Experts: Russian "Terminator-2" will surpass the American М1А1М

65
"Messenger of Mordovia" published a material in which it is noted that the Iraqi military had recently shown interest in the Russian Terminator-2 - the Nizhny Tagil design, which is well optimized precisely for the military operations that are now being observed in this country.

Experts: Russian "Terminator-2" will surpass the American М1А1М


“Local conflicts of recent years in the Middle East in Africa and other regions demonstrate that the troops need a well-armored vehicle capable of providing effective fire support at any time of the day,” the newspaper notes.

The weight of the Russian development is 44 tons, as part of weapons - two twin automatic small-caliber guns 2А42, as well as a PKTM machine gun with an automatic reloading device.

The guided weapons complex includes 4 semi-automatic missiles with a laser channel with high-explosive and cumulative combat units.

To enhance protection, BMPT is equipped with a modular dynamic system, which allows parrying most modern threats, as well as with anti-cumulative screens.

The BMPT-72 can be equipped with an HP 840 or 1000 engine. Its maximum speed is up to 60 km / h with a power reserve of 700 kilometers.

“According to military experts, BMOP-72 was much more effective in battles with ISIS than the Iraqi army Tanks M1A1M, ”the publication notes.

  • http://vestnik-rm.ru/
Our news channels

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

65 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. BAT
    +15
    29 July 2015 11: 19
    Oh, it is a pity that Russia does not officially supply weapons to Novorossia. That would be delivered to the BCH fighters from dozens of such vehicles. At the same time, they would have run in in real, combat conditions.
    1. +4
      29 July 2015 11: 23
      If only all the Zapadents would have howled, then they would have raised a completely different one, and then our president would have turned out to be holding his own words.
      1. +1
        30 July 2015 04: 18
        Quote: sichevik
        it is a pity that Russia does not officially supply weapons to Novorossia

        Well, it was possible to organize "terrorists hijacked a train with the latest technology" hehehe
        Well, it is clear that they cope without it, and you can run into the fact that the Americans steal equipment 3 steamer, you never know.
    2. +38
      29 July 2015 12: 07
      Oh, I smell it right now ...

      I don’t understand what we are bragging about.
      Everything is controversial in this car, from the concept to the layout.
      In our troops it was never accepted into service - because don’t know where to put this thing.
      At a price it is 3 times more expensive than infantry fighting vehicles (in fact, this is the price of MBTs), in terms of firepower it is weaker than MBTs and at the BMP level (not suitable for long battles against armored vehicles), it is much heavier and slower than BMPs (in terms of logistics, it is just as demanding like a tank), it does not float (there is no use in the Navy), it does not land (there is no use in the Airborne Forces), it cannot transport infantry (there is no use in motorized infantry), the elevation angles of the guns do not allow it to conduct an effective battle in building (for what is she, your mother, sort of created like ...).
      The twin guns have separate ammunition (i.e. there are 2 guns only because it was necessary to shoot two types of ammunition, and they did not want to modify the weapons to automatically change the tapes) 2 AGSs require shooters (and a place for them in the case), booking launch containers insufficient for missiles (and this machine is supposed to be used in a tank formation), and many more minor inconsistencies and misunderstandings ...

      Summarizing: This is, roughly speaking, an infantry fighting vehicle without infantry, with tank armor and 3 times more expensive than usual.
      The command of our army reasonably believes that it is easier for them to use the multifunctional BMP-3 with the latest combat module - because tanks without infantry will not fight in the building anyway.
      And in this decision I absolutely agree with them.
      1. +4
        29 July 2015 12: 25
        Although I really like her outwardly,
        Quote: Darkmor
        Oh, I smell it right now ...
        - but not at all, although the argument about the Navy - rather ridiculed - as the wake of the BMP presented to those going to the Atlantic ... laughing
        Grenade launchers in the new version are also not relevant, and yes - the guns are rather weak for the city and the fight against infantry, which seems to be its main purpose.
        1. +12
          29 July 2015 14: 30
          Since when have 30mm guns been small enough to defeat infantry? Those. 12,7 standards, but 30mm is not enough? Her job is to suppress the firing points, so that either the infantry gets closer, or so that the tank can leave and fly with a high-explosive. And the machine itself can be equipped with thermobaric warhead missiles.
          And the fact that they do not include in battle formations.
          So this is a question to the bone of the command, which cannot form the tactics of application and charters for this machine. These are they who cannot cope with the task.
          Dear speak?
          Well, try to make the car protected, like a tank with no worse mobility than hers. Let's see how much it will cost. Israeli "Namer" I think it costs no less, but from the weapons only a machine gun and purely for the transport of troops.

          Each car for its own purposes. The Terminator developers saw the need for a car and designed it. But this was ahead of the time and now the generals cannot figure out how to use it, although they would have given it to the troops, they would quickly find a use for it. I think they wouldn’t have a price in Chechen companies.
          1. 0
            29 July 2015 17: 56
            Quote: Ejik_026
            Since when have 30mm guns been small enough to defeat infantry?

            Ever since the database was moved from the field with the trench to a dense urban area - there is not enough explosive action there - there is nothing to put pressure on.
      2. +10
        29 July 2015 12: 29
        That's right, but there is a nuance: armored personnel carriers can’t be compared with the Terminator, and small-caliber guns allow you to protect tanks in close combat (300-800 m). After all, before they tried to use the Tunguska in the city, and what happened? They should be in tank orders no more than 20%, in urban conditions - 40%. IMHO
        1. +2
          29 July 2015 12: 56
          Quote: da Vinci
          After all, before they tried to use the Tunguska in the city, and what happened?

          Tunguska, by the way, is closer to the concept of a fire support vehicle than a terminator. She has a problem with booking, she simply was not created for battle on the front line.
          And they were used (and shilka) in urban battles because of the elevation angle of the gun close to 90 degrees (which allowed firing on the upper floors of buildings) and a very high rate of fire, which made it possible to suppress the enemy firing point in the mountains or in a high-rise.
          The terminator cannot do this technically, the gun barrels do not rise so high.
          This is my subjective opinion, it may not be true, but BMPT should be either:
          A deep modification of anti-aircraft defense, to combine the functions of protecting the tank from infantry on the upper floors of buildings, and from helicopters.
          Or a deep modification of the BMP (heavy BMP) to protect the tank not only with its weapons, but also providing defense and cleaning of buildings with the help of infantry.

          Quote: da Vinci
          as presented by the wake system bmpt going to the Atlantic

          This meant, of course, the Marine Corps - which belongs to the Navy.
          They also have light tanks - and therefore the ability to use support vehicles. But if such machines cannot sail, they will have to be dropped on boats, which creates unnecessary problems with logistics (roughly speaking, not 4 tanks, but 3 tanks and BMPTs will come ashore at a time at a landing boat).
          1. +2
            29 July 2015 14: 29
            If small-caliber guns were not needed in battles against rebels / terrorists, then Shilka and other ZSU would not be used for other purposes.

            1) Small caliber is, first of all, enough ammunition for fighting infantry. Anyway, it’s supposed that there will be a tank next to him. So where does the tank go and the Terminator, but the tanks don’t swim, and so on.

            2) In my opinion, the level of raising the cannons on the Terminator-2 is solved.

            3) Twin guns are also in my opinion a plus. It will be possible to stay out of the battle for more time in order to cool the guns. Yes, and it is more reliable than selective automation.

            4) The only thing I agree with is about the ACS. This needs to be considered more carefully.
            1. +2
              29 July 2015 14: 37
              Quote: KG_patriot_last
              4) The only thing I agree with is about the ACS. This needs to be considered more carefully.

              At the first Terminator were - later abolished for inappropriate.
            2. 0
              29 July 2015 15: 34
              Quote: Ejik_026
              And the fact that they do not include in battle formations.
              So this is a question to the bone of command, which cannot form tactics of application

              "We have made an unknown garbage, and you are looking for a use for it" - so what? :)
              Quote: Ejik_026
              Israeli "Namer" I think it costs no less, but only a machine gun and purely for the transport of troops.

              On what the Israelis go fishing and how they steal, tfu, the defense budget is formed, I do not care. Let even armored vehicles decorate with rhinestones, if they have enough resources for this.
              Quote: Ejik_026
              The Terminator developers saw the need to

              The problem is that need not the developers, but the army or the buyers should see - and the developers should develop the machine for the given parameters, including the cost of operation.
              Quote: KG_patriot_last
              If small-caliber guns were not needed in battles against rebels / terrorists, they would not use Shilka

              If Teshki could lift the barrel vertically and put a 5mm projectile into the 125th floor, there would be no need for "shilki" on the front line in all sorts of Syria, Libya, and other mountain enclaves. They were used because of the technical impossibility of hitting a target from a tank, and not because the "shilka" is intended for close combat. Well, explosive cartridges "shilki", a very funny thing for shooting at the rooms of buildings ... It's not about the caliber and not the ammunition.
              The caliber simply expands the range of targets that the weapon can hit.
              Quote: KG_patriot_last
              and tanks don’t swim and so on.

              And I'm not saying that he must swim. I say that this machine in its current form has an extremely narrow scope, which does not allow its use in related fields in which more universal machines with a similar role are already used.
              Quote: KG_patriot_last
              2) In my opinion, the level of raising the cannons on the Terminator-2 is solved.

              And in my opinion, the combat module with guns was not changed to two. Of the changes, as far as I remember, the protective cover for ATGMs, sights, internal electronics and -1 crew place (I wonder what they filled it with ...?).
              Quote: KG_patriot_last
              3) Twin guns are also in my opinion a plus. It’s possible to stay out of the battle for more time,

              They shoot different types of ammunition - i.e. in battle, in fact, you will only shoot a 1n barrel with all the ensuing consequences such as wear and tear and overheating. Their rate of fire is also equal to one gun (because no one in their right mind will let 2 OB and BZT tracks on the same target)
        2. +1
          29 July 2015 14: 32
          Well, according to the calculations of the developers, 1 terminator for 3 tanks should have been. Actually what you said. In the city, so 1 to 2 tanks. I’ll just add that infantry is also laid in the city’s tanks. So competent interaction solves many problems. In the second, self-propelled guns in cities successfully fought if there was competent cover by infantry.
          1. 0
            29 July 2015 14: 41
            Quote: Ejik_026
            Well, according to the calculations of the developers, 1 terminator for 3 tanks should have been.

            And where did the information come from?

            I would suggest the opposite: 2nd BMPT per tank. Especially in urban combat. Well, the experts know better.
      3. +2
        29 July 2015 12: 31
        And what a minus, everything is correct. Have you seen "Armata" and "Kurganets" at the parade? The one that is TBMP, there is armor, the module costs 2 ATGM less and all the difference, only there is still a landing on board. Why else is there anything else, everything is already there.
        1. +3
          29 July 2015 13: 55
          it’s just that these heavy BMPTs at the parade were based on the Almaty platform, of course they are more promising, but they are still in the project, they are not in the troops and they will not be there soon and they will cost more than the new T-72 tank, and the Terminator can already be made now re-equipping the same T72 for example, which are unmeasured in warehouses, at the expense of the elevation angle of the gun, I think that this defect is completely correctable.
          1. +2
            29 July 2015 14: 35
            +1 he said everything correctly. The conversion of T-72 to Terminator is much cheaper.
            In addition, it is more compact than TBMP + 1 - 30mm + 1 machine gun + 2 rockets. Which must be manually recharged in general, leaving the battle for this.
            So the Terminator makes sense.
        2. +1
          29 July 2015 15: 08
          Quote: Max Otto
          , the module costs 2 ATGMs less

          I will correct a little - there are ATGMs, like the "terminator" - 4, but there is only one gun, although the question is how much 2 guns are needed.
      4. 0
        29 July 2015 12: 32
        there is nothing to minus, such a machine is good for computer toys. but since the "couch soldiers" are now fighting, for them the picture is super
      5. +2
        29 July 2015 12: 36
        A big plus: the "unmanned" turret was worked on this machine! wink
        1. +1
          29 July 2015 14: 11
          This machine does not have a tower. There is an automatic universal combat module. On the way there is a 57 mm AUBM, it is being tested and right there, work is underway on a hundred in this design.
      6. +1
        29 July 2015 13: 46
        I agree that these are additional "options" for a motorized rifle brigade. So far it is very expensive
      7. +5
        29 July 2015 13: 46
        Quote: Darkmor
        Summarizing: This is, roughly speaking, an infantry fighting vehicle without infantry, with tank armor and 3 times more expensive than usual. The command of our army reasonably believes that it is easier for them to use the multifunctional BMP-3 with the latest combat module - because tanks without infantry will not fight in the building anyway.
        What prevents not to oppose BMPT BMP-3, but to use them together? The BMP-3 is a good all-round vehicle, but the BMPT based on the tank will be better next to the tanks. Say that for the price it is "3 times more expensive than BMP (in fact, this is the price of MBT), in terms of firepower it is weaker than MBT and at the BMP level"... What kind of infantry fighting vehicles are we talking about here in comparison, if the heavy BMP T-15 from the" Armat ", the arguments are very dubious, and the" Kurganets-25 "is hardly a cheap car here. After dismounting the infantry, the BMP begins to perform its functions support, and in this they are weaker than the BMPT, this also applies to the expensive monster T-15. To find the concept of the BMPT, you need not read the old statutes, and not look back at NATO from the Yankees. The BMPT concept itself was developed in the Soviet Union, not in a small degrees based on the experience of the war in Afghanistan. This is a machine necessary for our army, for which you can use the stocks of old T-72 tanks or a well-developed T-90 base. Presumably, our sworn friends are waging, "relatives", an information war, goats like can, haya dangerous for themselves, in particular BMPT, which they do not have.Instead of speculation and empty talk, it would be better to make a couple of BMPTs and run in Syria, then they would say that to judge "the sea from the shore."
        1. +1
          29 July 2015 14: 36
          Quote: Per se.
          What prevents not BMPT BMP-3 from opposing, but using them together? BMP-3 is a good universal machine, but next to tanks it will be better to use BMPT based on a tank.

          Next to tanks, a BMP-T based on a tank would be better. And the established interaction of infantry, tanks and artillery.
          And not an additional machine, which was made according to the results of the First Chechen Army for a specific army of the mid-90s: you have to fight in the city and green, there is equipment, there is no infantry, there is no interaction either.
          Quote: Per se.
          After dismounting the infantry, the BMP begins to perform support functions, and in this they are weaker than the BMPT, this also applies to the expensive T-15 monster.

          BMP-2 - yes. BMP-3 - no longer. A 100 mm OFS is in every way better than a 30 mm fragmentation.
          Quote: Per se.
          Presumably, our sworn friends are waging, "relatives", an information war, kids, as they can, haya dangerous for themselves, in particular BMPT, which they do not have.

          Our sworn friends reasonably believe that instead of introducing another wunderwaffe, it is much better to train personnel to use the existing means. Fortunately, they cover all the tasks of BMPT.
      8. +1
        29 July 2015 13: 47
        In my opinion, this is a narrow-minded machine for such wars as they were in Chechnya, Afghanistan, and now it is in Syria and Iraq. This is not a machine for global war and it is not planned to be used against armored vehicles. But against the infantry, it just should be used. That is, its mission is to tank against infantry masses and push through defense in cities and in open areas. In my opinion, it would be nice to run around and study in Syria or Iraq, as long as the car does not participate in a real battle, it will still remain a dark horse and its real possibilities will be unexplored. In theory, it should be weakly vulnerable against the entire spectrum of infantry weapons - up to the anti-tank system, but as it really is - xs.
      9. +1
        29 July 2015 13: 53
        Hello! Such a time was now different requirements. Several artillery autonomous modules of a larger caliber are approaching at once. And then it’s possible there is a place for this product. Although there are moments here Kurganets also requires a different art system. Everything will solve complex tests. I think Kurganets is higher.
      10. +1
        29 July 2015 15: 07
        Quote: Darkmor
        This, roughly speaking, is an infantry fighting vehicle without infantry, with tank armor and 3 times more expensive than usual.

        I will add 5 kopecks - all the "functionality" of the "terminator" is now embodied in a heavy BMP T-15 based on the "Armata", and even with a new level of protection and the ability to transport infantry.
        So the "terminator" turned out to be completely unnecessary ...
    3. +1
      29 July 2015 12: 30
      Quote: sichevik
      Oh, it is a pity that Russia does not officially supply weapons to Novorossia. That would be delivered to the BCH fighters from dozens of such vehicles. At the same time, they would have run in in real, combat conditions.

      And why not Novorossia request these machines from South Ossetia, Abkhazia or Kazakhstan?
      1. +1
        29 July 2015 13: 46
        And why not Novorossia request these machines from South Ossetia, Abkhazia or Kazakhstan?


        But Kazakhstan and South Ossetia recognized Novorossia as a sovereign state and established diplomatic relations?
    4. +1
      29 July 2015 13: 43
      it would be nice..... good
    5. +1
      29 July 2015 18: 40
      A dozen such vehicles, as well as the most advanced tanks, will not play any role. There the scales are slightly different ...
    6. 0
      30 July 2015 10: 01
      They should at least supply the "Mercury" vehicles so that the shelling would not be expedient.
  2. 0
    29 July 2015 11: 21
    but this is generally a nonsense-fighting mashig of tank support created for completely different purposes. But whether it is better for a tank or worse depends a lot on whose hands it is in and how it is operated.
    1. +2
      29 July 2015 11: 32
      In addition to hands, there is a theater of operations, and the nature of the database determines the effectiveness of various types of weapons. For Europe - Iskander, and for Africa - Terminator.
    2. +1
      29 July 2015 11: 37
      Quote: sv68
      better is it a tank or worse-Much depends on whose hands it is in and how it is exploited.
      belay I'm sorry, how ??? is BMPT actually ... request
    3. +1
      29 July 2015 11: 59
      Quote: sv68
      but this is generally a nonsense-fighting mashig of tank support created for completely different purposes. But whether it is better for a tank or worse depends a lot on whose hands it is in and how it is operated.

      It is abbreviated as BMPT / BMOP: Tank Support / Fire Support. Those. more versatile.

      There is nothing to talk about curved pens, but the effectiveness depends on the concept of use and how faithfully this concept is respected.

      According to the military on both sides, the time of thousand-kilometer fronts and mass tank attacks has irrevocably gone.

      A combat unit - a tank - is no longer an independent unit when it comes to the most effective use.

      In other words, tanks need support, first of all information - situational awareness.

      Hence the question for the professional military, it is better for officers with experience in planning local tactical land operations and for tankers naturally the same:
      What is the role of the tank in the context of modern, "semi-sabotage" methods of warfare - on the example of the conflicts in Syria, Novorossia?
  3. +2
    29 July 2015 11: 21
    These machines should not be supplied to Kazakhstan, but to Donetsk, otherwise the Ukronazis are already shooting our citizens on our land. My heart is bleeding for the fact that thousands of our ruined Russian souls remain unrevenged. Remember "Our souls wheeze on dug graves"
  4. +3
    29 July 2015 11: 22
    Of course, it is not entirely ethical to compare with abrams, all the same different concepts. However, I want to admit that our terminator is a wonderful, necessary machine, in fact, has no analogues in the world. As a result of the hostilities in Iraq, I think we should expect an influx of people wishing to purchase our goods. It is possible that other countries will begin to design similar ones, apparently China is the fastest). It would be interesting to break in on Danbas, the intensity allows, and most importantly there is no large caliber. ) Yours faithfully.
  5. +4
    29 July 2015 11: 23
    Kazakhs really liked this car.

    I also like it as a tank support weapon, say in urban battles ...
    The tank destroys the fortifications and the terminator destroys the firing points ... in this bundle is a powerful weapon.
    1. 0
      29 July 2015 11: 41
      ..terminator destroys firing points ...

      It would be nice to add an automatic grenade launcher to the existing guns and machine gun. Just for the suppression of firing points. In my opinion, two AGS-17s were present at the first Terminator.
      1. +1
        29 July 2015 12: 24
        it would be very well run in Syria,
        but I was put into a stupor written above "the elevation angles of the guns do not allow her to conduct an effective battle in the building (for which she, your mother, it seems like it was created ...)." - if this is so, then it is easier, like the Syrians, to weigh the shilki of additional armor ... how much you can read and see - the Syrians are effective in tank divisions during raids in urban development

        ... and if the terminator cannot lift the gun up, then what's the point?
  6. 0
    29 July 2015 11: 32
    Well, a very necessary armored car
    1. avt
      0
      29 July 2015 11: 44
      Quote: Volka
      Well, a very necessary armored car
      Reply Quote Report Abuse

      laughing Who? It was not possible to join the army, and as a result they ordered an BMP-3 with "Bakhchi"
      Quote: YaMZ-238
      Good news)))))

      For Ragozin? Well, he dragged himself from this miracle, as well as from "Swift".
      Quote: The same LYOKHA
      Kazakhs really liked this car.

      Or the bakshish that was pushed to the one who ordered it, not - I do not mind if it is a miracle to someone abroad, only for. And by the way - are there still 5 crew members? laughing
  7. 0
    29 July 2015 11: 34
    A machine with good performance characteristics and outwardly beautiful, like any other weapon. Just look at the photo. And of course you should not compare it with the tank - the tasks performed differ.
  8. +1
    29 July 2015 11: 36
    Good news)))))
  9. +1
    29 July 2015 11: 41
    The only bad thing is that the Iraqis were only interested in our "Terminators"
  10. 0
    29 July 2015 11: 47
    Comrades, what exactly is this Messenger of Mordovia and why does he publish all the news regarding equipment and weapons?
    1. 0
      29 July 2015 12: 44
      Quote: Maksus
      Comrades, what exactly is this Messenger of Mordovia and why does he publish all the news regarding equipment and weapons?

      https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Мордовия
      A highly recommended publication. In addition, the region itself is an industrial leader in Russia, with an increased density of engineers per capita.
      negative It’s a shame, comrade, not to know the features of the regions of your homeland.
  11. 0
    29 July 2015 11: 47
    Do not be so critical.
  12. 0
    29 July 2015 11: 53
    money in advance and take what you want from a weapon ...
  13. +1
    29 July 2015 12: 05
    Experts: Russian "Terminator-2" will surpass the American М1А1М

    Another "order" in order to push the BMPT "Terminator" into service with the Army. Damn, well, how can you compare the incomparable: COMBAT SUPPORT VEHICLE and TANK, yes TANK. I understand the comparison was appropriate between the T-72BZ / T-90 / T-14 Armata and the Abrams, but comparing a vehicle designed to support tanks with a tank is at least inappropriate. So we can say that any vehicle with an ATGM is stronger tank.
    Yes, in the conditions of Iraq, where the main opponents are small groups of ISIS fighters armed with RPGs, BOs, in the worst case, ATGMs and two rapid-firing 30-mm cannons and 4 ATGMs BMPT operating from pickups are much preferable to the 120-mm guns with manual loading of the Abrams. Given in a normal combined arms battle, the BMPT has very little chance of surviving a collision with a tank. She has her own niche support for tanks in urban environments, the fight against LME, ATGM crews and other anti-tank weapons.

    1. +1
      29 July 2015 12: 19
      Quote: Novel 1977
      Yes, in the conditions of Iraq, where the main opponents are small groups of ISIS fighters armed with RPGs, BOs, in the worst case, ATGMs and two rapid-firing 30-mm cannons and 4 ATGMs BMPT operating from pickups are much preferable to the 120-mm guns with manual loading of the Abrams. Given in a normal combined arms battle, the BMPT has very little chance of surviving a collision with a tank. She has her own niche support for tanks in urban environments, the fight against LME, ATGM crews and other anti-tank weapons.

      He-he-he ... I wang that after the very first battles of the BMPT, the military will demand to replace the 30-mm with something more powerful. For the infantry behind the "city" shelters, 30-mm is rather weak. And to defeat ATGMs, the effective range of fire and the power of the OS would be nice to raise.
      Then the military will demand that the BMPT transport at least half of an infantry squad under armor - because there is no dowry, then it is always hanging around somewhere, then its "tin box" was burned on the way. And without infantry, the BTT lives poorly in the city, but not for long (even the tanks covered by the BMPT and the BMPT itself).

      PMSM, you understand what will happen in the end. wink

      PS And it's still good if the military is limited to only this - otherwise the "Pentagon Wars" and the history of the creation of "Bradley" are immediately remembered. smile
      1. 0
        29 July 2015 12: 27
        Quote: Alexey RA
        Heh heh heh ... I’m wanging that after the first BMPT battles the military will demand to replace the 30 mm with something more powerful.


        Need a 152 mm short-barreled gun howitzer mortar, 45 mm automatic gun with large air-guns and several combat modules with a pair of 12,7 mm and 7,62 mm. ATGMs are launched by a cannon.
        1. 0
          29 July 2015 13: 08
          Quote: IS-80
          Need 152 mm short-barreled gun howitzer mortar,

          Hello, M60A2. smile
          Quote: IS-80
          45 mm automatic cannon with large UVN

          57 mm. Because under the 45-mm ammunition there is no mid-50s. A 57-mm at least the sailors remained.
          Quote: IS-80
          ATGMs are launched by a cannon.

          Why step on this rake again? Isn’t it easier to give a BMPT 57-mm gun and normal ATGM?
          And instead of the 152 mm give a normal connection - with tankers, artillerymen and mortar men. On direct fire of 152 mm, you can replace the 125 mm OFS from the nearest tank. And to defeat concealed targets - to cause artillery fire.

          By the way, estimate - how much will it take to place 152 mm and 45 mm guns + ammunition for them?
          1. +1
            29 July 2015 13: 32
            Quote: Alexey RA
            57 mm. Because under the 45-mm ammunition there is no mid-50s. A 57-mm at least the sailors remained.

            Taki forge a 45 mm automatic gun slowly. 57 mm is not necessary.
            Quote: Alexey RA
            why again tread on this rake? Isn’t it easier to give a BMPT 57-mm gun and normal ATGM?

            No. 57 mm cartridges too big. The high-impact action on the fortifications is weak, against the lightly armored armor-piercing excess. 45 mm and 152 mm guns just right.
            Quote: Alexey RA
            By the way, estimate - how much will it take to place 152 mm and 45 mm guns + ammunition for them?

            Enough there volume.
            1. 0
              29 July 2015 14: 41
              Quote: IS-80
              Taki forge a 45 mm automatic gun slowly. 57 mm is not necessary.

              That's exactly what slowly.
              So everything rests against time. If a heavy machine gun is needed now, it is better to use what is - 57 mm. If there is still time, then 45 mm.
              Quote: IS-80
              No. 57 mm cartridges too big. The high-impact action on the fortifications is weak, against the lightly armored armor-piercing excess.

              And fragmentation - against unarmored and weakly armored targets? GGE + remote detonation - yes, according to the position of the ATGM.
              In the 57-mm caliber it is easier to stuff all kinds of electronic bells and whistles to increase the efficiency of the fire.
      2. 0
        29 July 2015 16: 20
        And you did not think that with this BMPT there could be BMPs and tanks and infantry? And that even in this case he will have his own niche?
        1. 0
          29 July 2015 18: 11
          Quote: KG_patriot_last
          And you did not think that with this BMPT there could be BMPs and tanks and infantry? And that even in this case he will have his own niche?

          Then it is definitely not necessary - the above will do everything for it - the BMP has 3-4 and the gun is more powerful and the elevation angle.
        2. 0
          29 July 2015 18: 53
          Quote: KG_patriot_last
          And you did not think that with this BMPT there could be BMPs and tanks and infantry? And that even in this case he will have his own niche?

          What niche?
          Instead of a 30-mm BMPT, in this case, for direct-fire support, there will be 125 mm tanks (with a limited air level) and 100 mm / 30 mm BMP.
          Instead of ATGM BMPT - TOUR tanks and ATGM BMP-3.
          Instead of AGS and machine guns - the same AGS and machine guns of tanks, infantry fighting vehicles and infantry.

          Moreover, if there is sufficient training and coherence, a group of tanks, infantry fighting vehicles and infantry (company TG) can receive additional fire support of standard 120-152 mm artillery systems for targets that are not affected in principle by wall fire or AGS.
    2. 0
      29 July 2015 12: 23
      Damn, how can you compare the incomparable: THE BATTLE SUPPORT MACHINE TANK and TANK, yes TANK

      so no one compares the tank and BMPT (I absolutely agree with you - it is impossible to compare two cars that have different purposes).
      Iraqi military showed interest in the Russian "Terminator-2" - Nizhny Tagil development, which is well optimized specifically for those military operations that are now observed in this country
      - no one is going to oppose BMPT "Abrams" -
      “According to military experts, the BMOP-72 was much more effective in battles with ISIS than the M1A1M tanks available to the Iraqi army”
    3. 0
      29 July 2015 12: 28
      Quote: Novel 1977
      Damn, how can you compare the incomparable: THE BATTLE MACHINE SUPPORT TANK and TANK, yes TANK.

      I do not see any discrepancy - I admit, a hundred is very possible.
      It is by the effect of application. If this BMOP also effectively drove the Ishilov riffraff, then the gain is obvious.

      A direct analogy is from a cannon, but by sparrows.
  14. +1
    29 July 2015 14: 14
    Why is this car needed?
    - in a clean field, a tank of 125mm HE projectile will destroy the threat no worse than a pair of 30mm guns (and even faster);
    - in the city, the power of 30mm shells on buildings is weak, plus the elevation of the trunks is small;
    - a set of instruments and equipment on BMPT is hardly better than MBT, i.e. reaction time will be similar;
    - tank chassis, from the still quite modern T-72 / T-90, i.e. expensive.
    As a result, it turns out that the 125mm tank gun was replaced with two 30mm (actually one) and that's all ... But what are the advantages?
  15. 0
    29 July 2015 14: 16
    When Sergei Vladimirovich Ilyushin proposed his project of a “non-bomber.” Of a “non-distributor,” the military also did not know where to attach it in the concept of modern air combat, which then came out to everyone.
    PS By the way, the aforementioned irony of fate the stormtroopers comprehended twice in the last century, but I will not even remind you of helicopters. Why did the military need these miserable slow-moving cars in the age of super speeds.
    1. 0
      29 July 2015 18: 31
      Quote: kapitan281271
      When Sergei Vladimirovich Ilyushin proposed his project of a “non-bomber.” Of a “non-distributor,” the military also did not know where to attach it in the concept of modern air combat, which then came out to everyone.
      PS By the way, the aforementioned irony of fate the stormtroopers comprehended twice in the last century, but I will not even remind you of helicopters. Why did the military need these miserable slow-moving cars in the age of super speeds.

      If we take the Il-2 as an example - then before the appearance of incendiary bombs - he did not show himself especially against technology. And the initial absence of the shooter, negated the booking of the car, with the Germans dominating the air - they got by with the outdated "Stuka". In the second half of the war, the Eli received their "rightful" title as the best attack aircraft. It was just that the pilots were not given GSS.
  16. 0
    29 July 2015 14: 17
    Quote: IS-80
    Need a 152 mm short-barreled gun howitzer mortar, 45 mm automatic gun with large air-guns and several combat modules with a pair of 12,7 mm and 7,62 mm. ATGMs are launched by a cannon.

    Introduced Mstu-S + 45 mm gun, + increased armor protection, + one crew member + BC for 45 mm guns.
    It turned out some garbage ...
    A large caliber is not needed in the city, with the modern development of guidance accuracy, it is enough to give the exact coordinates for the necessary "splash" to arrive. A large caliber is a sacrifice for armor, space, speed, etc.
    1. +1
      29 July 2015 15: 04
      Quote: LeeDer
      Introduced Mstu-S + 45 mm gun, + increased armor protection, + one crew member + BC for 45 mm guns.
      It turned out some garbage ...
      A large caliber is not needed in the city, with the modern development of guidance accuracy, it is enough to give the exact coordinates for the necessary "splash" to arrive. A large caliber is a sacrifice for armor, space, speed, etc.

      Make a complete list of what else you think is not needed there. And then throw it away. Because everything that you wrote here is complete nonsense.
  17. 0
    29 July 2015 14: 57
    The module to it would be Baikal with 57 mm. a gun would probably be more effective
  18. 0
    29 July 2015 15: 05
    But I wonder if it is possible to put bumblebees instead of ATGMs for urban conditions?
  19. 0
    29 July 2015 15: 08
    The anti-tank missile system would be increased to 12, otherwise in the first minutes of the battle all the missiles would be fired, and then only 30 mm guns would be fought.
  20. 0
    29 July 2015 15: 17
    Quote: DesToeR
    - a set of instruments and equipment on BMPT is hardly better than MBT, i.e. reaction time will be similar;

    There is no difference in the field, but in the city, will the turret turn speed also be the same? Rate of fire is also critical.
    The issue price is shot with a 125 mm gun, and 30 mm.? The resource of the barrel, the number of transported ammunition?
    Here you need to think carefully, unexpected minuses can always come out ...
    My vision of technology for storming cities is a maneuverable vehicle based on anti-aircraft guns, caliber up to 76 mm. High turning speed of the tower, with increased protection against cumulative. It is still unlikely to meet artillery and tanks with high-speed ammunition in the city.
  21. 0
    29 July 2015 16: 44
    Quote: LeeDer
    My vision of technology for storming cities is a maneuverable vehicle based on anti-aircraft guns, caliber up to 76 mm.

    A "maneuverable machine based on anti-aircraft", even with increased protection against "cumulative" - ​​this is a lot of money that can die from portable infantry weapons. Besides, what to do with them in the "field"? Wouldn't it be more rational to create a well-protected BMP with the ability to fire on the upper floors?
    My vision of technology for storming cities is a cheap, maneuverable and lightly armored remote control robot, the size of which is no more than a kitchen table armed with a machine gun cal.7,62mm and a jet flamethrower / grenade launcher.
  22. 0
    30 July 2015 00: 06
    The Russian "Terminator" will definitely surpass the Ukrainian "cyborg"! To the heroes of bacon! By the way .. I'll be back bully I need your clothes, your glasses and your bike!
  23. iAi
    0
    30 July 2015 00: 53
    Read the specifications carefully:

    "Terminator" - a crew of 5 people, of which two are automatic grenade launchers. Chassis T-90.

    Terminator-2 - crew of 3 people. The grenade launchers were removed, because it is expensive to alter the chassis in order to fit them there, and it is practically impossible to convince the military to change the staffing and combat regulations of the units. Chassis T-72 instead of T-90 to reduce the price by using old chassis.

    The main purpose is the destruction of tank dangerous targets.

    In the city, "Terminator" would be good (naturally, without ATGM, in local conflicts they are removed), for pushing through the defense.

    In the steppe - "Terminator 2". It was taken by the Kazakhs, taking into account the fact that they will produce themselves from kits supplied from Russia.
  24. 0
    30 July 2015 09: 58
    Quote: DesToeR

    My vision of technology for storming cities is a cheap, maneuverable and lightly armored remote control robot, the size of which is no more than a kitchen table armed with a machine gun cal.7,62mm and a jet flamethrower / grenade launcher.

    The idea is not bad, but everything depends on autonomy and the level of technology. It is incorrect to compare with sappers, they have little autonomy, and in fact there are no weapons.
  25. 0
    30 July 2015 13: 15
    Quote: LeeDer
    The idea is not bad, but everything depends on autonomy and the level of technology.

    Such machines in prototypes already exist in Russia. Big autonomy is not needed. In a city, the distance of collision fighting is not more than 50 - 100m, rarely 200m. The ammunition will end - the fighter will take the car to the rear, reload the machine gun and grenade launcher, fill the bucket of fuel (or change the battery?) And ... again to the battle for slaughter.
    And most importantly, any "hardware factory" can produce such machines as PPSh-41.

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

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