen to hazbol that they would test on Merkava, and then a detailed countdown on the work done with pritenzy and wishes
        1. 0
          21 February 2013 20: 39
          Interesting, only against the T-90 and "Merkava". Although, let the Jews, too, are afraid of the Arab RPG-30.
      2. +1
        20 February 2013 13: 05
        "In a smaller-diameter pipe, there is a missile-simulator of the target" ... there was an option, if I am not mistaken, under the name of Acropolis, an EMP grenade, it should cut off the electronics on the tank.
    4. malkor
      +1
      20 February 2013 22: 27
      the most controversial is a 30mm grenade launcher, it’s more logical to install an automatic mortar on a tower that can hit targets behind obstacles with correlated mines - that would be super !!, and a 30mm ags grenade launcher firing forward along the course is nito nise
  2. 0
    20 February 2013 09: 14
    Now it’s even interesting whether they will take this machine into service in the aria or not? There seems to be no other than technical reasons for rejection. Or is there anyway?
    1. +2
      20 February 2013 09: 30
      There is. The army presented the TTZ to the developers, they completed them, but the military themselves realized that the concept was not thought out to the end.
      There are questions to almost all elements of weapons. And to the AG, and to the 30-mm guns, and to unprotected missile weapons.
    2. +3
      20 February 2013 10: 28
      Quote: erased
      Now it’s even interesting whether they will take this machine into service in the aria or not? There seems to be no other than technical reasons for rejection. Or is there anyway?

      There is one reason - tactical. This pepelats nafig is not needed by anyone, because the developers themselves, if they are closely "interrogated", are not able to answer why it is needed.
      It struck some designer to make this a misfortune, and the military is now turning a finger at the temple.
      1. 0
        20 February 2013 11: 15
        Quote: yanus
        There is one reason - tactical. This pepelats nafig is not needed by anyone, because the developers themselves, if they are closely "interrogated", are not able to answer why it is needed.
        It struck some designer to make this a misfortune, and the military is now turning a finger at the temple.

        In general, the exhibition in Abu Dhabi confirmed this. Cool? Yeah, cool. Is it necessary? Nah, don't.
        1. +2
          20 February 2013 11: 32
          For exhibitions not worth evaluating. There are a lot of things they did not buy.
      2. +1
        20 February 2013 11: 31
        Quote: yanus
        because the developers themselves, if they are closely "interrogated", are not able to answer why it is needed.


        I don't think they understand much about the tactics of combined arms units, so what is the point in their "interrogation"?
        But the military, who created the TTZ for this development, knew what they needed. Another thing is not what happened, what they wanted, the machine can not perform the functions assigned to it.
        1. +1
          21 February 2013 10: 47
          Quote: Spade
          But the military, who created the TTZ for this development, knew what they needed.

          The trick is that the war just did not create anything (TTZ). This is the designer took the initiative, and then they were very surprised that no one was buying.
    3. Lavrik
      0
      20 February 2013 16: 04
      The first such car, but with one 30 mm cannon, was presented to the public in 2000. In 2002 - already with two guns. Except Kazakhstan, no one has become interested in the machine yet.
  3. +2
    20 February 2013 09: 35
    The car is good, but 5 crew members, it's still a lot ...
  4. avt
    +3
    20 February 2013 09: 47
    Or maybe it’s easier to put “Bakhchu”? Well, and at the same time the troop compartment in the Israeli manner. In general, to remake it into a normal heavy infantry fighting vehicle? 72 cut, but can all the same do something less controversial?
    1. +7
      20 February 2013 09: 52
      There was such a project from Chelyabinsk citizens.

    2. +1
      20 February 2013 10: 31
      Quote: avt
      Or maybe it’s easier to put “Bakhchu”? And at the same time, the landing squad in the Israeli manner. In general, to convert into a normal heavy infantry fighting vehicle?

      Which of them is better to deal with the infantry:
      - "Bakhcha", with 100mm cannon (+4 missiles), 30mm small-caliber and 7,62mm machine gun; or "Object 199", with 2x30mm small-caliber guns, 2 grenade launchers, 7,62 machine gun and 4 missiles?

      Simply put: "Bakhcha" is more of a universal module, while "Rama" is more specialized in anti-personnel, leaving the rest with tanks.
      1. +2
        20 February 2013 11: 23
        And what is in the "Frame" of the antipersonnel? Two AGs? Well, they are not built into the main module.
      2. avt
        +2
        20 February 2013 12: 00
        Quote: RedDragoN
        Simply put: "Bakhcha" is more of a universal module, while "Rama" is more specialized in anti-personnel, leaving the rest with tanks.

        Well, they themselves answered, I generally do not understand how to specialize in infantry as much as possible. I saw a tank and you say to them, "Wait, I'm not for you, right now the others will pass" ?? request
        Quote: RedDragoN
        Which of them is better to deal with the infantry:
        - "Bakhcha", with 100mm cannon (+4 missiles), 30mm small-caliber and 7,62mm machine gun; or "Object 199", with 2x30mm small-caliber guns, 2 grenade launchers, 7,62 machine gun and 4 missiles?

        Well, what's the advantage? Minus 100ka plus 30 mm and five crew members request Maybe it's easier to add AG and not bother with the name? Well, right, they are already going to do an "export" version for three people. laughing For me - take the old chassis and put what goes on the new BMP, that will be unification, universalization.
        1. +1
          20 February 2013 23: 26
          Then it’s even easier to stick a cannon and AH and will onto the 30mm tank ... fellow
          We are talking about a machine that will act as a "sniper" and will mow down the infantry, and not play the role of a "universal soldier", replacing the tank ... What's the difference? Probably in the stuffing of equipment and ammunition stock.
          And, with a crew of 5 people, they went too far stop
          1. +1
            20 February 2013 23: 33
            We are talking about a vehicle that will protect tanks from infantry vehicles. She doesn't really need sniper skills. Multi-channel weapons and fire capabilities, allowing to crush (not necessarily destroyed) anti-tank weapons.
            1. bubble82009
              +1
              23 February 2013 00: 21
              a shot at a tank from a grenade launcher by an experienced shooter takes no more than 20 seconds. in Chechnya in Grozny, at the same time, 3-4 arrows fired at the tank from the basements. Can this monster respond with 3-4 arrows at a time?
  5. +1
    20 February 2013 10: 37
    Quote: RedDragoN
    Which of them is better to deal with the infantry:
    - "Bakhcha", with 100mm cannon (+4 missiles), 30mm small-caliber and 7,62mm machine gun; or "Object 199", with 2x30mm small-caliber guns, 2 grenade launchers, 7,62 machine gun and 4 missiles?

    Simply put: "Bakhcha" is more of a universal module, while "Rama" is more specialized in anti-personnel, leaving the rest with tanks.

    What is the difficulty to stick AGS to Bahce and throw his control say to the commander of the car?
    Quote: yanus
    There is one reason - tactical. This pepelats nafig is not needed by anyone, because the developers themselves, if they are closely "interrogated", are not able to answer why it is needed.
    It struck some designer to make this a misfortune, and the military is now turning a finger at the temple.

    Gold words.
  6. +5
    20 February 2013 11: 29
    The concept is interesting, but underdeveloped. Well, there is no 7,62 machine gun on the Terminator, no! And you need it!
    IMHO, On such a machine, one 30mm shooter is enough. A grenade launcher of the AGS type is paired with it. Install a machine gun type GShG-7,62. And it is imperative to provide for the protection of missile weapons and surveillance bodies from small arms fire. All weapons must have a circular sector of fire, and a maximum elevation angle.
    1. 0
      20 February 2013 11: 34
      Quote: AlNikolaich
      AGS type grenade launcher to pair with it


      Isn’t it better to bring AG-57 to mind?

      1. 0
        20 February 2013 13: 27
        According to 57 mm everything is foggy, but the new 40 mm is on the way http://topwar.ru/24415-rossiya-vooruzhitsya-novym-krupnokalibernym-granatometom.
        html
        1. bubble82009
          0
          23 February 2013 00: 22
          how is it foggy? during the modernization of the PT-76, a 57-mm automatic gun was already installed, and this is in 2000!
      2. 0
        20 February 2013 13: 57
        AG-57 is a more promising option, but when remaking for tape power.
        1. +1
          21 February 2013 01: 46
          How is it promising? At maximum distance, due to the low velocity of the projectile, the target can on foot get out of the firing zone. And apart from the dubious range, there are no other advantages over the 40 mm ...
    2. +1
      21 February 2013 02: 53
      Quote: AlNikolaich
      All weapons must have a circular sector of fire, and a maximum elevation angle.

      I agree that in the courtyard the 21st century is coming, and course tools after t-34, it seems, were no longer installed - but no, Tachanaka-Terminator appears ...
      On such a machine, one 30mm shooter is enough. AGS type grenade launcher to pair with it

      Ideally, it would be nice if they were independent vertically - that would be from both at once, but at any distance ... eh. By the way, I wonder if there are normal targeting systems for light grenade launchers? And then you can only see - either on the turret with a protruding shooter, or bolted from the side "to a heap and it would have been"
      at exhibitions ...
  7. satellite
    +1
    20 February 2013 11: 36
    Let them experiment, it’s worse when there are no ideas at all.
  8. +2
    20 February 2013 12: 12
    There is nothing to beat the enemy with in the city! Tanks in the city are expensive and not logical. "Termite" has a bunch of tracking systems, thermal imagers, obn. Snipers, etc.
    Ags of course on the tower should be.
    He introduced himself in the place of a rebel .... He didn’t lean out to shoot (ak) at such an evil comrade!
    1. 0
      20 February 2013 13: 38
      Here the idea of ​​an assault tank is discussed in full just for urban conditions and to increase the caliber to 140-150 mm to demolish buildings at times even more so the examples of the successful use of tanks in the city have an Israeli merkava ...
  9. zmey
    +2
    20 February 2013 12: 23
    watch the cycle of transmissions "Polygon" - Terminator.
    Pepelats is cool, but there are a few questions:
    1. why AGS-17d in boxes with limited angles of fire, and not in turrets (like the T-II "Flamingo")
    2. Why are anti-tank launchers not shut
    3. It is unclear how to replenish ammunition for 30mm cannons and a machine gun (as I understand it, the boxes with shells are so deep that this will be a problem)
    4. Why only one machine gun, and not a pair of two (apparatus for shooting and suppressing infantry units)
    5. small ammunition for 30mm guns
    6. at the insistence of the "military" the right cannon (in the direction of travel) shoots armor-piercing shells (only 250 pieces) and the left one only high-explosive (600-800 pieces), only one cannon does not work together! ??
    7. The sighting system of the commander is very high (I just want to shoot him)
    8. it would not be bad to provide for the placement on the upper guides of the SAM type "needle" / arrow "for the possibility of hitting helicopters
    In general, the apparatus is very cool, but they will only be adopted when they come up with tactics and cooperation with tanks and armored personnel carriers / armored personnel carriers.
  10. +1
    20 February 2013 13: 11
    Yes, you finally cover the missile systems from the sides with steel screens, so that they hold 30 mm of the projectile, it will be possible to hang active protection on them. If he will naughty, then there will be no return fire on him.
    1. bubble82009
      0
      23 February 2013 00: 25
      But can an ATGM be done with a vertical launch and a striking direction in the roof of the tank? that when they don’t cover the tank with armor, this is the engine
  11. GP
    GP
    0
    20 February 2013 14: 44
    Часть 2-я. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=8g3K_0hGg7E
    Part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8o3joReebE
    Here in the video from Syria, the Terminator is clearly missing.
  12. +4
    20 February 2013 15: 46
    Still, the logic of the designers of this miracle for me was both, and has remained incomprehensible.
    If her task is to shoot infantry, then why 2 30-mm guns, and not for example 1 gun and 2 Cord? It will open 12,7 jeeps, the infantry will be tightly controlled, the helicopter will poke around, and the ammunition is larger. And what does not hurt Kord - 1 30-graph paper will also skip.
    Why course garnatometr is a riddle of riddles. AGS-30 400+ firing rate where are there two of them? And then the battle distance. The guns under 4 km, and the grenade launchers 1700 ....

    And the ATGMs were left open. Are we Arabs or something? Doesn’t it come to pass that if the developer of the rocket complex, while making the Chrysanthemum, removed the ammunition inside the car, then it’s for good reason?
  13. 0
    20 February 2013 17: 16
    I don’t understand why the bicycle should be worn out again, because there were multi-tower and multi-barrel systems. To support the infantry, an assault gun of large caliber is needed, so that both around the house and to the foundation, and for an obstacle, throw along a ballistic trajectory.
  14. SOZIN2013
    +5
    20 February 2013 17: 49
    I will put forward my opinion on this!
    It seems to me that this car is indispensable for the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation, since it was a sad experience in Chechnya!
    I think the car should be taken into service, BUT NOT IN SUCH AS IT NOW! It would be better to do something similar on the Armata platform! As for weapons, it seems to me that instead of 2x30 mm guns, I need to put 2x45 mm, since this caliber will be quite good against tank-dangerous targets and light armored vehicles, place the guns in the casing, to ensure painful accuracy and less barrel deformation when firing! Gun angles should rise to 90 degrees

    57 mm is too much. This caliber seems to me suitable for infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers. I also consider it necessary to increase the attack load of Attack T from 4 to 6, of course, an armored casing, grenade launchers, I think, you should leave it only to replace it with the AGS 40 and increase the elevation angle! As for security, you can not do without Relic, Arena and trellised screens.
    Perhaps I have already bent it (maybe someone will appreciate it) on top of the guns, you can also install removable Igla-S MANPADS !!! soldier
    I think the car is excellent for the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation, BUT needs to be improved !!!
    1. 0
      20 February 2013 18: 29
      In my opinion, the caliber does not need to be increased, firstly, the BMPT mission is not to fight with tanks, but with infantry in urban conditions, to cover tanks from RPGs and infantry crews, 30 mm cannons will do their job perfectly, they flash almost all city buildings, but high-explosive fragmentation the shells will destroy the calculation of RPGs or petroes that were seated in the apartment from above, for those who saw the size of the shell and the results of the shooting understand, the caliber does not need to be changed until it is enough. To fight tanks, you need to increase the number of petitions to 8, if only if you reduce the number of crews, it is necessary to separate the responsibilities of the crew members, who should be able to shoot from what. Next, tests were carried out to combat BMP-1 and BMP-2 tanks in the USSR, another 73 mm gun thunder BMP-1 did not cause damage to the tank, they seemed to be testing the T-72 tank, there were a couple of hits of armor penetration, the tank was not combat ready, then the bmp-2 went to the line with the first burst of 2a42 demolished all the monitoring devices and part of the dynamic defense — the tank went blind, the cannon jammed the second burst, the tank lost combat capability the 3rd line went to the rear and knocked out the engine, the tank lost mobility. Here is the result of the action of the 30 mm gun, it will still serve us, so we don’t need to think like amers like the bigger the gun, the cooler !!! And a little cobra can kill an elephant !!!
      SOZIN2013
      I also consider it necessary to increase the attack load of Attack T from 4 to 6, of course, an armored casing, grenade launchers, I think, you should leave it only to replace it with the AGS 40 and increase the elevation angle! As for security, you can not do without Relic, Arena and trellised screens.
      I support you here.
      With a MANPADS needle in question !!! Do I need it ???
      1. SOZIN2013
        0
        21 February 2013 00: 06
        Do you support me regarding the fact that BMPT for the Russian Federation needs to be created on the Almaty platform?
        1. 0
          21 February 2013 10: 30
          In theory, Armata should become a universal platform for building heavy machines on its basis. I think that BMPT is also not an exception. And on the old platform, you can sell for export by remaking T-72 tanks, respectively.
      2. bubble82009
        +1
        21 February 2013 21: 18
        But what will this machine protect the tank from RPGs? with your body or what? so they will burn these cars first and then they will shoot the tanks. and he will protect from mines?
      3. bubble82009
        0
        23 February 2013 00: 33
        everything except the concrete foundation of the Khrushchev.
    2. +1
      21 February 2013 06: 32
      From the information that I gathered while reading articles about this kind of technique and the tactics of its application, I formed the following opinion about this instance:
      1. There is no point in increasing the caliber of guns, the ability of a 30mm caliber at this time is sufficient both to combat lightly armored vehicles and to combat manpower behind cover.
      2. The maximum angle of vertical guidance 45 degrees IMHO is small for firing on the upper floors of buildings, or when using BMPT in mountainous terrain, as well as for hitting low-flying air targets.
      3. Weak protection of the weapon module, many elements are installed almost in the open.
      4. I would like to have as much as possible separation of arms control channels. Now almost everything is wound on one turntable, respectively, to fire on several targets located on different sides (for example, in street battles) will be problematic.
      5. I see no reason to increase the number of anti-tank systems, because this is a Tank Support Machine. If it is also used for the independent struggle against tanks, then actually why then do we need the tanks that it must accompany? And the installation of additional air defense systems also does not make much sense - the corresponding models of equipment that are designed for this will better cope with it - the same Shell-C1. And then it’s also possible to put torpedo tubes, and a couple of howitzers, so that in general the prodigy will turn out ...
  15. +3
    20 February 2013 17: 51
    The experience of using our armored vehicles in Syria is very useful.
    So in the process of combat use, a lot of shortcomings were revealed (which, I hope, will be taken into account).
    It would be nice to put a dozen BMPTs in Syria to check the effectiveness, and identify weaknesses, for further refinement of the machine.
    Otherwise, we stamp the crude machines, which will then have to be brought to mind.
  16. +4
    20 February 2013 17: 52
    DShKa sweeps off all the sights, damages launch containers and more ...
  17. +1
    20 February 2013 18: 06
    It is preferable to install a tower with a large volume and level of protection against cumulative grenades 1000-1100mm. That is, pack the entire module with powerful armor. An increase in mass of 1,5 to 2 tons will be entirely acceptable.
  18. +2
    20 February 2013 21: 02
    This technique is urgently needed in Syria. Moreover, several weapons options at once. Following the results - modernization. Then it’s a really strong thing.
  19. Mr. Truth
    0
    20 February 2013 22: 55
    Here is my opinion, the concept of a "female" tank (with rapid-fire guns) deserves the right to life. Perhaps it is even more useful in battle, a heavy infantry fighting vehicle that many dream of.
    I would rather put on a tank battalion with 3 tank companies and a BMPT company and without infantry, than on an American heavy circuit (2 tank companies 2 fur companies on a BMP).
    1. +2
      20 February 2013 23: 12
      The enemy will allow such a tank battalion to the range of the TCP and destroy it entirely.
      1. Mr. Truth
        0
        20 February 2013 23: 36
        Quote: Spade
        Title and destroy completely

        And similar to the American one will calmly pass, as I understand it?
        1. +2
          20 February 2013 23: 45
          Yes. Because he has a trump ace infantry. And only she will be able to cover tanks at ranges using RPGs.

          Think for yourself: BMPT is four observation channels and 3 defeats. The motorized infantry squad on Bradley has 8 observation channels - defeat
  20. Mr. Truth
    0
    20 February 2013 23: 53
    Thank you, it was actually a provocation. It was interesting what people would write.
    1. +2
      21 February 2013 00: 06
      Now imagine a heavy battalion: 2 tank, two motorized rifle, in which the platoon is one BMPT and three heavy armored personnel carriers on a tank base with ten infantrymen inside, like on Namer. Plus a regular artillery battery with six "veins". Plus platoon: reconnaissance, GDV and anti-aircraft.

      This will be more serious than the American one.
      1. Mr. Truth
        0
        21 February 2013 00: 14
        I am for large units.
        For example, in a tank platoon there are 5 tanks, 17 in a company plus a heavy armored personnel carrier. Same thing with the BMP / BRM company. Firing platoons in a modern state suit me. (3 BM for platoon artillery and 2 for rocket artillery)
        Grenade and anti-aircraft platoons with such firepower are no longer needed.
        But I think the tank reconnaissance platoon is needed for combat protection, so as not to remove the platoon from the tank companies.
        According to my scheme, the battalion of 40 tanks and 35 heavy infantry fighting vehicles is obtained.
        1. 0
          21 February 2013 01: 07
          A platoon will not pull as many tanks. And even more so, the infantry platoon will not be pulled by so many people and equipment. GDV can and can be removed, but anti-aircraft gunners are reckless. BMPT only according to the developers can effectively deal with air targets. Well, and intelligence. Platoon has other functions. These are drones, these are optical reconnaissance means, this is the KNP of the battalion commander
          1. bubble82009
            0
            23 February 2013 00: 42
            in words they can effectively deal with a target hovering in a helicopter. against A-10 attack aircraft, for example, weak weapons
      2. bubble82009
        0
        23 February 2013 00: 40
        and what tasks will this unit face? the Americans in Vietnam practiced something against infantry in the jungle. and what happened? Do not forget all this armada, you still need to be able to transfer, to supply ammunition and fuel. and this technique is voracious.
        By the way, according to the experience of the Second World War on Kursk in the second part of the battle, light T-60 tanks were an effective weapon against the Wehrmacht infantry. low silhouette, quiet engine allowed to creep up close to the enemy and strike him.
  21. Mr. Truth
    0
    21 February 2013 02: 07
    Lopatov,
    The platoon will not control each machine individually, the machines will be reduced to compartments of 2 units each. Especially with modern controls, I think this is possible. A tank reconnaissance platoon is only for combat protection, real reconnaissance will be given from the reconnaissance baht, and these guys are needed as a reserve battalion commander. In a battle, an infantryman lieutenant commands the platoon of infantry fighting vehicles inside the vehicles; in case of a dismantling of the landing, he either works in a hurry, and the commander of the BBM platoon coordinates the actions of the vehicles, or commands everyone from the inside of the vehicle. In short, everything is as before, only one more platoon officer is needed, in general a double kit for the company. Tankers and foot soldiers, so that the head does not burst.
  22. bubble82009
    0
    21 February 2013 21: 36
    and so this machine is designed for fighting in the city. Well, the caterpillar mover is not better than on the asphalt. this time.
    the second one. this machine cannot fire in different directions. in one sector, but in different ones with difficulty. if you move in front, then in the fire sector of 120 degrees, he can fire. but the main armament of the 30-mm and anti-tank missiles horizontally can only lead in one direction.
    three. reloading ATGMs only manually under enemy fire. it’s not always worthwhile in the city to spend expensive rockets at close range. need less powerful. it would be nice if this machine could conduct an air defense fight fully. at the level at which she has this ability, both BMPs and tanks can drive. caliber guns needed above. 57 mm has a higher ability to fight against modern BM with increased armor resistance. and a crew of 5 is a bit much. generally you need to make cars for battle in the city in the form of a robot and smaller in size
  23. 0
    22 February 2013 07: 47
    I believe that such a machine could find application in the structure of the armament of the units of the internal troops, since its combat parameters are geared towards conducting combat in urban conditions. It can be used in many situations where the use of the tank is excessive. I liked the proposal abc_alexa instead of one gun to put a 12.7 machine gun. You might think to put a flamethrower in place of one of the ags - a flamethrower, and replace 4 powerful ones with blocks with smaller ones, with a high-explosive fragmentation or with a warhead of a rpo bumblebee, etc. They can be delivered and more, pieces like 12. I think it would not be scary with such a thing. What do VV fighters think about this, write, your thoughts are interesting. As for the caterpillar track, it’s just right for the city where the battles are going on, the asphalt is broken, there are rubble all around, + mining, on the side of the road to fight tight. And another suggestion is to put an engineering body kit on the terminator for the battle in the city for raking rubble and passing through mines.
    1. bubble82009
      0
      23 February 2013 00: 47
      what is your confidence that this is a car for the city? in the words of the developers. what a dead zone for firing this machine. like a tank somewhere 30 meters. in an average statistical city, 30 meters or less, the distance from the center of the road to the wall, which means the windows of the top floor or basement. and course AGS-17 is even less able to fire on infantry in the city.

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"