BMPT "Terminator"

AJ-47 wrote:
Fight in urban area will be led by the Armata IFVs and APCs, and not by the tanks. The tanks and the BMPTs will support the assault from the distance.

Question: how will the BMPTs 5 crew be situated in the hull? I am thinking for a back mounted engine the hull could be either extended forward or the turret ring pulled back to make room for the two gunners, sitting back to back or their backs on the hull.

Based on the BMPT vehicle shown with the 120mm gun/mortar, plus 40mm grenade launcher and 23mm gatling gun... all those weapons are aimed by turning the turret so are pretty much likely under the control of the gunner. the different elevation capabilities allow the different ballistics of each weapon to be used... all three guns can be pointed at the target using the turret traverse and independently elevated so they will all hit the target at whatever range. This means three crew would be all that is needed, but I would like to see to flat turrets in the front hull fitted with a PKT 30 cal MG and a Balkan 40mm grenade launcher to allow two separate crewmen to operate independently of the turret and aim at targets in front of and to the side of the tank.

Zivo wrote:

Question: how will the BMPTs 5 crew be situated in the hull? I am thinking for a back mounted engine the hull could be either extended forward or the turret ring pulled back to make room for the two gunners, sitting back to back or their backs on the hull.

I'm pretty sure the BMPT Armata will only have 3 crew members. The GSh-23-6 and the AGS-30 are controlled by the gunner. All assuming the KBTM model is the final product.

GarryB wrote:The original concept of the BMPT was to allow MBTs to enter areas like built up areas without needing infantry support because the life of an exposed soldier is very short in urban warfare. The BMPT was therefore intended to replace dismounted infantry which raises a few interesting ideas... instead of sending in IFVs and APCs... why not send in MBTs and BMPTs and in practical terms level the urban environment room by room, building by building. But I guess that answers itself... a tank can't fight room for room... you need dismounted infantry for that.

TR1 wrote:Apparently a new T-72 BMPT conversion will be shown by UMZ soon, with 3 crewmebers. Export driven, so it could be one of the pilot BMPT customers (Kazakhstan) has decided to go for a larger batch from old T-72s.

EDIT: Speak of the devil....

http://gurkhan.blogspot.com/2013/08/blog-post_17.html

High elevation just requires a taller turret... a thicker turret... look at most SPGs and you can see that a slightly higher gun mount plus deeper turret allows for very high elevation.
The effect will be negligible on a vehicle with an unmanned turret as there are no crew inside the turret needing protection so it makes little difference in terms of protection yet enables the vehicle to defend itself in urban areas... and offer much better direct fire support that could allow any vehicle with a 100mm rifled gun go give up its big gun and use smaller lighter weapons.

45mm rounds will take up 125mm ammo space... more useful to have 125mm ammo space in the MBT and leave the 45mm rounds to the IFVs.

But don't you agree that a 50 cal will have less ammo and will not be more powerful than a 40mm grenade launcher? I think the combination of 30 cal MG and 40mm grenade launcher combine punch and ammo capacity and accuracy for dealing with point targets to 1.2-1.5km and area targets out to 2.5km.
I suspect a 50 cal mount will have 500 rounds or so, while a 30 cal will have 2,000 rounds ready to fire.
The 400 odd 40mm grenades will be very useful too.

That is the issue... the IFVs will sometimes operate with tanks and other times operate alone depending on the mission and the requirements for the MBT are of course to be able to penetrate all the enemy armoured vehicles, while the IFV needs to be able to penetrate the enemies equivalent vehicles... some of the new NATO IFVs are over 30 tons.

In COIN operations where the threat of enemy armour is zero then a BMPT like vehicle would probably be rather more useful than a tank.

It had a 120mm rifled gun/mortar and would be no good as a tank due to lack of velocity of its main gun. It pretty much has to be a BMPT model... and the 23mm gatling gun pretty much confirms it... most ground targets don't require a 23mm cannon firing at 12,000 rpm... used in 5 or 10 round bursts however it would be devastating to ground targets to have 5-10 23mm HE rounds bursting on target almost at once... like a cluster bomb filling the air with shrapnel.

IFV is to transport and support troops in combat. The BMPT is a substitute for infantry support for tanks in places where exposed infantry would not last very long. IFVs carry troops and also the firepower to support those troops and take on tanks (with ATGMs) and enemy IFVs (with 45/57mm gun). BMPT is supposed to take on groups of enemy forces operating ATGMs or hiding in buildings or cliffs above or below the line of sight of standard tank main armament... it is an anti ambush vehicle and could also be used as a convoy escort.

Werewolf wrote:

George1 wrote:Armata T-15 will be BMPT Terminator replacement if i guess right?

IMO, the T-15 looks weak armored when you look at the engine compartment and i hope it is not BMPT replacement, because right now it does not look like it would be capable to drive along side of T-14's and taking hits from Tanks.

I really hope the BMPT is the version with GSh-6-23 gatling or 30mm 2A42.