Military Review

The history of the emergence of BMPT

Work on the BMPT or Object 199 “Frame”, which was widely known in the media as “Terminator” and even appears on its official website as “Uralvagonzavod” under its unofficial name, began in the second half of the 1990s. Moreover, the first attempts to create such a machine were made even earlier in the 80s of the last century. Currently, the fate of the support combat vehicle tanks is in limbo. On the one hand, the Terminator BMPT was officially adopted by the Russian army, but deliveries of this type of weapon to the troops are not made. Currently, the only operator of this machine is Kazakhstan, which has acquired 10 BMPT units.

In September, at the traditional exhibition of weapons in Nizhny Tagil, “Uralvagonzavod”, which has already become traditional, is preparing to present to the general public a new version of its BMPT, which was created based on the upgraded version of the T-2013 MBT. According to Oleg Sienko, Director General of the Uralvagonzavod Research and Production Corporation, the company is working on a new concept for its combat vehicle. According to Oleg Sienko, the new machine in its capabilities and characteristics will be close to the already created BMPT. Its main difference will be a reduction in the number of crew. Currently, the 72 Facility crew consists of 199 people.

History The development of BMPT began a quarter of a century ago. Then in the distant 1980-s already under the cipher BMPT understood "heavy infantry fighting vehicle" or as they said just a heavy BMP. At that time, the experience of existing military conflicts showed that the traditional use of tanks and infantry fighting vehicles became increasingly problematic due to the saturation of the defense with various anti-tank complexes, including various anti-tank missiles. For all their might, tanks in combat proved vulnerable against modern anti-tank weapons. That is why the question of creating a combat vehicle that would effectively fight tank-dangerous manpower, destroying and suppressing it, supporting tanks in battle, arose sharply. Work on this project in those years was conducted in the armored academy.
The history of the emergence of BMPT
781 object

In the USSR, new models of military equipment and weapons were created by government orders or decrees, as well as by decrees of the military-industrial complex (commission on military-industrial issues). The work began as specific proposals were received from the ordering departments of the Ministry of Defense and the ministries of development. The same happened with BMPT when this combat vehicle was included in the "5-year plan for the most important research and development work on weapons and military equipment for 1986-1990 years". This plan was binding on all government organizations and was funded. The initiator of the R & D on the development of a fundamentally new machine, as well as the concept of its combat use was made by the department of tanks VA BTV, headed by Major General O. N. Brilev.

The design bureau of the Chelyabinsk Tractor Plant of the Ministry of Agriculture and Machine-Building (GSKB-2), headed by V. L. Vershinsky, was appointed the lead contractor for the development of the BMPT, and the well-known Tula Design Bureau of Instrument Engineering (KBP) was chosen as the developer of the weapons complex for the BMPT. Shipunov. GSKB-2 began to create a combat vehicle of a new class in 1985, when research was still conducted to determine the appearance of a combat vehicle.

The BMPT was to operate as part of tank units and destroy enemy tank-dangerous weapons. The experience of fighting the Soviet army in Afghanistan confirmed the need for this kind of equipment. The experience of the war demonstrated that the lightly armored BMP-1 and BMP-2 cannot fully fight the enemy’s tank-dangerous manpower, and modern MBTs do not have a sufficient angle for lifting the weapon, which is necessary in mountain combat conditions. The main requirement for the new armored vehicle was a powerful weapon with a high angle of elevation, as well as a good level of protection for the hull, which would not be inferior to the MBT. In addition, the machine had to be very well protected from anti-tank melee weapons.

Based on this, it was decided to manufacture a combat vehicle on the basis of the production tank T-72, which was produced at Uralvagonzavod. The crew was also identified - 7 people, as well as their locations. A mechanic-driver was to be located in the center in front, the 2 grenade launcher was on board. In the middle of the car, which housed the combat compartment of the tank, were the gunner and the commander. And on the sides of the hull were 2 machine gunner, who covered BMPT from the flanks.
782 object

This arrangement of the crew required changes in the hull of the MBT and its bow nodes. The shelves located above the chassis were made in the form of armored sealed compartments, in which coursework, remote-controlled grenade launchers with an ammunition feeding system were installed. At the same time, on-board machine gunners were able to control PKT machine guns, which were carried out, remotely.

At BMPT, modern aiming and surveillance devices were mounted for each crew member controlling the armament. Thus, 6 crew members of the BMPT could conduct independent fire and destroy a potential enemy in all directions. The main armament of BMPT at the initial stage was performed in 2-s variants (A and B). In the test report, they were sometimes referred to as experimental 781 samples of the 7 and 8 assemblies. At the same time, in the press today they are often referred to as “781 Object” and “782 Object”.

Both versions were made on a modified T-72A tank chassis with a redesign of the hull nose assembly. Above the running gear there were shelves made in the form of sealed armored compartments, in which were located remotely controlled stabilized 40-mm grenade launchers. Behind them were the protected fuel tanks, as well as a number of auxiliary systems, such as batteries and a filtering unit. This solution allowed to increase the security of BMPT from boards.

The first version of “A” was armed with two 30-2 72-speed guns and 7,62-mm machine guns with independent aiming turrets paired with them. Additional weapons of the machine consisted of anti-tank missile system and 2-x large-caliber 12,7-mm machine guns NSVT. The crew of the “781 Object” consisted of a 7 person. The second version of the "B" used a complex of weapons from the BMP-3, which consisted of 100-mm and 30-mm guns in a single unit and an 7,62-mm PKT machine gun paired with them. However, due to the restructuring and cessation of the CTZ on tank-related projects, the projects of these development machines did not receive.
787 object

Theoretically, the crew member of the BMPT 4 (2 machine gunner and 2 grenade launcher) could, if necessary, leave the combat vehicle and conduct an independent battle outside of it, dismounting from the BMP assault forces, while their safe exit from the BMPT was not envisaged. In the future, when the number of crew members of the BMPT decreased to 5 people, the idea of ​​dismounting a part of the crew disappeared by itself.

In 1995, fighting in the North Caucasus began in Russia, and ChTZ was transformed into Ural-Trak JSC, the management of the new enterprise returned to the idea of ​​creating BMPT. The work on the project was started at the enterprise’s own funds at the initiative of the plant’s general director. In GSKB-2, which at that time was headed by A. V. Yermolin, urgently began work on creating a combat vehicle based on the mass T-72 tank, which could operate effectively in mountainous and wooded areas and urban conditions.

In 1996, the combat vehicle, designated Object 787, was ready. The experimental sample looked rather unusual. The gun was dismantled from the T-72 tank, and two 2-mm automatic cannons 30A2, paired with 72-mm machine guns, were installed on the sides of the turret. These installations, like the forked tongue of a viper, could mortally sting any enemy, so the company called the car "Viper". Both guns were mounted on a single shaft that passed through the turret of the tank. Fire control and aiming of guns at the target was carried out by the gunner and the vehicle commander. In addition, unguided cassettes were mounted on the sides of the turret in addition to the guns on the new BMPT. aviation missiles (NAR), 6 guides from each side. All this was covered with special armor shields.

Particular attention was paid to the designers to protect the BMPT from anti-tank cumulative infantry vehicles, the entire corps and the tower were covered with blocks of DZ "Kontakt-1". In addition, a special container was mounted to the stern of the tower, which also served as an additional armor protection. A number of experts believe that it could be equipped with additional weapons, for example, large-caliber machine guns. This machine was tested from 5 to 10 on April 1997, with the participation of 38 employees from the NIIM of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation. The machine was tested shooting on the move in the daytime. In July, 1997, the trials were continued by firing NARs. Test shooting showed high efficiency BMPT, but personnel changes at the factory put an end to this machine.
1999 Terminator Object

Only the 4 version of the BMPT, developed in the Ural KB of transport engineering, was adopted by the Russian army. Initially, the T-72 tank chassis was used on UKBTM, and the T-90A was used in the future. The running layout of the BMPT "Frame-99" (199 Object) was first demonstrated to the general public in the summer of 2000, during the Nizhny Tagil arms and military equipment exhibition. By that time, the BMPT was already deciphered, like a tank support combat vehicle.

Her crew consisted of 5 people, four of whom could participate in fire control. The machine was equipped with a low-profile turret of the original design with external armament, which was mounted in a single stabilized cradle - an automatic 30-mm 2А42 gun and an automatic 30-mm AG-30 grenade launcher paired with it, and its own independent stabilized 4 grenade launcher drives (located on the left side of the tower in an armored container). This arrangement of weapons allowed to fire immediately from all the weapons on board. At the same time, the 7,62-mm PKTM machine gun with remote control was also installed on the commander's hatch. Additional armament machines were 2 automatic grenade launchers in the fenders. At the same time, a modern FCS “Frame” was installed on the BMPT, which made it possible to conduct combat effectively both day and night.

In 2002, the armament exhibition showed not a mock-up, but a model of a combat vehicle refined according to customer’s remarks. At the same time, the armament complex has undergone a change, now 2-e 30-mm automatic cannons, as well as 7,62-mm PKTM machine gun were mounted on the turret. According to the characteristics of the protection of the boards, the new BMPT even surpassed the T-90 MBT. This was achieved thanks to the installation of DZ along the entire side projection and shielding of the boards with auxiliary equipment. Also on the BMPT to protect the stern of the hull was a lattice anti-cumulative screen. This version of BMPT at the end of 2006 of the year successfully passed state tests and was recommended for adoption.

Information sources:
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Bongo
    Bongo April 23 2013 08: 11 New
    How guided missiles at BMPT are protected from streak weapons and splinters, what happens if they are defeated? What is the elevation angle and sector of fire from grenade launchers? It is doubtful the possibility of their effective use.
    1. cth; fyn
      cth; fyn April 23 2013 09: 07 New
      The guns have a barrel lift of only 45 degrees, which is clearly not enough in urban combat, even the shilka has a 60 degree gun lift.
      I really liked the object 787, replace the platform with the T-90, put the relic and another 2x30 guns in the place where there was a 125 mm gun (for firing armor-piercing guns) or one 30-ku and the AGS paired with it.
      But the Terminator will be screwed immediately to the Terminator, even the line from the machine will not be sweet for him, but if from the NSVT, then everything will fly off there, the module is weakly armored, and also the APU is also weakly armored.
      1. klimpopov
        klimpopov April 23 2013 09: 24 New
        Incidentally photo undermining BMPT.
        Already posted, but here in the subject in my opinion.
        1. cth; fyn
          cth; fyn April 23 2013 11: 47 New
          With such a high protection of the hull, we see cardboard armor of the module and the APU placed on the right fenders, in my opinion it’s more logical to be placed inside the case next to the diesel engine, otherwise when it is lost, the car will start to eat fuel like damn, because she will have nothing to feed the weapons from, except from the main engine.
        2. Bad_gr
          Bad_gr April 28 2013 12: 02 New
          Quote: klimpopov
          Incidentally photo undermining BMPT.

          More precisely, BMPT after tests for detonation.
      2. Flooding
        Flooding April 23 2013 10: 13 New
        Quote: cth; fyn
        even the shilka has a 60 degree gun lift.

        That's Shilka and ZSU. Therefore, not even, but simply brought to a similar indicator.
        Which doesn’t interfere with the conditions of battle in the city and in the highlands.
        Quote: cth; fyn
        I really liked the object 787, replace the platform with the T-90, put the relic and another 2x30 guns in the place where there was a 125 mm gun (for firing armor-piercing guns) or one 30-ku and the AGS paired with it.

        Total 3-4 trunks of 30 mm? This is excessive. What is the difference from the same Shilka? Only booking and caliber a little more.
        1. cth; fyn
          cth; fyn April 23 2013 11: 42 New
          Total 3-4 trunks of 30 mm? It's overly

          This has its own logic, it is connected with food and various types of shells. They’ve got ribbon food and in order to switch to another type of shells it will be necessary to change the ribbon, and it’s long and physically difficult all the same, not PCT, but 30
          Several guns can have different types of shells, now not only armor-piercing and high-explosive, but a whole bunch of different shells, you must admit that a panel house shredding BOPS is not profitable, but a conventional high-explosive one will not always break, therefore a shell with increased armor penetration and high-explosive impact is needed, and for To combat BMPs, a BOPS is needed, which, with such a small caliber, due to its sub-caliber part, will be able to break through the armor of a BMP, etc.
          1. Bad_gr
            Bad_gr April 30 2013 19: 52 New
            Quote: cth; fyn
            This has its own logic, it is connected with food and various types of shells. They’ve got ribbon food and in order to switch to another type of shells it will be necessary to change the ribbon, and it’s long and physically difficult all the same, not PCT, but 30

            Guns 2A42 and 2A72 have two-tape (selective) power. That is, two ribbons from different ammunition boxes equipped with cartridges with armor-piercing and high-explosive shells are suitable for one gun. The gun will decide what the gun will shoot by pressing one button or another.
    2. nick-name
      nick-name 22 August 2013 22: 42 New
      The military does not raise questions, none of your points
  2. Metlik
    Metlik April 23 2013 08: 29 New
    It would be nice to send a few pieces to Syria, check them in battle.
    1. Canep
      Canep April 23 2013 08: 47 New
      It will not be objective, the enemy does not have heavy weapons.
      1. klimpopov
        klimpopov April 23 2013 09: 25 New
        Nevertheless, the enemy has means of combating armored vehicles.
        In any case, a check in a real battle, there is a check in a real battle and not exercises ..
      2. UFO
        UFO April 23 2013 14: 14 New
        A BMPT against heavy weapons and was not developed.
        1. klimpopov
          klimpopov April 23 2013 14: 52 New
          By the way, by the way. Reasonable remark.
  3. Canep
    Canep April 23 2013 08: 53 New
    The main enemy of tanks with which they themselves can not effectively fight is attack aircraft. In my opinion, BMPT near-radius air defense missile-cannon weapons, something like "Tunguska" but with the possibility of firing a cannon at the ground.
    1. Prohor
      Prohor April 23 2013 09: 38 New
      The war of Russia with the enemy possessing attack aircraft is the third world war. In reality, the tanks of the Russian (Soviet) army have been killed only by RPGs and mines for the last 40 years, so the concept of the Terminator is correct. Others should deal with aircraft, submarines and satellites, not tankers.
      1. Canep
        Canep April 23 2013 09: 54 New
        To combat mines and RPGs - BMPT is ineffective. For mines, there is a BMR, and to combat the Kornet ATGM and 30mm twin guns it’s a luxury if you don’t set the task for the poor grenade launcher to tear into pieces, send it to mom.
        1. Rider
          Rider April 23 2013 14: 12 New
          damn where do these "experts" come from?
          you forgive dear, well, how do you determine the location of a grenade launcher?
          Well, he made a shot and bounced a few meters, and where did you plant the ATGMs? and with a spark you like him from a comfrey (or dig out a mound, curb, pothole, lowland)?
          the birthplace of the current fire spreads.

          but the AGS is the most it, there’s no need the automatic mortar is even cooler, but wherever you pick them up so much.
          the agusik will shear the greenback no worse than a mowing machine, and look into the lowlands, and comb the ravines without fading.

          I personally think that Termych is the most for our motorized riflemen. it’s motorized riflemen, since the standard Beh and Bets, alas, is not enough for guaranteed fire destruction. so you have to supplement the battalions with a bunch of attached equipment.
          out in the article below, it is shown how, from a good life, ZUSHKAs put on the Urals and Kakaz.
  4. dzen123
    dzen123 April 23 2013 08: 59 New
    "... This version of the BMPT at the end of 2006 successfully passed state tests and was recommended for adoption ..." From here, dear author, we should have started. About BMPT, articles have already been written and video has been explained - a hedgehog understands that BMPT is a thing with proper tactical use necessary on the battlefield.

    And everything is beautiful, except for the phrase "... recommended ..." Where is "accepted", huh?
    1. karimbaev
      karimbaev 16 May 2013 19: 15 New
      Dear adopted in Kazakhstan, we are waiting for the next batch and we want to remake the old tanks in BMP
  5. avt
    avt April 23 2013 09: 38 New
    Much has already been said on this topic, but the article is a plus. There is one interesting point. ,, Then back in the distant 1980s, the BMPT code was understood to mean "heavy infantry fighting vehicle" or as they said simply heavy infantry fighting vehicles. "--------- That is, it was originally conceived correctly! A well-armored vehicle with decent armament. ,, In the future, when the number of BMPT crew members decreased to 5 people, the idea of ​​dismounting part of the crew fell away by itself." - ------ And here I do not believe it. What does it mean by itself? request Here, they soon figured that without significant alterations, the landing and being placed on a human plane cannot be pulled out of the car without substituting, as far as I understand, only through the top. So blinded by the quick Terminator. And of course, it’s not clear where to adapt it, because it’s not even clear for a professional - it’s necessary to drive another heavy vehicle with an assault force behind it. And can all the same with Bakhchi normal armored infantry fighting vehicles do?
    1. bask
      bask April 23 2013 22: 27 New
      Quote: avt
      BMPT understood "heavy infantry fighting vehicle" or as they said simply heavy BMP. "--------- That is, from the very beginning it was conceived correctly! Good reservation

      That's right, BMP-T ((heavy)) in the 80s, not BM-support-tanks. Word game.
      BMP- / BTR-T, are now urgently needed in the troops. There is armament, a tower, “Bahcha-u ,, triad,” But the building should be re-organized. MTO in the nose, aft entrance exit.
      Ukrainian version of the BMP-T-64

      Jordanian AB114,, Temsah, building., MBT ,, Centurion ,,
  6. VohaAhov
    VohaAhov April 23 2013 10: 32 New
    This machine most likely has more minuses than pluses. The main minus is at what link will this machine be used? It can allocate one machine to each tank platoon. Or maybe a platoon of "Terminators" in a tank company. Or maybe even have one company of such "Terminators" in the tank brigade? Unclear. Another minus is precisely noticed - this is a weak defense of the armament unit. Nearby, an explosive projectile (which didn’t even get into the car) hit a turret and destroys practically all the weapons. Only two automatic grenade launchers remain. Well, the last thing, I think it is unnecessary to carry two grenade launchers. Take them away, leaving only 3 crew members. Probably until these defects are eliminated in the troops, this machine will not work.
    1. cth; fyn
      cth; fyn April 23 2013 11: 52 New
      2 rocket launchers can be replaced by one with two controls, in principle, the load on it will increase, but the target designation will be given to it by the commander, then he and the commander would have to control the machine.
      1. Lopatov
        Lopatov April 23 2013 12: 06 New
        Belarusians have “Adunok” - there you just need to mark the target, the equipment itself will work on it. So the problem is solved
        1. sesame
          sesame April 23 2013 21: 54 New
          Cool typewriter. Interestingly, do we have such developments?
          1. Lopatov
            Lopatov April 23 2013 22: 00 New
            Honestly, I have not heard.
    2. Flooding
      Flooding April 23 2013 13: 12 New
      Quote: VohaAhov
      The main minus is at what link will this machine be used? It can allocate one machine to each tank platoon.

      What about the car? Such is the fate of any initiative development.
  7. datur
    datur April 23 2013 12: 44 New
    Belarusians have “Adunok” - there you just need to mark the target, the equipment itself will work on it. So we solve the problem - Bulbash rule good
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov April 23 2013 13: 45 New
      They have to find their niches in the arms market. I also really like the anti-tank systems created by them together with the Ukrainians. A cheap solution to the operator’s safety problem. True, the Ukrainian missile, compared to the Cornet, is not very good.
  8. UFO
    UFO April 23 2013 14: 19 New
    It would be useful to install on the BMPT instead of the lower ATAK ATGMs compact containers with NAR, with a range of 7-10 km., Protected from the outside by an armored plate. hi
  9. smart ass
    smart ass April 23 2013 14: 44 New
    I don’t understand why we need tanks if there is a terminator?
    1. Rider
      Rider April 23 2013 14: 53 New
      and where do you take a 125mm cannon of high maneuverability and with excellent crew protection (which is the tank itself)?
      sometimes you don’t get any artillery support. and here it’s its own, it doesn’t pull a pocket.
  10. Naval
    Naval April 23 2013 15: 30 New
    Impressive, then the military-industrial complex has not died yet?
  11. krpmlws
    krpmlws April 23 2013 16: 28 New
    In my opinion, the car is damp. We have a light self-propelled anti-aircraft gun (I don’t remember the name), in which the ammunition of the missiles in the protected case and the reload is automatic, but here is a step back.
  12. Mister X
    Mister X April 23 2013 16: 36 New
    Quote: VohaAhov
    at which link will this machine be used?
    It can allocate one machine to each tank platoon.
    Or maybe a platoon of "Terminators" in a tank company.
    Or maybe even have one company of such "Terminators" in the tank brigade?

    I read somewhere that it is supposed to use “bodyguard for tanks” to protect each tank according to 2
    1. Mister X
      Mister X 27 May 2013 22: 21 New
      Transfer "Polygon". Tank Terminator Tests
      I don’t like this program, but I didn’t find another video.

  13. xomaNN
    xomaNN April 23 2013 17: 42 New
    Somehow, next to the tank, the design looks loose and not assembled externally :)) Although in WWII the tandem of tanks and self-propelled guns was very much in demand.
  14. max702
    max702 April 23 2013 19: 39 New
    In my opinion, the BMPT’s important ability to fire at two targets at the same time, in the current BMPT it didn’t count against the grenade launcher (figs where you can get there), but I see this machine as a tank chassis, a decent-sized tower because for the BMPT the main threat is not kinetic ammunition, and cumulative means of destruction, and for them how much I understand how important the thickness of the armor is and why it is not so important here to create a sandwich made of armored steel aluminum, polyurethane, Kevlar and something else that is 450-500 thick to keep it in a circle 14.5- 23imm ideally 30mm, but not very mass. place a triad in the tower like on Bahce BUT! instead of 100mm put a cannon from NONA 120mm (this is both a gun and a mortar. by the power of the projectile it is 152mm, and install the installation on the roof in the back on the T90m, not only with 7.62 but with a spark 12.7 or 14.5 plus AGS (the manufacturer says that this is possible), here are two independent firing posts, the main one for large targets to his gunner, and the top installation for the commander, of course, with good observation and guidance devices, in dreams I see a micro drone with automatic take-off and landing in a quantity of 3-5 pieces (and what’s the meaning of the column, and in front of the suspicious section the commander lifted the drone looked there is movement, they immediately treated 120mm for target designation, no one is driving further) The main objective of the BMPT is not to protect tanks in mythical epic tank battles, and daily routine block posts, escorting convoys with unloading, support during patrolling and even during the assault of something fortified, for some reason everyone forgot that the tank was created to As support for the infantry and not on its own. and in the current scenario, it’s more than technical support and not support, BMPT, as I described it with such universal weapons, will be an order of magnitude more useful and useful for infantry Van .. Everything that I brought here as equipment and weapons has long been, worked out, and costs a little money even a drone with a flight time of 15-20 minutes will cost (if not Chubais to do) 3-4k conventional units ..
    1. washi
      washi April 24 2013 17: 30 New
      I recommend that you independently calculate the weight of your dreams and the number of l / s for its maintenance, as well as ammunition.
      Dreaming is not harmful - it is harmful not to dream.
      Maybe you’ll go to engineers and shave.
      1. max702
        max702 April 24 2013 20: 15 New
        By L \ C standard 3 people, the driver, gunner and commander what for there more? two firing posts, two operators, an unmanned aerial vehicle, automatic take-off and landing, the commander controls only the flight; there’s no fiction here now everything is real and by no means expensive, now, by weight, the whole BMPT 50-55t maximum it does not need to be driven through gully like a tank, it’s more an armored firing point it will travel 50-60 km and the actual speed in the columns of 35-40 will be no more, and the main weight in the tank is a tower, or rather a powerful reservation at a rate of 30 degrees calculated for the hit of kinetic ammunition, and 30mm penetration is enough for two layers of 30 + 20 armored steel + aluminum, Kevlar lining and the filler of all of this from polyurethane or something else like ceramics and so on, a healthy tower, respectively, can be squared square D \ Z easier and more rational to place it on, and everything you wrote about and even with a large ammunition load will fit inside, Bakhcha-u gets into the BMP-3 and the place is still under the landing there, the ammunition of the upper unit is there and mounted. in literature I read that they managed 80mm with 30 shells on the T-250 instead of a KPVT stick like a modification of the "leopard" was called, and that the dimensions are rather big and to hell with them, the Jews have enormous size and they don’t worry much.
  15. I think so
    I think so April 23 2013 20: 31 New
    A mountain of iron, and firepower is almost zero ... The machine is not promising and easily prone to failure. All these machine guns and cannons are EASY struck even by large-caliber sniper rifles, and after the failure of these guns, this pile of metal is not scary to anyone at all ... Russian designers "work" for nothing. Such a cu is suitable only to scare Papuans on palm trees ...
  16. Alexander Kirov
    Alexander Kirov April 23 2013 22: 16 New
    In the first versions of the BMPT, it was with a 100 mm gun and it is necessary to develop it further. 120 mm NONA mortar, flamethrower, ATTACK or something else. AGS remove their gunners too. There is a thunderstorm in the capsule of the gunner, commander and mechanic. In an uninhabited automatic tower.
  17. navaho
    navaho April 24 2013 02: 23 New
    ... she is charged with the tasks of an infantry fighting vehicle, but it does not explain how the BMPT will do this. This is understandable, because in both cases the opinion did not belong to professional soldiers in the general sense of the word, but to civilians. In my opinion, this is due to the lack of interaction (our eternal problem) between those who manufacture and those who use these products. In my opinion, in the Western countries, an absolutely clear and precise pattern of armament production has developed. Since any weapons are produced for the military, and they, in the end, must use them, it is logical to begin the process of working on any type of weapons with the formulation by the military department of the requirements for the developed system ...

    ... The appearance of BMPT is a vivid confirmation of this. The main reason why the tank needs infantry support is its blindness in close combat. But why is it believed that having the same "advantages" BMPT, but having weaker armament, can help the tank in some way if it is still not able to detect an infantryman’s head sticking out of the trench with a grenade launcher further than 100 m? Then it’s better to add another tank to the tank. At least he has more powerful weapons ... Vladimir Kravchenko "On the concept of a modern BMP" TiV 2002№4
  18. Strashila
    Strashila April 24 2013 10: 54 New
    Project 787 is more rational in terms of armament and security.
    1. washi
      washi April 24 2013 17: 31 New
      Overload and lack of weapons. 781
      1. cth; fyn
        cth; fyn April 25 2013 07: 09 New
        What overload if it's the same T-72 without a 125mm gun?
  19. Krugov
    Krugov 25 May 2013 20: 41 New
    Here is a photo from the Adunok tests, everything is used as a trunk: from RMB (in this case) to the AGS. The machine has 2 degrees of freedom. And then there is room for design thought and the opportunity to avoid fucking costs when developing something new there and disassembling a well-developed old one.
    1. Bad_gr
      Bad_gr 26 May 2013 00: 32 New
      Quote: Krugov
      The machine has 2 degrees of freedom.

      See a little higher the message from "Shovels RU April 23, 2013 12:06 ↑". There is a demo video about this unit.
      In my opinion, there should be 2-4 pieces in opposite directions on the BMPT, and the shooter should only confirm (or not confirm) the shooting at the targets found. Perhaps, then three (and not 5, as now) crew members will be quite enough if each of them (including the driver) can make a decision on shooting.
  20. nick-name
    nick-name 22 August 2013 22: 46 New
    Quote: cth; fyn
    The guns have a barrel lift of only 45 degrees, which is clearly not enough in urban combat

    How much is enough? 180? or 360? Shilka if at all from the air defense series