BMPT "Terminator"

Hole wrote:

Is this taken from the present exercises or just a press photo?

Hole wrote:I found it on a website with pics from Kavkaz-2020.

BMPT is active in this exercise. You could see it behind Tunguska on the picture.

Have since read that the BMPT's were assigned to both Tank and Motor Rifle units during these exercises to determine Operational uses and values. Apparently future uses and or purchases will be based on this trial.

franco wrote:Have since read that the BMPT's were assigned to both Tank and Motor Rifle units during these exercises to determine Operational uses and values. Apparently future uses and or purchases will be based on this trial.

BMPT's for tracked and wheeled vehicles, I don't see why it couldn't be viable for both.

magnumcromagnon wrote:BMPT's for tracked and wheeled vehicles, I don't see why it couldn't be viable for both.

Well, the BMPT is a novel kind of vehicle which is essentially a tank but with different armament. So they need to figure out how to integrate it in existing units, will tanks be removed to make space for them, BMPs or will they just be added? At what level will the be integrated? Company, battalion? Of course they need to make many tests to understand how it can be deployed with the least burden and maximum use...

The concept of the BMPT is a tank support vehicle... a vehicle designed to operate with tanks in places where troops operating out in the open would be slaughtered.... ie the enemy well equipped with sniper rifles and machine guns and mines etc etc, so instead of having BMPs or BTRs with troops that remain in the vehicles doing nothing, unable to be deployed safely to do anything, it would be the BMPs and BTRs that would be replaced by the BMPTs which don't carry troops, and would drive around like the BTRs and BMPs would have driven around except with more ammo and no troops.

The thing is that the BMPs and BTRs driving around with troops on board would be more vulnerable than Tanks because of their thinner armour, while the BMPT has tank level armour.... so essentially you are replacing troop carrying light vehicles that can't deploy their troops safely and have lighter armour than the tanks, with vehicles with tank levels of armour but also fire power optimised for engaging troops and snipers and ATGMs teams and drones and the like that normal tanks would struggle with. Of course the tanks can deal with enemy tanks and much more besides but the BMPT compliments them.

Ironically in an Armata force eventually even a T-15 has tank level armour so replace the troops with more ammo and perhaps rear mounted remote weapon stations that could be individually scanning for snipers and ATGM teams with perhaps 40mm grenade launchers and PK rifle calibre machine guns independently of the main turret...

Is the Terminator missed much the target ?

I was watching the below video (check from the minute 11 ) where the Terminator fired much on it's targets but what i see is less hits , what am i missing here ?

What is the accuracy of 2A42 gun compared to the US GAU-8 Avenger "5 mil, 80 percent " ? because if it's the same , the cannon should theoretically hit the target very well from the low range at the video but i'm not sure it did ,plz correct me if i'm wrong .

ahmedfire wrote:Is the Terminator missed much the target ?

I was watching the below video (check from the minute 11 ) where the Terminator fired much on it's targets but what i see is less hits , what am i missing here ?

What is the accuracy of 2A42 gun compared to the US GAU-8 Avenger "5 mil, 80 percent " ? because if it's the same , the cannon should theoretically hit the target very well from the low range at the video but i'm not sure it did ,plz correct me if i'm wrong .

Although the guns are dual-feed but each gun uses single-feed only, one gun for HE rounds, the other for AP rounds. In order to save rounds, depend on every target they open fire on one gun only. From the video you can see this clearly. From that gun set up, when firing, the very strong gun recoil makes the turret spin then the ballistic is less accuracy.

I was watching the below video (check from the minute 11 ) where the Terminator fired much on it's targets but what i see is less hits , what am i missing here ?

Those rounds were fired on the move and the 2A42 can fire at different firing rates... high for aircraft and low for ground targets... the higher rate gives a better spread of shells to improve the chances of hitting a moving target.

The armour piercing rounds it fires are not tracer and have no HE component so impacts are often not obvious because there is no flash of explosion.

The material in front of the BRDM-2 is wood so there were no sparks either to indicate impact.

Look at  19:12 on the video at the target placed in front of the BRDM-2 and see how close together the rounds actually hit... admittedly from a rather short distance, but those sort of groupings are very very good for a cannon of this power even at such short ranges.

Accuracy is important for shooting other IFVs and that target shows a rather close grouping at a very close range.

Longer bursts and more shots would be fired at targets further away to assure a kill.

From that gun set up, when firing, the very strong gun recoil makes the turret spin then the ballistic is less accuracy.

Nah... that is rubbish... the vehicle is a T-90/72 based design... that turret ring is ment to take the recoil of a full power 125mm tank gun... the recoil from one 30mm cannon in comparison is pathetic.

During the conflict in Georgia and now Syria the twin barrel 30mm cannon used in the Su-25 has had its design altered slightly to allow a much wider range of fire rates added to the system. In Georgia they were firing 20-30 rounds at targets that only needed 4-6 rounds to destroy, and had similar problems in Syria so the twin 30mm gun was modified to allow different burst rates and also allow different numbers of rounds to be fired in each burst (at about 3,500rpm cyclic rate).

This gun is also used on the Hind with the fixed twin 30mm cannon scabbed to the side of the aircraft.

I always thought it would be a much better choice for use in the Terminator because you could use one twin barrel gun with much higher rate of fire in bursts.

They could limit the rate at which ammo is used up by selecting suitable burst rates for the various targets.


Most of the time the guns will be used against area targets and light vehicles, so pinpoint accuracy is not critical, but could certainly be improved by stopping and firing single shots or very short bursts...

The 30mm calibre is standardised across their forces, but their different guns use different ammo... the 2A42 (BMP-2) and the 2A72 (BMP-3 and early Pantsir) and the twin barrel 2A38M (Tunguska and current model Pantsir) all use percussion firing, while the 30mm cannon used by the air force on the 30mm cannon on the Hind and Su-25 and the single barrel 30mm cannons on their fighters use electric ignition, and each branch... army, navy, and air force all use different rounds optimised for their different applications.

Air burst 30mm shells will dramatically improve the potency of the Terminator and I suspect as the Bulat gets into mass production and as enemy IFVs get heavier and better armoured then a small missile will be more effective than a 30mm cannon for dealing with the problem.

In places like Syria a 30mm cannon is fine, but frontline Europe they will probably need to go for a 57mm gun... but surprisingly probably the 57mm grenade launcher for its extra HE punch and the 57mm APFSDS rounds it fires will be much more powerful than the 30mm equivalents...

Although the guns are dual-feed but each gun uses single-feed only, one gun for HE rounds, the other for AP rounds. In order to save rounds, depend on every target they open fire on one gun only. From the video you can see this clearly. From that gun set up, when firing, the very strong gun recoil makes the turret spin then the ballistic is less accuracy.

They said  the barrel was cushioned and rolls back by 35 mm when fired to reduce the recoil force of the gun ,also the turret is big enough to handle such back power .

The thing with the 2A42 gun though is that it isn't a precision weapon - its more of a volume of fire weapon, a machinegun just upsized. One of the design requirements was the capability to eliminate enemy manpower in prepared positions as well as enemy aviation - both targets requiring high ROF and relatively low precision to ensure a nice spread on the target to ensure adequate coverage of the targets.

So ,do you mean the “not high accuracy” was intentionally considered during the design stage and they care more about the high ROF and moderate accuracy ,and this is the same case on BMP-2, BMD-2,3, BTR-90, BMPT,  KA-50,52, MI-28N ?
What about 2A72 on BMP-3 , same accuracy ?

Look at  19:12 on the video at the target placed in front of the BRDM-2 and see how close together the rounds actually hit... admittedly from a rather short distance, but those sort of groupings are very very good for a cannon of this power even at such short ranges.

Yes I notices that before , I guess the multiple cameras repeated some firing scenes from different angles , may be that’s I get confused and thought there were too much fired rounds .

I’m wondering what it would be on 1500 m range because in long range firing on ground targets , the accuracy matters specially when the ammo is limited ,  this is the only way the gunner can effectively eliminate armoured targets at long range while still having enough ammunition to complete the rest of the objective.But in situations where accuracy may only have supplementary value, such as when engaging large concentrations of manpower, the 2A42 is at a clear advantage over the US MK44 or the British RARDEN ,both of them are more accurate .

And the high ROF would be killer also against Tanks by destroying  exterior devices such as tracks, periscopes, sensors, weapons and also can hit the active protection system of enemy tanks then the main gun can fire on them ,then the vehicle can leave quickly under the cover of a smokescreen.

What will be impressive is the 30-mm projectiles with remote detonation on the trajectory using a laser beam ,this will highly increase the capabilities of air defense systems equipped with 30-mm automatic cannons to combat small-sized and maneuvering targets.

The next step could be the creation of guided projectiles in 30 mm caliber as they are doing with the 57mm caliber .

In places like Syria a 30mm cannon is fine

I check some data before and it's showing for Pantsir that most of targets were hit by the system missiles not the 30mm cannon specially for small UAVs and unguided munitions .

Need translation  

Need translation

The 3 middle columns are for Distance-Height-target speed  

First column is date. Second is location. Last one is number of missiles used and one before the end is names of targets.

Targets from top to bellow :

Balloon
3 bm 21 like Rockets
Israeli Heron drone
Mini drone (IMO civilian made with a grenade on it made by terrorist)
Turkish Bayraktar
Heron
US mq-21 drone
Aerostat (balloon)
I think terrorist made drone
Heron.


Ranges at which they were downed are not great... only Heron is destroyed at long range. Turkish beyraktar was destroyed only 3 km away but its missiles can be used from further away than just 3km.

Hopefully pantsir SM can do better.

A 57mm gun with air burst shells would be better than the 30mm guns. All those targets could have been destroy by it. Time fuze or radio signal from pantsir fuze would be good enough. The radar on the pantsir are better than optical systems on the new 57mm gun.

The 30mm guns however create cloud against close target making escape totally impossible. Buy they don't seem to use them effectively in tge export models...

Hole wrote:Did they hit the base? No.

Turkish Mam missiles have a 8-14km range. If they can destroy the Bayraktar drone only at 3-4km then that sucks and the pantsir will loose if the drone detects it early. Cammo can help the pantsir but until today no pantsir were nicely hidden.

However pantsir SM has a much better radar. Pantsir S2 also has a better radar but they both cost more than the basic S1 variant.

So ,do you mean the “not high accuracy” was intentionally considered during the design stage and they care more about the high ROF and moderate accuracy ,and this is the same case on BMP-2, BMD-2,3, BTR-90, BMPT, KA-50,52, MI-28N ?
What about 2A72 on BMP-3 , same accuracy ?

Accuracy is relative... it needs to hit a vehicle sized target most of the time out to 2km range. With HE rounds it is intended to hit area targets out to 4km.

Yes I notices that before , I guess the multiple cameras repeated some firing scenes from different angles , may be that’s I get confused and thought there were too much fired rounds .

Some of the video showed impacts all over the place... but that could have been the 30mm grenade launcher...

I’m wondering what it would be on 1500 m range because in long range firing on ground targets , the accuracy matters specially when the ammo is limited , this is the only way the gunner can effectively eliminate armoured targets at long range while still having enough ammunition to complete the rest of the objective.

Accuracy out to 1.5km with AP rounds should be a 2m by 2m box of impacts.. so a burst of 4-5 rounds will put most rounds inside that box. One AP hit is not likely to take out an enemy armoured vehicle most often bursts and multiple hits will be required especially a moving target.

But in situations where accuracy may only have supplementary value, such as when engaging large concentrations of manpower, the 2A42 is at a clear advantage over the US MK44 or the British RARDEN ,both of them are more accurate .

I would want actual proof those other guns are actually more accurate.

Commonly for shooting at small fast moving targets like an aircraft mounted gun accuracy is not that important as most of the time the target is less than 400m away anyway.

And the high ROF would be killer also against Tanks by destroying exterior devices such as tracks, periscopes, sensors, weapons and also can hit the active protection system of enemy tanks then the main gun can fire on them ,then the vehicle can leave quickly under the cover of a smokescreen.

For use against ground targets very high rates of fire are wasteful. Russian guns for ground targets like the 2A42 and 2A72 have single barrels and fire at much lower rates than their aircraft carried weapons with twin and six barrel cannon.

The 2A42 cannon is used in the Terminator because it is reliable in dusty conditions.

What will be impressive is the 30-mm projectiles with remote detonation on the trajectory using a laser beam ,this will highly increase the capabilities of air defense systems equipped with 30-mm automatic cannons to combat small-sized and maneuvering targets.

The next step could be the creation of guided projectiles in 30 mm caliber as they are doing with the 57mm caliber .

Command detonation round will be very very useful but 30mm shells are not big enough or powerful enough to make useful guided models of them... guided rounds in larger calibres make much more sense.

I check some data before and it's showing for Pantsir that most of targets were hit by the system missiles not the 30mm cannon specially for small UAVs and unguided munitions .

No.... what I mean to say is that the drones the air defence gun vehicles are used to hit would be much more effective with air burst command detonated 30mm cannon shells, but for the BMPT which is not for air defence, the targets it has to deal with in Syria mean 30mm is fine as most enemy vehicles are trucks and not 40+ ton APCs like HATO has.

Ranges at which they were downed are not great... only Heron is destroyed at long range. Turkish beyraktar was destroyed only 3 km away but its missiles can be used from further away than just 3km.

Hopefully pantsir SM can do better.

Performance could be much better with air burst 30mm shells... and much cheaper than using missiles too.

A 57mm gun with air burst shells would be better than the 30mm guns. All those targets could have been destroy by it. Time fuze or radio signal from pantsir fuze would be good enough. The radar on the pantsir are better than optical systems on the new 57mm gun.

Adding a couple of vehicles with 57mm guns to the Pantsir battery sharing radar information would be ideal... the airburst 57mm rounds will likely still be cheaper than any Pantsir missile... and it would also be very good for taking out VIEDs too.

Turkish Mam missiles have a 8-14km range. If they can destroy the Bayraktar drone only at 3-4km then that sucks and the pantsir will loose if the drone detects it early. Cammo can help the pantsir but until today no pantsir were nicely hidden.

TOR can shoot down those missiles... drones can use very low flying techniques so it is not visible to anything until it gets very close anyway...

Start locating where these drones are made or stored and start hitting them early...

There is no way that those short barrels can produce precision hits at the range shown. They were never designed for long range engagements.
As noted in the video the Terminator is designed for tank support via Ataka missiles and for urban warfare where it can turn its turret without hitting
anything with a long barrel. Urban warfare is street to street and house to house and for this purpose those guns are ideal.

Buk proved to be the best cost/effective solution to destroy drones. Its powerfull radars always spot them and intercept them at great distances.

There is no way that those short barrels can produce precision hits at the range shown. They were never designed for long range engagements.

Those are full length 2A42 80 calibre 30mm cannons as used on the BMP-2...

They are supposed to get hits on armoured vehicles out to 2km so that accuracy at that very short range looks about right.

If it can't hit an armoured Bradley or Warrior at 2km then it is in for a bad day because those vehicles are going to be firing back from that range with AP rounds too.

As noted in the video the Terminator is designed for tank support via Ataka missiles and for urban warfare where it can turn its turret without hitting
anything with a long barrel. Urban warfare is street to street and house to house and for this purpose those guns are ideal.

They are designed for use in any situation where BMP and BTR troop transports don't make sense, and they are intended to provide support to tanks... the tanks will be engaging the enemy tanks and armoured vehicles and troop positions, while the BMP-T will be engaging enemy IFVs and APCs and troops as well including snipers and machine gun positions and ATGM teams.

Buk proved to be the best cost/effective solution to destroy drones. Its powerfull radars always spot them and intercept them at great distances.

Very effective but not cost effective... those missiles are not cheap.

What they need is a concerted plan that includes guns and missiles and EW equipment to destroy drones and locate where they come from so sources can be shelled.

They also need to operate their own drones without shooting them down or disabling them electronically...

They have command detonated 30mm cannon shells, but I think a 40mm grenade that command detonates would also be valuable in this fight because a 40mm grenade could be designed to carry a massive front mounted payload of fragments designed to be fired forward like a claymore mine... it could be fired at drones and detonated just before reaching them showering the area with fragments with a good chance of hitting any drones. It could also be used against enemy troops on the ground and light vehicles and barricades.

They could be used over very short ranges as a self defence munition... fired in bursts they could send a lot of fragments out very quickly.

Most importantly because they are detonated in the air they don't pose a danger to friendlies like a PKM burst or HMG burst in the air would.

7.62x54mm R rounds would be dangerous 3-4km around the point of fire which is an enormous danger zone... a 40mm grenade detonated in the air would be very dangerous within about 50m or so from the blast point forward... but beyond that the fragments would lose their velocity quickly and soon become harmless.

A drone in the class of predator or orion or Bt2 cost few million dollars. A buk missile is worth destroying them and you have more chance to hit them well before they can use their weapons.

Pantsir S1 in syria proved to be too short on radar detection to be invulnarable against them.

We are talking about big expensive drones.

GarryB wrote:

There is no way that those short barrels can produce precision hits at the range shown. They were never designed for long range engagements.

Those are full length 2A42 80 calibre 30mm cannons as used on the BMP-2...

They are supposed to get hits on armoured vehicles out to 2km so that accuracy at that very short range looks about right.

If it can't hit an armoured Bradley or Warrior at 2km then it is in for a bad day because those vehicles are going to be firing back from that range with AP rounds too.

That is not what I am saying. The discussion here seems to be obsessed with the notion that bull's eye hits from 2 km with such guns is feasible.
It never will be. The scatter you see in the rounds is what you will get no matter which country makes such guns. It's physics.

ahmedfire wrote:Is the Terminator missed much the target ?

I was watching the below video (check from the minute 11 ) where the Terminator fired much on it's targets but what i see is less hits , what am i missing here ?

What is the accuracy of 2A42 gun compared to the US GAU-8 Avenger "5 mil, 80 percent " ? because if it's the same , the cannon should theoretically hit the target very well from the low range at the video but i'm not sure it did ,plz correct me if i'm wrong .

Yes, 2a42 is highly inaccurate when firing at high rate.

https://youtu.be/6hfK72VRfqA

To fix this you either fire low RPM, like how 2a72 does (less accurate cannot) or install support bracket. Support bracket on terminator was tested and not needed.