The BMPT Terminator has found a new niche for use in special operations.

33 614 98
The BMPT Terminator has found a new niche for use in special operations.


New role


Combat support vehicle concept tanks The BMPT is focused on engaging small and tank-hazardous targets. The Terminator made its debut in Syria, operating in and around cities in its primary role—covering assault tanks. During the first months of the special operation, the BMPT was also used in its primary role.



In one incident on the approaches to Severodonetsk, a BMPT platoon destroyed an enemy column of up to eight tanks and several armored vehicles from a distance, using both 30mm cannons and ATGMs. However, even then, two factors emerged that subsequently significantly adjusted tactics: the enemy's massive use of UAVs and the high density of enemy fire. artillery fire, which increased the risks for large and expensive vehicles like the BMPT. First drones They began dropping anti-tank munitions on the roof of the engine compartment and turret, and then turned kamikaze. Ultimately, the tanks in the attack formations retreated into the background, and the Terminators retreated with them. Strictly speaking, the subsequent fate of the BMPT during the special operation was not the best.

The most important indicator of the combat vehicle's demand is the production volume at Uralvagonzavod. Based on open sources, only four batches of Terminators were produced by UVZ during the entire military conflict. It's possible there were more vehicles, but story He's keeping quiet about this. One thing is clear: the BMPT didn't achieve such stunning success in the special operation; otherwise, the convoys of equipment would have been arriving from the Urals one after another.






But this doesn't mean the tank support vehicle concept has been abandoned. Last November, it was announced that a highly protected version of the Terminator had entered production. Naturally, all the innovations are related in one way or another to defense against enemy drones. UVZ CEO Alexander Potapov commented on this:

Uralvagonzavod is fulfilling a large order—the demand for the vehicle is high. Tanks have always been considered the primary striking force of the Ground Forces. Now, it's safe to say, the BMPT is joining them.

Recent ones news Frontline reports confirm Alexander Valerievich's words. Assault operations have become the Terminator's new role in special operations. This is largely due to the combat vehicle's design. Theoretically, the Terminator is capable of laying down a veritable wall of fire – a pair of 30mm 2A42 automatic cannons, a 7,62mm PKTM machine gun, a pair of AG-17D automatic grenade launchers, and four Ataka-T ATGM launchers. Of particular interest is the 130mm Rocket The 9M120F, with a high-explosive warhead, is capable of effectively destroying enemy fortifications. If all of these systems are working in sync, the Ukrainian Armed Forces' positions caught in the Terminator's fire will be a disaster.

Military analysts have calculated that a single BMPT is equivalent in firepower to two or three infantry fighting vehicles, and in terms of firepower, equivalent to two motorized rifle platoons. We won't quibble over such calculations; we'll point out that enemy FPV drones are capable of quickly destroying both a single Terminator and several infantry fighting vehicles. All calculations regarding the combat effectiveness of heavy vehicles can only be valid if the enemy's kamikazes are cleared from the low airspace. Where this is possible, tanks with Terminators have begun to operate in a new pattern, with the tank support fighting vehicle positioned at the forefront of the attack. Yet another paradox of special operations.

Frontline fighter


Tanks are rarely used in attack missions these days for several reasons. The first is the prevalence of FPV drones, which view tanks as a priority target. A shaped-charge munition, at a certain angle of attack (rear hemisphere), can detonate the ammunition, with catastrophic consequences.

The second reason for its limited use on the front line is the massive grills, which limit both firing maneuverability and visibility for the crew. With heavy equipment, tank crews can only operate with the constant support of reconnaissance drones.

The third reason for the limited use of tanks in assault operations is the limited effectiveness of the 125mm gun against enemy personnel. This applies primarily to infantry dug in in fields and forests. The lack of shrapnel and programmable detonation rounds in the tank's ammunition complement is a significant factor here. Although the BMPT lacks similar ammunition, the vehicle is free of these other shortcomings. Accurately hitting the ammunition, which is scattered throughout the fighting compartment, is difficult, and the protective grills do not restrict the crew's field of view or the rotation of the combat module. All of this combined has predetermined new combat tactics.


The essence of this tactic lies in the strict separation of roles and distances. In the first stage, tanks engage at a distance of up to 10-15 km, firing from indirect fire positions at enemy fortifications—strongpoints, pillboxes, bunkers, and other fortifications—using 125mm guns and fire adjusted using UAV data. Alternatively, tanks can also fire directly, working in pairs from a distance of 3-4 km. One engages the target, the other provides cover, often from an indirect position. A coordinated attack lasts no more than a few minutes.

Using tanks in this mode offers several advantages. Firstly, they are highly survivable and mobile, allowing them to change positions more quickly and evade counter-battery fire compared to towed artillery. Secondly, their advanced armor protection increases the tank's chances of surviving close-in shell bursts or drone strikes. Thirdly, the ability to quickly switch from indirect fire to direct fire makes the tank a flexible vehicle capable of supporting assault operations at various stages.

From this perspective, the tank becomes an even more versatile combat platform, capable of replacing the classic self-propelled gun in the future. Artillery and tank preparation before an assault is designed to maximally destroy the defensive engineering infrastructure, suppress heavy firepower, and weaken the enemy's organization.

A key element of the tactic is the short duration of the BMPT's stay in advanced positions. The vehicles must quickly and effectively engage targets on the move, then retreat just as quickly, before they themselves become the target of enemy drones and guided artillery. Concentrated, albeit relatively brief, fire from two 30mm cannons, grenade launchers, and a machine gun on a position already partially destroyed by tank shells is intended not so much to physically destroy all the defenders as to deprive them of the ability to engage in organized return fire, disrupt their command and control, and force them to take cover or abandon their positions.

In conditions where enemy soldiers are under constant threat from tanks, artillery, UAVs, and now even BMPTs, the psychological impact of such a "barrage" can be comparable to the physical losses, significantly facilitating the subsequent assault for infantry. Automatic grenade launchers, which allow for the engagement of targets behind cover and on reverse slopes, acquire additional value in this role, as do Ataka-T ATGMs, which the Terminator can use to quickly destroy isolated pockets of resistance, such as firing positions in capital buildings or armored vehicles supporting the defense. All this necessarily requires concentrated work from the systems. EW At all levels, the goal is to prevent the enemy from attacking the Terminators with attack drones.


BMPT helps in new tactics aviationTogether with tank artillery, aviation in this configuration performs not only direct fire missions but also functions as a "fire umbrella," preventing the enemy from advancing reserves and deploying artillery and mortar batteries for return fire.

Most importantly, Terminators don't engage in assault operations with infantry support. Simply put, they don't crush surviving neo-Nazis with their treads. Clearing destroyed positions is the responsibility of the same "twos" and "threes," carefully supported by drones and kamikazes.

The new tactics for using the BMPT in combat illustrate the point that heavily armored vehicles are prematurely being written off. Tanks and their ilk will still see action.
98 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. osp
    + 10
    2 June 2026 04: 41
    The most important task now is to destroy various types of UAVs.
    Especially those that the Americans recently supplied - the enemy is using them to mine the roads to Crimea.
    And raids by large aircraft-type UAVs into deep rear areas have already become a daily reality.
    This is where we really need to work and work.
    When hundreds of UAVs the size of aerobatic planes cross the front line every night, this indicates major problems in the organization of air defense there.
    They then have to be caught throughout the European part of Russia.
    If we don't take into account the Pantsir and Tunguska missiles, we don't have any other air defense systems to combat them - they were created for other tasks.
    And even the first two types can shoot down drones mainly with their guns.
    Their missile armament is limited for such tasks.
    When 20-30 devices are flying at one target, you won’t have enough SAMs.
    1. +5
      2 June 2026 05: 16
      There are many different types of weapons to defend against this type of drone, ranging from various machine guns, Shilka-type missiles, MANPADS, and so on. You just need to saturate the front both across the entire width and depth.
      1. osp
        +1
        2 June 2026 14: 34
        There is no point in talking about "Shilka".
        Even if something remains in storage, its value is insignificant.
        Each one has to be run through a repair plant, which is time-consuming and expensive.
        Its radar is made of lamps and relays; this element base has not been produced for a long time.
        This means that the radar needs to be changed and optical and thermal imaging channels installed.
        Without this in any way.
        1. +1
          3 June 2026 11: 46
          Now instead of radar there are the soldier's eyes and binoculars
      2. 0
        2 June 2026 18: 50
        At all times, the best defense against aviation has been aviation! What enables MiG and Su pilots to become UAV-shooting aces?
        The main reason for this is the lack of airborne early warning and control systems capable of detecting such UAVs at the required distances, and the organization of aviation operations against UAVs and its interaction with air defense systems, primarily to avoid friendly fire.
    2. +9
      2 June 2026 06: 11
      Why aren't there any other counter-drone weapons besides the Pantsir and Tunguska? Or maybe there simply aren't any "counter-drone weapons," and many aren't doing their jobs? Perhaps it's a lack of concern, inertia, and stupidity from the bottom up that's holding us back? I understand that it's very difficult to combat attack drones on LBS (although with the right desire and organization, this can be done successfully), but what's stopping us from using anti-aircraft artillery to combat slow-moving aircraft-type drones? Surely there should be some in stock? A pair of 100mm anti-aircraft guns, for example, radar-guided? Like the ZU-2-23. If you dig around and organize, you can do a lot.
      1. +5
        2 June 2026 09: 19
        "After all, it should be in warehouses."
        That's the thing: it should, but it's not obligatory. Remember the uniform kits? A similar situation could arise with that.
        1. +4
          2 June 2026 13: 54
          Come on (not you personally). Everything is on its own, changing and developing. "Terminator" is done for, "Spiridon" is coming to replace it, and now everything will resolve itself. what (sarcasm if anything)
      2. 0
        2 June 2026 20: 19
        A pair of 100mm cannons firing fragmentation shells at a target at an altitude of 50 m. laughing laughing
        Yeah, it's better if the drone hits. There'll be less destruction and casualties.
        1. -1
          3 June 2026 04: 48
          But what is the radius of destruction and the flight range of the projectile?
      3. +2
        2 June 2026 22: 02
        What 100mm guns, too immobile, Ukrainians It's all been figured out for a long time now—MOGs with a decent machine gun and a thermal sensor, and preferably some kind of ballistic calculator and interceptor drones—and underneath all that, a decent detection and tracking system that these MOGs use to guide them. That alone would be enough to shoot down 90 percent of all Ukrainian aircraft.
        1. -1
          3 June 2026 04: 54
          Well, this has been discussed for a long time, and nothing has changed. We had radars in the Air Defense Forces that showed birds in flight. I don't understand why they couldn't be adapted. And they're not difficult to make; Russia can produce all the components itself. I think some people are really afraid of giving the people weapons, what if they rush to the Kremlin and throw them out? What would they do then? They were already heading for Moscow from Rostov, almost three years ago.
          1. +1
            3 June 2026 17: 18
            Yep, the RL-133 "Fara" and RL-136 "Credo" products. You could even see the rain, let alone the birds. The "Fara" antenna could be mounted on the KPVT and used as a radar sight.
    3. + 10
      2 June 2026 06: 21
      To paraphrase a now-forgotten line from a humorous skit by the unforgettable Elena Vorobey: "Well, buy me! Well, buy me!"

      Of course, Uralvagonazavod's marketers deserve credit: for so many years, they've been obsessively trying to sell the army on a product of murky Russian reverse engineering—it's truly hard work. But their arguments are slowly running out. Even the author of this article couldn't clearly articulate the advantage of this product over FPV drones, which, incidentally, the author mentioned a whopping nine times in the text, only five fewer than the article's main protagonist. In fact, the answer is obvious and straightforward: the army doesn't need the BMPT in its current form, as the main threat to the tank on the modern battlefield isn't infantry, which it was originally designed to counter, but small carbon-fiber aircraft, against which it performs no better than its larger tank counterparts. In principle, this discussion could end here, but what are those whose job it is to advertise UVZ products supposed to do? So the poor guys are squirming around as best they can, coming up with ever new arguments for the usefulness of the customer's products, which meanwhile, with enviable consistency, continue to be dashed by the harsh reality. It would be great if UVZ management took pity on its marketers, came to their senses, and implemented something on the BMPT that would immediately make it a bestseller in modern domestic industry. But alas, this is a painstaking, difficult, and time-consuming task, and they want money here and now, preferably with minimal costs, meaning any additional R&D is out of the question. Enough!

      In fact, an alternative to the Terminator in the tank support combat vehicle niche has long existed, and it's called the Air Defense Derivation. It is the Air Defense Derivation that is supposed to cover tanks during combat missions today, protecting them from the main threat of modern warfare—the air. But for some reason, the Air Defense Derivation, like the Terminator itself, is not particularly visible during the ongoing conflict. What is clearly visible are the barbecue grills, hedgehogs, and other homemade devices with which tankers are forced to equip their vehicles, mercilessly exploiting the suspension, limiting their speed, visibility, and maneuverability—all for the sake of at least a minimal chance of surviving an encounter with an FPV drone. The answer to the mystery of the absence of the Air Defense Derivation in the military most likely lies in the realm of military economics. Specifically, how well has our industry mastered remotely programmable shells for the 2A90 cannon and what is their final cost? But it may also be that the army has complaints about the platform on which the Air Defense Derivation is based. Yes, the BMP-3 wheelbase has good mobility, is well-developed and relatively cheap (compared to a tank), but let's not forget that if the Air Defense Derivation claims to be a tank protector, it will also need armor comparable to tanks, otherwise it risks becoming the first and easiest target in a tank-BMPT battle.

      It would seem the solution is obvious and self-evident. Remove the Terminator's two 2A42 ATGMs and replace them with a 2A90 module, optionally supplemented with two or even a fourth Atiaka ATGM. That's it. The recipe for the ideal BMPT is ready. In fact, I'd also replace the PKT with a KPVT to conserve main-caliber shells and to be effective against infantry (if the latter ever appears), but that's just my personal preference. However, instead of this tandem (another almost forgotten word from the 2000s), we still see the Terminator, which is well-protected but weak against drones, and the Derivation, which is specialized for air defense but weakly protected.

      So what's stopping these two from joining forces? Is it the manufacturer lobby or the engineers' sheer lack of creativity? The question is idle and likely rhetorical, but it's simply impossible not to ask in the current climate. It's just a shame that ordinary people are asking this question, while those whose job it is to do so continue to maintain a stony silence.
      1. +2
        2 June 2026 11: 30
        Drones, then, require a belt-fed shotgun on top of that massive machine with its own targeting system. Or a six-barrel 5,45 caliber machine gun with rotating barrels. And most importantly, the ability to rotate these barrels 360 degrees in a circle, vertically upward, and 10 degrees below the horizontal. The main difference between the BMPT and a tank is that the ammo pack isn't as powerful as a direct hit. You'd agree that 20-30 125mm rounds will pack a bigger punch than 200 30mm rounds and 2000 7,62mm rounds.
        1. +1
          2 June 2026 20: 21
          Or a 20mm cannon with a variable detonation range. But that's expensive. It's better to buy a yacht.
      2. +2
        2 June 2026 12: 45
        Quote: Dante
        It would seem the solution is obvious and self-evident. We remove the Terminator's two 2A42s and install a 2A90 module in their place.

        The 57mm 2A90 is overpowered and insufficiently rapid-fire against small FPV drones (2 rounds per second). Derivatsiya-PVO's niche is countering attack aircraft, helicopters, fixed-wing UAVs, and medium-altitude reconnaissance UAVs.
        But the idea of ​​making the BMPT a vehicle that protects tanks and infantry fighting vehicles from both tank-hazardous infantry and FPV drones operating in the same line with them is correct!
      3. 0
        3 June 2026 04: 51
        Quote: Dante
        To paraphrase a now-forgotten line from a humorous skit by the unforgettable Elena Vorobey: "Well, buy me! Well, buy me!"

        Of course, Uralvagonazavod's marketers deserve credit: for so many years, they've been obsessively trying to sell the army on a product of murky Russian reverse engineering—it's truly hard work. But their arguments are slowly running out. Even the author of this article couldn't clearly articulate the advantage of this product over FPV drones, which, incidentally, the author mentioned a whopping nine times in the text, only five fewer than the article's main protagonist. In fact, the answer is obvious and straightforward: the army doesn't need the BMPT in its current form, as the main threat to the tank on the modern battlefield isn't infantry, which it was originally designed to counter, but small carbon-fiber aircraft, against which it performs no better than its larger tank counterparts. In principle, this discussion could end here, but what are those whose job it is to advertise UVZ products supposed to do? So the poor guys are squirming around as best they can, coming up with ever new arguments for the usefulness of the customer's products, which meanwhile, with enviable consistency, continue to be dashed by the harsh reality. It would be great if UVZ management took pity on its marketers, came to their senses, and implemented something on the BMPT that would immediately make it a bestseller in modern domestic industry. But alas, this is a painstaking, difficult, and time-consuming task, and they want money here and now, preferably with minimal costs, meaning any additional R&D is out of the question. Enough!

        In fact, an alternative to the Terminator in the tank support combat vehicle niche has long existed, and it's called the Air Defense Derivation. It is the Air Defense Derivation that is supposed to cover tanks during combat missions today, protecting them from the main threat of modern warfare—the air. But for some reason, the Air Defense Derivation, like the Terminator itself, is not particularly visible during the ongoing conflict. What is clearly visible are the barbecue grills, hedgehogs, and other homemade devices with which tankers are forced to equip their vehicles, mercilessly exploiting the suspension, limiting their speed, visibility, and maneuverability—all for the sake of at least a minimal chance of surviving an encounter with an FPV drone. The answer to the mystery of the absence of the Air Defense Derivation in the military most likely lies in the realm of military economics. Specifically, how well has our industry mastered remotely programmable shells for the 2A90 cannon and what is their final cost? But it may also be that the army has complaints about the platform on which the Air Defense Derivation is based. Yes, the BMP-3 wheelbase has good mobility, is well-developed and relatively cheap (compared to a tank), but let's not forget that if the Air Defense Derivation claims to be a tank protector, it will also need armor comparable to tanks, otherwise it risks becoming the first and easiest target in a tank-BMPT battle.

        It would seem the solution is obvious and self-evident. Remove the Terminator's two 2A42 ATGMs and replace them with a 2A90 module, optionally supplemented with two or even a fourth Atiaka ATGM. That's it. The recipe for the ideal BMPT is ready. In fact, I'd also replace the PKT with a KPVT to conserve main-caliber shells and to be effective against infantry (if the latter ever appears), but that's just my personal preference. However, instead of this tandem (another almost forgotten word from the 2000s), we still see the Terminator, which is well-protected but weak against drones, and the Derivation, which is specialized for air defense but weakly protected.

        So what's stopping these two from joining forces? Is it the manufacturer lobby or the engineers' sheer lack of creativity? The question is idle and likely rhetorical, but it's simply impossible not to ask in the current climate. It's just a shame that ordinary people are asking this question, while those whose job it is to do so continue to maintain a stony silence.


        Then it’s better:
        Leave 30mm with remote detonation
        +
        Grenade launchers also serve as operators of airborne reconnaissance and anti-aircraft drones.

        If we're talking about the 57mm caliber, then it's better
        LShO with programmable projectiles (which do not exist) or remotely detonated similar to the 30mm
      4. 0
        23 June 2026 14: 02
        Quote: Dante
        Air Defense Derivation
        Who do you think produces it? Isn't that UVaZ?! And the "Air Defense Derivation" was produced as a sham for Shoigu's fervent activity and was never intended for any practical use. The same goes for the T-14/15, which are only good on paper.
    4. +3
      2 June 2026 07: 12
      When hundreds of UAVs the size of aerobatic planes cross the front line every night, this indicates major problems in the organization of air defense there.
      It's most likely an intelligence oversight. They need to be destroyed at the production site, and imported ones - when they cross the border.
      1. +3
        2 June 2026 12: 36
        Today it was announced that the Americanized "Terminator" has been transformed into the noble Russian "Spiridon"...
        1. +1
          2 June 2026 14: 02
          Replaced the Americanized awl with Greek soap sad
          I submitted "Dobrynya" to the naming contest, but the organizers demanded all kinds of registrations, and sent them packing...
          1. 0
            3 June 2026 02: 37
            Terminator comes from Latin words, it's actually a physical term "the boundary between light and darkness on the surface of a planet," which Cameron took because it sounded cool.
        2. +4
          2 June 2026 17: 51
          You wanted to say that it was in honor of the guarantor's grandfather. You have to go to such lengths. Our whole workshop was laughing.
    5. +1
      2 June 2026 14: 21
      UVZ is definitely not about air defense; other organizations should handle that. And the General Staff and the Ministry of Defense, too.
      1. 0
        23 June 2026 14: 13
        UVZ has been in there for a long time and won't come out.
        1. +1
          23 June 2026 15: 23
          And what kind of air defense is this? Derivation? Everyone forgot about it long ago; it's something like the Yeti. lol
    6. +2
      2 June 2026 21: 49
      Quote from osp
      The most important task now is to destroy various types of UAVs.

      That's right!
      This is where the support is buried.
      Much has already been written that a modern tank, and an armored fighting vehicle in general, is no longer just a protected maneuverable gun.
      This combat vehicle is also expected to become a center for combating small drones, as it can accommodate energy-intensive, heavy electronic warfare systems and destroy such drones with effectiveness incomparable to what a soldier can carry or transport on a motorcycle.
      Well, a fly in the ointment for the author.
      Tanks can't fire 10-15 km from a protected position because the maximum firing range of a fixed-wing shell at a tank gun elevation angle (approximately 17 degrees) is precisely 10 km. Increasing this angle can only be achieved through trickery, which isn't always effective.
      It is impossible to fire directly at a distance of 3-4 km in the existing theater of operations, because the target cannot be seen due to the terrain and vegetation.
      The BMPT can't create a wall of fire for even 5 minutes. Consider the ammunition load and rate of fire of its guns... Artillery and MLRS can create such walls under certain conditions.
      A small thing, but it shows that purely theoretical speculations are being used...
      They're writing in the press here that our tank crews have begun using a "handheld APS" against drones based on mortars from the Tucha system.
      If only the industry had bothered to make such an automatic APS with, for example, an optoelectronic guidance system, it would have been a real support for tanks!
  2. +9
    2 June 2026 05: 19
    The vehicle is magnificent, and it performs well, especially against enemies. It's true it doesn't go into battle; it'll be destroyed. It turns out something like this =/
    1. +1
      2 June 2026 06: 19
      Everything is destroyed. But from what I've heard from my comrades who fought in the war, they praise it. The BMPT can be further developed and modified. For example, install a 57mm gun and pair it with a 2A42 or PKT. Or a 37mm gun, plus paired KPVTs and PKTs. Just look at how the Germans turned their StuG-3 infantry support self-propelled gun into all sorts of things during WWII, boldly experimenting with guns.
    2. +8
      2 June 2026 10: 16
      I have a strange feeling, the vehicle is effective... in words... and even in the firing range. The author, of course, described the destruction of an entire column with a bunch of tanks. But he described the year 2022 (fighting was ongoing in that area at the time), and only in words. No, of course I believe in the destruction of an entire enemy column... but 8 tanks is almost like a tank company... a tank company is supposedly attached to a motorized rifle battalion, and that's up to 900 soldiers and more than fifty other vehicles... and all of this is destroyed or dispersed by just a platoon, well, those 3 vehicles. Oh, how wonderful! Everything in this story is so good that it's hard to believe... I mean, of course it's easy to believe, just like the destruction of the entire air defense and air force in one night.
      As for the vehicle itself, I still don't see the point of it 10-15 years ago. It's not an infantry fighting vehicle (it doesn't carry infantry) and it's not a tank (APFSDS is always faster and more painful than a missile). Especially now, when even better-protected tanks are bombarded with any kind of junk, just to keep the "bird" out.
  3. +6
    2 June 2026 05: 31
    If we could "teach" the Terminators to work against UAVs by installing the necessary sensors, an automatic guidance system, and replacing the 30mm shells with shells with detonators, it seems to me that then they would be much more effective in protecting tanks.
    1. +3
      2 June 2026 10: 47
      But we can't speculate abstractly, without taking into account the vehicle's performance characteristics. Nothing, not even new ammunition, will help it. There have been reports that the combat module has a vertical guidance angle of 45-46 degrees. This means anti-aircraft fire is impossible.
      To combat drones, the combat module needs to be replaced.
      1. +3
        2 June 2026 11: 27
        Of course. The combat module needs to be replaced. However, as far as I understand from the publication, such a task (use against air targets) is not even being addressed. And this fundamentally reduces the combat value of both the Terminators and the tanks themselves, given the role of UAVs in modern warfare.
    2. +2
      2 June 2026 12: 39
      Quote from Andy_nsk
      If we could "teach" Terminators to work on UAVs

      1. +2
        2 June 2026 13: 31
        Quote: yuriy55
        If we could "teach" Terminators to work on UAVs

        Now, in addition to the 30mm remote-detonating munitions, we need to add the appropriate automated control system, sensors for detecting drones, and an information exchange system for receiving target designation from external sources.
        1. +2
          2 June 2026 14: 06
          Again and again, everything is in the future tense.
          And then (c) "Either the donkey will die, or the padishah will croak, or I will die." And again and again no one is to blame. sad sad sad
        2. 0
          2 June 2026 17: 54
          I agree with you, the car has potential for modernization.
      2. 0
        23 June 2026 14: 17
        It can be concluded from the machine voiceover that this is a "FAKE"!
    3. 0
      2 June 2026 14: 24
      So if all this can be installed on a BMP, then it can also be installed on a tank, add an anti-aircraft machine gun to the turret as before and go ahead.
  4. +4
    2 June 2026 05: 57
    I don't know. I usually watch the Terminator and BMP 2's barrels flail and wonder: couldn't this have been done differently?
    1. 0
      2 June 2026 08: 07
      already implemented in Spica, but before Ukrainians it rained earlier
    2. +1
      2 June 2026 11: 11
      The Terminator's barrels wobble due to their close proximity; after firing, the propellant gases escaping from the muzzle brake affect the adjacent barrel. This is yet another reason why there's little point in having two 30mm cannons on the BMPT. The cannons don't have selective feeding anyway, and each is fed by only one belt: one loaded with armor-piercing rounds, the other with high-explosive rounds.
      But overall, the accuracy of the 2A42, not to mention the 2A72, is determined by the gun's automatic operating system. Guns with an external drive are more accurate, but they don't operate without electricity, and generals don't like that.
      1. 0
        2 June 2026 11: 55
        I wonder if the Viper project wasn't more interesting? Its barrels were spaced apart, mounted more interestingly, and covered with reactive armor. Plus, the device was already ready, so there was no need to develop a new one.
        1. +1
          2 June 2026 12: 35
          Quote: Lykases1
          I wonder if the Viper project wasn't more interesting? Even the barrels were spread out there,

          This solution raises another problem: the guns are spaced approximately 2,5 meters apart, requiring aiming. At aiming range, the guns will hit the target, but at closer and further distances, there will be scatter. Alternatively, the guns would need to be cleverly adjusted with the aiming drives to adjust the guns' aiming range depending on the target's distance.
      2. 0
        2 June 2026 15: 41
        The 2A42 cannon has a finicky loading and ammunition belt switching system. That's why it has two barrels, to eliminate unreliable selection mechanisms and make reloading easier.
        1. +1
          23 June 2026 14: 27
          Two guns is called sabotage, not doing what should have been done in the first place—that is, finishing it properly. And they just gave up and stuck in a second gun. Thank you. Once again, I'm convinced that UVZ is a thieving outfit solely focused on embezzling money and promoting their useless garbage.
          1. 0
            23 June 2026 18: 28
            The cannon wasn't made by Uralvagonzavod, and its shortcomings aren't its faults. Any complaints are about the module itself, not about these two barrels.
            1. 0
              23 June 2026 19: 37
              Complaints to those who assembled this, tested it, reported on it, and accepted this piece of crap! If there wasn't a dual-belt feed for one gun, why did they have to make such a fuss and present their flaw as some kind of know-how? It's a shot in the arm, ruining their reputation, because the final product is UVZ. You don't ask when you buy a car if one of the parts suppliers installed the wrong parts. The responsibility always lies with the car manufacturer, and these are all just excuses; it's UVZ's fault!!!
              1. 0
                23 June 2026 21: 30
                What is this all about? You need to have at least a slight understanding of the subject you're discussing.
                There are only two 30mm cannons. The other 2A72 fires at a slower rate.
                What's the problem with two guns in a module?
                1. +1
                  24 June 2026 13: 35
                  Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich
                  What's the problem with two guns in a module?
                  There's no problem, even if you install ten, the main thing is that it's effective. And the fact that they couldn't implement a dual-belt feed is a huge minus. And if they develop shells with remote detonation, instead of a triple-belt feed, they'll have to install a third barrel, right?!
                  1. -1
                    24 June 2026 18: 21
                    You can even give yourself a B and a minus. If you don't understand the subject, why are you discussing it and giving marks?
      3. +1
        2 June 2026 18: 00
        On British WWII cruisers, in three-gun turrets, the middle gun was moved back and this solved the problem of the barrels interfering with each other, which prevents one barrel from being slightly moved, not by much.
  5. +1
    2 June 2026 06: 35
    It's strange that the idea of ​​installing a system, generator, and supercapacitors for EMP against drones is not being discussed; this will help neutralize both single and swarms of FPV drones, which are generally unprotected.
    1. +1
      2 June 2026 07: 15
      EMI is like radiation - it doesn't distinguish between friend or foe.
      1. +3
        2 June 2026 08: 26
        In the microwave range, electromagnetic radiation is fairly well focused into a narrow beam. Look at the characteristics of radars used by air defense forces. I'm referring to older stations with conventional antennas, such as the S-75.
  6. +6
    2 June 2026 08: 33
    Quote: Dante
    To paraphrase a now-forgotten line from a humorous skit by the unforgettable Elena Vorobey: "Well, buy me! Well, buy me!"

    Of course, Uralvagonazavod's marketers deserve credit: for so many years, they've been obsessively trying to sell the army on a product of murky Russian reverse engineering—it's truly hard work. But their arguments are slowly running out. Even the author of this article couldn't clearly articulate the advantage of this product over FPV drones, which, incidentally, the author mentioned a whopping nine times in the text, only five fewer than the article's main protagonist. In fact, the answer is obvious and straightforward: the army doesn't need the BMPT in its current form, as the main threat to the tank on the modern battlefield isn't infantry, which it was originally designed to counter, but small carbon-fiber aircraft, against which it performs no better than its larger tank counterparts. In principle, this discussion could end here, but what are those whose job it is to advertise UVZ products supposed to do? So the poor guys are squirming around as best they can, coming up with ever new arguments for the usefulness of the customer's products, which meanwhile, with enviable consistency, continue to be dashed by the harsh reality. It would be great if UVZ management took pity on its marketers, came to their senses, and implemented something on the BMPT that would immediately make it a bestseller in modern domestic industry. But alas, this is a painstaking, difficult, and time-consuming task, and they want money here and now, preferably with minimal costs, meaning any additional R&D is out of the question. Enough!

    In fact, an alternative to the Terminator in the tank support combat vehicle niche has long existed, and it's called the Air Defense Derivation. It is the Air Defense Derivation that is supposed to cover tanks during combat missions today, protecting them from the main threat of modern warfare—the air. But for some reason, the Air Defense Derivation, like the Terminator itself, is not particularly visible during the ongoing conflict. What is clearly visible are the barbecue grills, hedgehogs, and other homemade devices with which tankers are forced to equip their vehicles, mercilessly exploiting the suspension, limiting their speed, visibility, and maneuverability—all for the sake of at least a minimal chance of surviving an encounter with an FPV drone. The answer to the mystery of the absence of the Air Defense Derivation in the military most likely lies in the realm of military economics. Specifically, how well has our industry mastered remotely programmable shells for the 2A90 cannon and what is their final cost? But it may also be that the army has complaints about the platform on which the Air Defense Derivation is based. Yes, the BMP-3 wheelbase has good mobility, is well-developed and relatively cheap (compared to a tank), but let's not forget that if the Air Defense Derivation claims to be a tank protector, it will also need armor comparable to tanks, otherwise it risks becoming the first and easiest target in a tank-BMPT battle.

    It would seem the solution is obvious and self-evident. Remove the Terminator's two 2A42 ATGMs and replace them with a 2A90 module, optionally supplemented with two or even a fourth Atiaka ATGM. That's it. The recipe for the ideal BMPT is ready. In fact, I'd also replace the PKT with a KPVT to conserve main-caliber shells and to be effective against infantry (if the latter ever appears), but that's just my personal preference. However, instead of this tandem (another almost forgotten word from the 2000s), we still see the Terminator, which is well-protected but weak against drones, and the Derivation, which is specialized for air defense but weakly protected.

    So what's stopping these two from joining forces? Is it the manufacturer lobby or the engineers' sheer lack of creativity? The question is idle and likely rhetorical, but it's simply impossible not to ask in the current climate. It's just a shame that ordinary people are asking this question, while those whose job it is to do so continue to maintain a stony silence.

    The Derivatsiya's single-barrel 57mm module, with its low rate of fire, is incapable of generating the required firepower density, even with programmable ammunition, such as that of the Shilka. Therefore, its effectiveness raises more questions. Furthermore, the lack of a reliable, effective combat information and control system likely prevents this demonstration system from being adopted for service. sad
    1. +1
      2 June 2026 11: 46
      The single-barrel 57mm module, with its low rate of fire, is not capable of creating the required density of fire, even with programmable ammunition, such as that of the Shilka.

      The question here is, what's our priority: fire density or fragmentation density? In terms of the latter, the 57mm round should be even better than the programmable shells for NATO 35mm guns, as well as in terms of firing range, although the fire density of something like an Oerlikon will certainly be higher. As always, only practice will tell which will be better.

      It's clear that domestic engineers chose this caliber for a reason: firstly, the 57mm cannon itself has been around for quite some time, and the 2A90 and 2A91 are merely its latest iterations. Secondly, domestic microelectronics are so microscopic that 90nm, like the Intel Pentium 4, is still the benchmark for perfection. This means we simply can't physically fit the industry-standard chips into 23-30mm shells, but 57mm shells are perfectly fine. Although I agree that a 40-45mm cannon would be preferable, both in terms of weight and dimensions and the ammo size, which is precisely why I'd like to supplement the Baikal module with something slightly faster-firing, such as the KPVT.
      Moreover, the lack of a reliable and effective combat information and control system probably prevents this exhibition system from being adopted.

      And here, I'm afraid, lies the main problem. I admit, when the Derivation was shown at the Parade, I was somewhat encouraged by the fact that, in addition to the bulky optical targeting columns, the left turret sponson features something reminiscent of a Fara or Aistenok radar, which should, in theory, greatly enhance the system's target detection and engagement capabilities. But the question remains: have the designers managed to effectively combine data from two targeting devices and the radar itself? Of course, I'd like to hope for the best, but the lack of a system in service only raises uneasy thoughts...
      1. +1
        2 June 2026 12: 58
        Quote: Dante
        Although I agree that a 40-45mm cannon would be preferable, both in terms of its weight and dimensions, and the size of the ammo, which is precisely why I would like to supplement the Baikal module with something a little faster-firing, for example, the KPVT.

        The KPVT isn't the best addition to an autocannon (it's almost an autocannon itself ;)
        - insufficient fire density (550-600 rounds per minute)
        - too much power to fight FPV drones (why 14.5 when 5,45-7,62 is enough)
        - high recoil (powerful drives and a heavy gun carriage are required, the sight will be off)
        - high temperature load on the barrel (you won't be able to shoot for long)
        - large cartridges = small BC
        Therefore, GShG is the best option from what is available.
      2. +1
        2 June 2026 18: 13
        Everything is clear in the debate between large (relatively) programmable projectiles and small anti-aircraft missiles with a high fire density. This debate will not be resolved until systems are created to detect FVP drones and the like, and at the same level as today's radar-aircraft, of course with optical-infrared gadgets.
        1. 0
          4 June 2026 07: 52
          Quote: vitaliy20091959
          in the dispute between large (relatively) programmable projectiles and high-density fire MZA,

          Each distance requires its own means of destroying drones:
          - long-range and medium-range - programmable shrapnel projectile
          - close - high density of machine gun fire
          - ultra-short - canister shots similar to smoke grenade launchers and APS
      3. +1
        2 June 2026 19: 02
        In the old Soviet days, the Scientific and Technical Intelligence (STI) of the KGB's First Chief Directorate (PGU) or the Main Intelligence Directorate (GRU) of the General Staff of the Ministry of Defense would have certainly stolen these shells, the radars, and much more. However, we have what we have: the SVR is led by a figure expelled from his host country at the beginning of his tenure, and the GRU is no longer the GRU, but a vague Main Directorate. Incidentally, it's unclear who needed to rename the legendary GRU into a faceless directorate. Did anyone care? Same with the Border Troops... And yet we (not us) prattle on about following tradition. Lies, profanation, imitation, window dressing, and the guarantor's fine speeches on every occasion, but not a word about the truth about victory! sad
    2. +2
      2 June 2026 14: 26
      The single-barrel 57mm module, with its low rate of fire, is not capable of creating the required density of fire, even with programmable ammunition, such as that of the Shilka.
      Nobody knows the effectiveness of derivation, it's like a unicorn - it seems to exist, but nobody has seen it
    3. +1
      23 June 2026 14: 38
      UVZ made it for Shoigu, a cardboard general, not for war. Cardboard vehicles for parades, just like the T-14/15, Koalitsiya, and so on.
  7. +5
    2 June 2026 08: 54
    We still don't have systems capable of protecting armored vehicles from drones. We also don't have mobile weapons capable of breaching enemy fortified positions. What does this mean?
    Regarding the complete failure of organizing engineering teams. Simply put, the "effective owner" effectively lines his own pockets and those of his cronies, and that's his only competence. The organization of research and development and design work is below zero. The same can be said about the work of our officials in organizing the country's defense systems.
    Simply put – completely and utterly ineffective! Yes, there are things like Oreshnik. Hypersonics exist. Isolated manifestations. But overall – a total failure! So what, guys? You promised us that the "ineffective USSR" would be replaced by you, the superbly effective ones! You're armed with all the most advanced knowledge and skills of bourgeois science! Why is everything so disgraceful?! Are you the wrong people again? Well, well...
    1. 0
      2 June 2026 13: 03
      Quote: Mikhail3
      About the completely failed work of organizing engineering teams.

      Enthusiastic engineers offer many different solutions. But to test them on the ground, refine them, and put them into mass production, there must be a customer who will provide the technical specifications, provide funding, assist with testing and refinement, and then ensure their implementation into mass production.
      In the Ministry of Defense, it seems that Krivoruchko, the son of another Krivoruchko, is responsible for this.
      1. +1
        2 June 2026 14: 27
        In the Ministry of Defense, it seems that Krivoruchko, the son of another Krivoruchko, is responsible for this.
        father of US citizens, by the way
      2. -1
        2 June 2026 15: 00
        That's right. But we don't need enthusiasts; they're unreliable, and that's not the way to deal with weapons. At most, you can take the idea from an enthusiast, but you can't let them take part in its implementation—as a rule, at some point, the enthusiast begins to reject all solutions to the problem unless they're based on THEIR Great Idea.
        In engineering, this is unacceptable. If it turns out that another path is better than the one you're taking, less effective approaches are immediately rejected. Because the most important thing is solving the problem at hand. Everything else is irrelevant and disregarded.
        So, the main problems facing the troops aren't being addressed by anyone. At all. That is, the current management is ready to spend the money. But they're not ready to create effective design bureaus and experimental design facilities. Judging by what's happening, a few of someone's ideas have been implemented, and that's it. Nothing is visible in the waves.
        Teams capable of proposing solutions haven't been created. Or even destroyed, so they can't interfere with the nag, showing off their ideas. Very bad...
    2. -1
      23 June 2026 14: 49
      Quote: Mikhail3
      "effective owner" effectively lines his own pockets and those of his cronies,
      So these are all Putin's friends, no outsiders there, just Soviet-era scum! Just look at Russian entrepreneur Kovalchuk, a doctor of physical and mathematical sciences and founder of the "Ozero" cooperative...
  8. +2
    2 June 2026 09: 05
    The BMPT Terminator has found a new niche for use in special operations.
    And also the new OFFICIAL name "SPIRIDON"!
    The Terminator is a thing of the past: Uralvagonzavod has given the BMPT a new name.
    Instead of a Hollywood name, the legendary BMPT received the name "Spiridon" today at 01:50
    Policy
    1. +1
      2 June 2026 15: 30
      "Terminator" isn't kosher; the Greek word "spiridon" (little body) is now firmly established, but the author enjoys the incomprehensible (the boundary between light and shadow on the surface of the moon, planet, or satellite). lol .
  9. +5
    2 June 2026 09: 49
    The article constantly states that the BMPT is effective, but that UAVs are a hindrance.
    Here is the main problem: if not a UAV, then an armored personnel carrier is also effective.
    And so, yes, buy, buy, buy.
    And then do with it whatever you want, we'll give you more options for using it, just buy it.
  10. +2
    2 June 2026 10: 13
    If the MBT is 10-15 km, then it turns out they are not needed. SPGs are the best option and have a longer range; there is no need to get close to the UAV.
    Regarding the Terminator, maybe we should mount the 2A90 cannon from the Derivation on it? The 57mm gun solves all infantry suppression issues, as well as drone suppression, if the ammo pack has programmable rounds.
    1. +1
      2 June 2026 13: 08
      Quote: dragon772
      If the MBT is 10-15 km, then it turns out they are not needed. SPGs are the best option and have a longer range; there is no need to get close to the UAV.

      There are several reasons why a tank is converted into a self-propelled gun:
      - more protected
      - the flat trajectory of the gun, unlike the steep trajectory of mortars and howitzers, is difficult to detect by counter-battery radars
      - The SAU is under different control and it is necessary to request, coordinate, establish communication and interaction
      - we need to keep the tanks and their crews busy (we can't send them on assaults...)
      1. 0
        3 June 2026 16: 58
        Why do we need protection 20 km from the air defense base, from where not a single main battle tank can fire at the enemy?
        Yes, the self-propelled gun fired and left its firing position for cover. You won't notice it from a UAV, so they'll be looking for it for a long time.
  11. +1
    2 June 2026 10: 18
    I repeat: We don’t need the BMPT “Terminator”, but two types of combat fire support vehicles! 1. BMOP (Combat vehicle of fire support, closer to the "Terminator" and necessary not only for tank units, but also for assault units, and with an "emphasis" on attack UAVs! 2. BM (Air Defense) PT - combat vehicle of air defense support of units (tank, assault...) ... a kind of group APS (if this is applicable to tank units)! The essence: armament with "small" anti-aircraft guns (for example, with a range of up to 2,1 km and an altitude of up to 1,3 km) and interceptor drones! Such "small" anti-aircraft guns were promised to be developed by Rostec (but were not developed!) and were developed in the Baltics! Perhaps a third type of BMOP will be "needed"! Assault, armored car" for urban combat! Armament: large-caliber, but short-barreled low-altitude gun ballistics with "conventional" and guided projectiles (rounds) or assault (anti-bunker) missiles, UAVs!
    1. 0
      2 June 2026 11: 50
      A tank is a fire engine itself and doesn't require fire support. What's needed is an anti-aircraft vehicle, one that can counter drones and evacuate crews from damaged vehicles.
  12. -1
    2 June 2026 10: 19
    Was it really impossible to develop an assault gun with a 152mm cannon during 5 years of war?
  13. +1
    2 June 2026 10: 37
    Organize mass production of "The absence of shrapnel and programmable detonation projectiles in the tank's ammunition loadout makes itself felt here," install a UDSh stowage rack, replace the grenade launcher operators with those same "Courier" operators, and get a vehicle with new properties.
    1. 0
      2 June 2026 14: 12
      (c) "Yes, but why?" - this is "our" EVERYTHING belay
  14. +3
    2 June 2026 10: 55
    If we look closely at the Ministry of Defense's reports for about a year, we'll see that "Terminator" is mentioned maybe ten times. And almost always in this context:
    Crews of the BMPT "Terminator" of the "Center" group of forces are preparing to carry out combat missions at a training ground in the rear area of ​​the special operation.
  15. 0
    2 June 2026 10: 57
    The author did not mention the epochal event in the life of the "Terminator", which happened literally today.

    The BMPT received a call sign more familiar to the Russian ear.

    The tank support combat vehicle (BMPT) has changed its name to "Spiridon" Previously, it was called the "Terminator." As a reminder, the vehicle is manufactured and regularly sent to the military by our concern, UVZ.

    Something like this )
  16. +1
    2 June 2026 12: 09
    The following conclusions emerge from the description of the new tactics:
    1. Tanks need to be equipped with 160mm universal guns (cannon, howitzer, mortar), like the Lotus.
    2. And the Terimnators (Spiridons) should have two steering posts (like those of ancient armored cars) - in front and behind, and, accordingly, the gearbox should be modified so that the reverse speed is significantly higher.
    3. Perhaps, a 60mm grenade launcher should be developed to arm armored vehicles.
    1. -1
      2 June 2026 13: 26
      Quote: whowhy
      The tanks need to be equipped with 160mm universal guns (cannon, howitzer, mortar), like the Lotus.

      The Lotus has a 120mm gun-howitzer-mortar system, a development of the NONA (new artillery weapon) family. It doesn't have a 160mm gun. This means a full development cycle is needed: R&D, pilot production, testing, acceptance into service, and the launch of serial production. This would take 10-15 years in our current environment.
      Another problem is that the Nona, Vena and Lotus have a cartridge loading system, which is unacceptable for a combat vehicle operating on the front lines.
      Quote: whowhy
      2. And the Terimnators (Spiridons) should have two steering posts (like those of ancient armored cars) - in front and behind, and, accordingly, the gearbox should be modified so that the reverse speed is significantly higher.

      Wouldn't a rearview camera work? Where would the engine compartment be? Do you need the ability to reverse for long periods (on the road)? Why do you need a shadow pusher when the problem of changing direction is usually solved by turning around?
      The problem with our tanks' reversing could have been solved long ago, but the customers from the Ministry of Defense apparently don't need it: "Only attack, only forward!"
      Quote: whowhy
      3. Perhaps, a 60mm grenade launcher should be developed to arm armored vehicles.

      Another caliber? Why 60mm?
      1. -1
        3 June 2026 12: 23
        Another caliber? Why 60mm?

        Because even the Second World War showed that the minimum effective caliber for mortars is 60 mm.
        Why do we need a push shadow when the problem of changing direction is usually solved by turning?

        Because, firstly, you need to get away quickly, and secondly, it could be a narrow passage in a minefield.
        The camera also requires special driving skills, and under extreme stress, basic skills will be activated, potentially causing a wrong turn. Although, perhaps the image on the screen could be mirrored. Otherwise, the car would need to be redesigned. For example, add a couple of rollers and place the steering station behind the engine compartment.
        The Lotus has a 120mm gun-howitzer-mortar, a development of the NONA (new artillery weapon) family. It does not have a 160mm gun.

        Is your name "Captain Obvious" by any chance? good
        This means a full development cycle is required: R&D, pilot production, testing, acceptance into service, and the launch of serial production. This takes 10-15 years in our current environment.

        You probably think this is the last war? The path has already been paved with 120mm caliber, the early problems have been overcome. And the reality is probably being adjusted now, in line with the experience gained.
        Another problem is that the Nona, Vena and Lotus have a cartridge loading system, which is unacceptable for a combat vehicle operating on the front lines.

        On the one hand, tanks starting with the T-64 also have cartridge loading. However, one video about the "Lotus" showed that the ammunition rack contained single-piece rounds. Cartridge loading is used for firing mines. Besides, a new gun still needs to be designed, so any loading system can be accommodated. For low ballistics, the cartridge case needs to be shortened, and the ability to fire missiles also needs to be considered.
    2. +2
      2 June 2026 15: 49
      Unfortunately, it appears that the 2S3 Akatsiya self-propelled gun, like the 160mm mortar, even if it can be adapted to a tank chassis, is obsolete. Drones have practically eliminated such vehicles from the near-frontline zone. Until the enemy's minefield and widespread FPV drone use is resolved, armored vehicles will not be able to break through.
      A self-propelled gun on a tank chassis with a 160 mm mortar would look good in urban combat in 2022-23.
  17. 0
    2 June 2026 13: 57
    Now he is not the Terminator but Spiridon ((
  18. 0
    2 June 2026 13: 58
    The biggest problem in this war is the drones. Solving it by shooting them down is a big problem. If they find a way to land them en masse, then all armored fighting vehicles will immediately become relevant. Our design engineers need to develop some kind of powerful, electronic warfare system, something like an electronic countermeasure, to burn out the drones' electrical components. Then the effect will be obvious.
    1. 0
      2 June 2026 14: 15
      With drones rife, any equipment and any concentration of troops becomes worthless. Once the aerial threat is eliminated or at least mitigated, it's time to consider new tactics and new/old technology.
  19. 0
    2 June 2026 16: 23
    And today on Reporter there is an article:

    Terminator - that's it.
    There will be no Terminator.

    It will be "Spiridon"
  20. +1
    2 June 2026 16: 56
    The article left the impression that they first built the machine, and now they're figuring out what to do with it. The thinking should be the other way around: the end first, the means second.
  21. +1
    2 June 2026 19: 49
    The author wasn't convinced. FPV drones are very effective against both tanks and BMPTs. Until there's a systemic solution to combat drones, armored vehicles won't be considered protected.
  22. +1
    2 June 2026 21: 14
    The BMPT Terminator has found a new niche for use in special operations.


    UVZ doesn't need to invent anything, Russia doesn't need any BMPT, Russia NEEDS A HEAVY IFV AND A HEAVY APC!!!

    The BMPT is the same as an infantry fighting vehicle, but it can't transport infantry or evacuate the wounded. Why would we need that when a heavy infantry fighting vehicle can also support tanks in combat and deliver an infantry squad to the required location?
    1. 0
      23 June 2026 15: 45
      Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan
      WE NEED A HEAVY INDUSTRIAL IFV
      I'm all for it! But we've been talking about this for years, since the 60s!!! And things are still the same. There's still no T-15 with an X-shaped engine; it's "Stealth," no less.
  23. 0
    3 June 2026 12: 47
    Why are you attacking the author? They're not producing BMPTs in batches – that's already a success. It's not just the Terminators who are "superfluous." Tanks are basically out of place there, too. And mortars. And ATGM units (stock ones). If you can't fire at the enemy from a safe distance of 20 kilometers away live (plus standby mode and target search/change), you're superfluous on the payroll...
  24. +1
    3 June 2026 15: 36
    The decision to saturate rear areas with piston-engine aircraft is long overdue. They can reach speeds of up to 600 km/h and be armed with machine guns, cannons, and missiles. Pilot training is relatively quick, as demonstrated by the Second World War, and mass production can be rapidly scaled up. Clearly, aircraft alone cannot fully address the issue of defeating fixed-wing drones; a unified air defense system is needed, which would include piston-engine aircraft as a component.
  25. +1
    4 June 2026 00: 37
    Not Terminator, but Spiridon. Incidentally, it's a Greek name. And Greece is NATO. Something like that...
  26. 0
    23 June 2026 16: 43
    Yet another vomit-inducing piece of crap from yet another "money-grubbing author" promoting this UVZ "dildo." Every article here and there is full of praise, except that drones, mines, RPGs, Javelins get in the way, or the officers use them WRONG, or something else is wrong. Otherwise, the machine is beautiful, perfection itself. It can play guitar, sing criminal music, and tell bedtime stories to little ones. It's a marvel: "Come on over and buy it, it's cheap!"

    But we need T-BMPs (tank infantry fighting vehicles)! We don't need anything else! The ZAK-30 "Citadel" air defense system can be mounted on a T-BMP. Currently, T-80 tanks are used as infantry carriers. But that's not right! UVZ T-72s (aka T-90s, a marketing rename in the 1990s) can't carry anything; their maximum load is two tons. That means you can't even add extra armor to them, unlike the T-80, which can withstand around 30 tons, which is comparable to the armor of the best European tanks. It's better to build a T-BMP on the T-80 chassis with a rear exit, seven road wheels, and a front-mounted engine compartment than to make this "Spirit-T of the Big Don."