BMPT "Terminator"

You just have to look at the design of weapons... each design choice will be based on certain factors.

For instance the modern Bradley IFV weighs about the same as a WWII T-34 tank.
In comparison a modern T-90AM is actually lighter than most models of KV-1 heavy tanks from WWII.

The BMP-3 could have been as heavy as the Bradley, but the BMP-3 has to be amphibious... which limits weight.

Different period of time also effect design... for a while the idea of a variable sweep wing seemed to be the solution to how do you get a mach 2 plane to take off from a short or damaged airstrip. More modern sophisticated wing designs like that of the Mig-29 and Su-27 mean the heavy and complicated swinging wing was no longer desired.

Different design solutions offer certain capabilities and certain limitations and while similar requirements or similar flight profiles as with the US Space Shuttle and the Soviet Buran can result in similar external shapes, the internal designs can often be strikingly different. I have mentioned before that the US space shuttle is like a heavy transport plane with an enormous external fuel tank and RATO or JATO rockets to get the whole aircraft moving, while it lands like a glider. The Buran is a glider that sits on a rocket that basically goes up and comes down as a glider. The huge advantage is if you are building a space station with the Buran you can take the Buran off and just launch a 120 ton item in a fairing on the back of the rocket and take it up in one piece... 3-4 launches would allow most of the current ISS to be taken up together.

Anyway what I am saying is that each problem will have several solutions with different consequences for each solution. The science is finding all the optional solutions, while the art is choosing the options that give the best results.

For instance if you are an Island nation in the Pacific and you need to reduce your carbon emissions, but you want stable electricity supplies an option for the future could be to hire a nuclear power station on a boat from Russia. This would eliminate coal and oil fired energy production, and it would also allow for desalination of sea water, which is very important for small island nations who can be subject to serious droughts and water quality issues.

I agree with you here. Design of weapons and military structure is base on Country's doctrine, which they decide to have. Doctrine is like choosing which type of music you want to compose and play, like opera, jazz, rock, etc. As type of music decide a group of players and instruments in it, military doctrine decide type of weaponry and military structure. Doctrine is also based on your strategic needs.
But at the end of the story you still have to know, how to use them.

For instance if you are an Island nation in the Pacific and you need to reduce your carbon emissions, but you want stable electricity supplies an option for the future could be to hire a nuclear power station on a boat from Russia. This would eliminate coal and oil fired energy production, and it would also allow for desalination of sea water, which is very important for small island nations who can be subject to serious droughts and water quality issues.

[quote]

True. But you also have other choices there. Pacific plate is tectonically active, so you could use geothermal energy, which also don't have emissions and in case of disaster there won't be nuclear contamination. Also over seas there are constant winds, so you could also consider wind power plants.

GarryB wrote:

The purpose of the original upgrade of the 57mm ammo was to replace the now obsolete 76.2mm gun fitted to the PT-76 series light tanks.
The consideration as a new weapon for BMPs is based on the increased armour of enemy IFV to a level where AP 30mm ammo simply doesn't cut it any more.

Going for a 76.2mm round is too big a step, a 57mm shell designed using modern materials and technology should allow engagement of enemy IFVs to reasonable ranges with APFSDS rounds.
The guided shells are for softer targets including aircraft that would normally require a lot of rounds to engage... with a guided shell you should be able to hit it first time.

Modern acoustic systems can detect gunshots and determine the calibre and source of the fire in fractions of a second. Having a 57mm cannon that could hit point targets out to 6-8km means that a well camouflaged sniper might suddenly have a 3kg projectile bursting into his hide at 800m/s to ruin his day.

Actually its not that much weight difference between 57vs75mm guns ,surprisingly very little. and with 75mm you have the potential to fire guided 3-submunition.
Dual gun 57mm are even heavier then 75mm.
75mm with high elevation could be used as a mortar too ,so you dont need a seperate mortar tube in the back of the vehicle.
When you take off 15 ton turret ,i think bmpt should have the strongest front armor out there,better then any tank.

Actually its not that much weight difference between 57vs75mm guns ,surprisingly very little. and with 75mm you have the potential to fire guided 3-submunition.
Dual gun 57mm are even heavier then 75mm.

I was thinking more in terms of ammo weight and size.

To have a good APFSDS round you really can't have a low velocity round like the 100mm round used with the 2A70 of the BMP-3.

You need a large shell case and a high velocity projectile... for a 76.2mm gun that means a really big round.

Here is a photo of German WWII 75mm shells... have a close look at the 75 x 640R shell as a good example of a good high velocity 75mm shell, and compare it to the 50 x 420R round a bit further to the left down the line.
The 57mm shell used with the S-60 and being considered for the BMP-4 is a 57 x 347SR shell that is a bit fatter than the German 50mm shell but its shell case is shorter so in many ways the enormous size of the 75mm shown gives you an idea of the difference compared to the 50mm.



Here is the 57mm shell itself with different rounds around it:



Very simply if you want 76.2mm shells you will probably get 30 into a vehicle that is also carrying troops like a BMP is.

If you go for 57mm you could probably get 70-80 shells.

The three warhead "dart" system of the Starstreak is largely unproven in combat AFAIK, and to be brutally honest I think it is a bad idea. Having three guided high velocity darts is supposed to spread the damage and increase hit probability, but it also increases the miss probability at the same time and reduces the lethality of each warhead to penetration damage.

A guided round should be able to hit the target without needing multiple warheads... even just a good proximity fuse is better than multiple warheads.

I would think a single heavy guided projectile would make rather more sense... especially with a delayed action HE charge to detonate the round inside lightly protected targets.

For ground targets a modern FCS should make APHE shells accurate enough without needing the complication or expense of guidance and their lethality against IFV should make them effective. An APFSDS round for use against heavier armour would be dangerous to the sides and rear of any tank in service.
The guided shells would be most useful for hitting point targets at extended ranges like MG nests or snipers or ATGM teams/vehicles... and of course aircraft whose manouvering would otherwise require an enormous expenditure of ammo to hit.

Right now NATO IFVs are protected from 30mm AP ammo from the front and the decision seems to be between a new 45mm shell or a 57mm shell... 76mm is too big a step in my opinion as in many ways the weight and recoil, you are getting to the point where in terms of ammo capacity and recoil requirements that a 125mm gun might make even more sense than introducing a totally new 76.2mm calibre round.

5 man crew but 2 men are commanding granade launchers position?? not much advantage there. better 3 man crew with 5-6 transported troops in the rear (something ukranians did with their t-80 tank-modification). cv-90 uses 120mm gun as optional weapon.http://www.military-today.com/tanks/cv90120t_l3.jpg

The Israelis seem to have come to the conclusion that troops in a tank are not such a good idea in combat after all.

It was much more useful to use that extra space for more ammo.

For the BMPT its purpose is to support tanks in places where BMP level armoured vehicles and infantry are vulnerable.

As such the idea of bow gunners is to create a situation where the vehicle can deal with multiple threats at once... ideally one each for the bow gunners and one for the turret.

Personally I think it could be better executed with proper external gun positions that have a decent traverse (say 200 degrees plus to the front and sides). Grenade launchers offer good fire power and range in a fairly compact weapon, though ammo supply is limited to a minutes worth of ammo.

well this all started because you wanted to add anti-aircraft capability and guided shells to bmpt, i agree every fighting vehicle should be able to deal with as many battlefield situations as it can ,and as much as it can, but lets not overload it... so its still a balancing issue and thats why i said its work in progress first...and may stay like that for a long time.for example if you add small UAVs at the place of those clumsy launchers , you add a new crewmember to the mix ,to control and observe trough them ,that needs armor new internal arangements etc... so who knows.

well this all started because you wanted to add anti-aircraft capability and guided shells to bmpt

Actually the opposite is true. BMPT was created to replace anti-aircraft guns from ground combat, because they are expensive, in small numbers and with weak armor. BMPT could do air defense job in self defense, but otherwise it is build for ground fightings. But you are correct, for replacing AA guns, you build something similar to them.

well this all started because you wanted to add anti-aircraft capability and guided shells to bmpt,

Not really, remember I personally have no real say in the design requirements and the design requirements included the demand for some anti aircraft self defence capability... and believe it or not on the BMPT that is actually the ATAKA missiles, because they can hit UAVs and helos to 5-6km range whereas the 30mm cannon can only be effective against aircraft out to 4km or so... plus it expends an enormous amount of 30mm rounds to hit one target, so they will most likely use ATAKA.

As Medo points out the previous "firepower" vehicle they used were Shilkas or Tunguskas, and before that it was BTR-40s and BTR-152s with twin HMG (14.5mm) or cannon (23mm)... and before that it was direct fire artillery like the ISU-122.

When you get to a building that is offering fierce resistance a 125mm shell will damage it, but a burst of 200 x 30mm cannon shells is devastating in one sudden burst.

I am suggesting precision and HE power replace pure volume, so a 100mm shell from a rifled barrel is quite accurate already... a laser guided 57mm cannon shell has a lot less HE power but with laser guided shells you can put the round precisely where it will have the most effect.

The 100mm gun from the BMP-3 is already in service and the ammo is compact and effective.

The 57mm gun is being considered for the BMP-4 or whatever it might be called, but its shells are quite enormous as it is a high velocity round.

A telescoped case round would make the whole round much more compact, but would be more expensive to develop from scratch.

There is reportedly a 45mm gun in development that might even be used by CAS aircraft and on naval vessels, but a new 57mm round could be adapted the same ways too... the added shell capacity making guided rounds very attractive.

Imagine for example replacing the 30mm gun turrets on naval vessels with 57mm gun turrets firing streams of laser guided shells at incoming threats... a burst of 4-8 rounds per target for a very high kill probability...

Plus the larger calibre will be more use in other roles including against land, sea and air targets.

thats why i said its work in progress first...and may stay like that for a long time.

I completely agree there... I rather think they are not really sure exactly what they want.

I would think the cheapest and simplest way to improve what they have at the moment is to replace the bow gun positions with proper turrets with decent arcs of fire and elevation to make them more independent of where the vehicle is facing.
Base it on the BMO vehicle as it has more internal space.
I like the low profile turret with the turret crew below the turret ring for protection, but I would replace the two 2A42 cannon with a single GSh-30K as used on the Hind... it has longer barrels than the gun used on the Su-25 and a lower rate of fire (2,000rpm high and 350rpm low vs 3,000 for the GSh-30) and the longer barrels give it the higher muzzle velocity of 940m/s with standard rounds.
The extra weight of 126kgs shouldn't be too important as the 2A42 weighs 115kg each.

I would think updating the missiles would be a good move... take off the 4 ATAKAs and perhaps go for 8 Kornet-EM missiles.

Round it all off by adding a turret mounted 40mm auto grenade launcher Balkan and make the hull mounted turret weapons a PKT and Balkan so the bow gunners can fire either a 7.62mm MG round or a 40mm grenade at the target.

I would also point out that the BMPT will likely also be used to protect convoys... something they often used Shilkas and Tunguskas for and also simply ZU-23 towed anti aircraft guns on the back of trucks were found to be effective in dealing with attacks on convoys.

For such a role lots of MGs and grenade launchers and a twin barrel 30mm cannon would be ideal fire power to beat off an attack.

The other role is to protect tanks in "bad" tank country... urban environments is one, but hedgerows, or places where enemy infantry can get close to your tanks.

Tanks have excellent long range visibility and fire power but up close their view is poor and their armament is even worse because of its limited ability to elevate both the main gun and the coaxial MG.

Note some French tanks tried to solve that problem and the problem of enemy attack helos by putting 20mm cannons next to the main gun in a special mount that allowed them to elevate higher and lower than the main gun.

They didn't continue the tradition with Leclerc.

medo wrote:

well this all started because you wanted to add anti-aircraft capability and guided shells to bmpt

Actually the opposite is true. BMPT was created to replace anti-aircraft guns from ground combat, because they are expensive, in small numbers and with weak armor. BMPT could do air defense job in self defense, but otherwise it is build for ground fightings. But you are correct, for replacing AA guns, you build something similar to them.

oh but i though russian land army already had plenty of those?! They seem to invest alot into it.
Then ok you can put top turret from tunguska on t-72 modification with additional armour, frontal engine ,and rear infantry compartment.

Then ok you can put top turret from tunguska on t-72 modification with additional armour, frontal engine ,and rear infantry compartment.

In a way that is what the BMPT is.

It is the 30mm cannon firepower of two BMP-2s but with protection levels of a tank.

It can go where tanks go but can engage targets that tanks can't elevate their main guns to engage.

Giving it 2,500rpm 2A38M twin barrel guns of the Tunguska will mean they will need much more ammo storage and the difference on ground targets between 10-12 shells per second and 30-40 shells per second is not really that great in terms of effect on target.

In terms of rate of ammo usage however the difference is significant.

My suggestion of replacing the two 2A42 cannons with a single twin barrel GSh-30K would allow a 2,000rpm rate of fire if needed, but its low rate of 300-400rpm would be useful against most ordinary ground targets with a lighter weapon (126kgs vs 115kgx2) would not be a huge change, though i do admit that adding a 100mm 2A70 rifled medium pressure gun in an external mount is a more significant step... I just think 100mm HE shells are cheaper than missiles and would offer good accuracy and a heavy punch to target in awkward locations... like an ATGM position half way up a building in an urban area.

oh but i though russian land army already had plenty of those?! They seem to invest alot into it.
Then ok you can put top turret from tunguska on t-72 modification with additional armour, frontal engine ,and rear infantry compartment.

And get another Tunguska? They have Tuguska for its job. BMPT is to replace Tunguska in ground fighting not in air defense. BMPT doesn't need radars and specialized air defense computers. BMPT have only optical FCS with laser range finder and ballistic computer with 30 mm guns with rate of fire at 1000 round/min. Tunguska's rate of fire with 5000 r/min is too high and you will be very quickly out of ammo. BMPT is needed and it have its place in armor units. It could get some more improvements, but at the end it is still good compromise for the job, it is designed for.

It could get some more improvements, but at the end it is still good compromise for the job, it is designed for.

Yes... some of the firepower of an air defence gun vehicle but having the protection and mobility of a tank so it can go where tanks go.

Looking at the external 30 cal MG mount on the T-90AM I think something like that could be a good idea for replacing the limited field of view bow gun positions.

Make them lower profile mounts with a wider elevation range and angle them so they can traverse to shoot to the side of the vehicle as well as cover the entire front of the vehicle as well as depress to -10 degrees and elevate to 70-80 degrees would be the aim. Ideally you could mount an automatic grenade launcher above or below the machine gun so the gunner can select the ammo type based on the target.

It is pretty clear from the T-90AM design that they really don't like external ammo storage plainly because they see it as being too vulnerable to enemy fire and fitting 100mm HE ammo and a decent amount of 30mm cannon shells below the turret ring will be difficult.

The irony is that the 57mm cannon shells of the old S-60 are actually bigger than the 100mm shells of the BMP-3 which is optimised for short range use against point and area targets, so even going for a middle calibre might not be that good either.

It all depends on what sort of performance they get from that 45mm calibre round.

Another option could be to use weapons with the most compact ammo, so the 30mm could be replaced by the 23mm shell used by the last model Hinds... unlike the ZSU-23-4s 23 x 152mm high velocity shell, it uses the 14.5 x 114mm rounds shell case that results in the 23 x 114mm round with low velocity (about 700m/s) but with a relatively heavy projectile and a high rate of fire.

So many choices.

medo wrote:

oh but i though russian land army already had plenty of those?! They seem to invest alot into it.
Then ok you can put top turret from tunguska on t-72 modification with additional armour, frontal engine ,and rear infantry compartment.

And get another Tunguska? They have Tuguska for its job. BMPT is to replace Tunguska in ground fighting not in air defense. BMPT doesn't need radars and specialized air defense computers. BMPT have only optical FCS with laser range finder and ballistic computer with 30 mm guns with rate of fire at 1000 round/min. Tunguska's rate of fire with 5000 r/min is too high and you will be very quickly out of ammo. BMPT is needed and it have its place in armor units. It could get some more improvements, but at the end it is still good compromise for the job, it is designed for.

somebody said before its suppose to have Anti-aircraft role too,so is it, ore is it not, a requirement? im confused now. and what do you think about the placement of the missiles on terminator ? i think its not good so much in the open? could a hrizantema scheme be used ,or thor vertical launch?

somebody said before its suppose to have Anti-aircraft role too,so is it, ore is it not, a requirement? im confused now. and what do you think about the placement of the missiles on terminator ? i think its not good so much in the open? could a hrizantema scheme be used ,or thor vertical launch?

BMPT is not anti-aircraft vehicle nor tank hunter. BMPT could do both jobs with its armament, but it's only in self defense. They are not its main task. BMPT is ground fighting vehicle meant to replace AA guns in ground fightings against infantry, that is why it doesn't need radars. You are correct. If you are building something to replace AA guns in ground fightings, that you get something with similar capabilities. So yes, if unit with BMPTs is cached in battle without air defense protection from other systems, it could conditionlly take this role as self defense, but need outside source of informations about air targets, because its capabilities here are still limited. Good C4I could do that job.

The ability to engage enemy helos and UAVs/UCAVs is for immediate self defence only.

The ATAKAs will not have HEAT warheads, they are primarily for the anti air role to hit point moving targets at long range.

Considering the Kristantema is replacing the ATAKA I think it would make sense to use it to replace the ATAKA here.

A point target like a TOW team would be easier to engage with a 125mm ANIET shell.

The two main purposes of these vehicles is to operate with and compliment tanks... offering fire power against certain targets and to suppress enemy infantry when needed, and as a convoy protection vehicle where its fire power would be used to beat off an attack that might be infantry or vehicle based.

Part of the problem is that the requirements are not totally clearly defined... in many ways a BMP-3 armament would be useful with perhaps the single barrel 2A72 cannon replaced with the higher rate of fire twin barrel GSh=30K... firing the same ammo at either 2,000 rpm or 350 rpm... the latter to improve accuracy and save ammo.

The ATAKAs will not have HEAT warheads, they are primarily for the anti air role to hit point moving targets at long range.

I think ATAKA missile with thermobaric warhead is for both soft point targets on the ground and in the air. For anti air role would be better to place Igla missiles than ATAKA, which have to be guided until target is hit.

I think ATAKA missile with thermobaric warhead is for both soft point targets on the ground and in the air.

The Russians will be planning for a range of conflict types... conflict in Afghanistan or Chechnia will not likely involve enemy air power of any kind, yet a conflict against Georgia will involve enemy air power.

Obviously it is not a loading problem for the ATAKA because it only has one explosive warhead for soft targets would be effective against soft ground and aerial targets of all types.

For anti air role would be better to place Igla missiles than ATAKA, which have to be guided until target is hit.

ATAKA uses a similar automatic guidance system to the Kornet-EM... it is a heavy missile designed for use from Helos or large vehicles and actually offers probably better hit performance than Igla against very low flying targets like helos hovering near trees.

Iglas would not be as dual purpose as ATAKA and would have a much smaller warhead.

The purpose of the BMPT is fire power with the armour of tanks.

in the new structure of heavy, medium and light brigades... that means only the heavy brigades will have BMPT fire power vehicles... and the purpose of the BMPT was to bring BMP fire power up to the armour level of the tanks it operates with... now if every vehicle in the heavy brigade uses the same Armata chassis that means there will be troop transports (BTRs) and infantry fighting vehicles (BMPs) with tank levels of armour already. Those BTRs will likely already have infantry with Igla-S gripstocks and a few missiles... and later on perhaps Verba gripstocks too.
Equally there will be an air defence vehicle based on Pantsir-S1 on an Armata chassis... the problem of course will be ammo capacity, but if the heavy brigade was being used in the Afghan war in the 1980s then with no enemy air power then the Pantsir-S1 vehicles would be free to expend its 30mm ammo on ground targets.

Perhaps that is why the Russian Army has decided it doesn't need it... because the BMP equivalent vehicle in each brigade will provide fire power along with the air defence vehicle... whose armour will match the armour of the tank vehicle in that unit... which meets the requirement of the BMPT.

Agree Garry. I would like just to show to other members the difference between air defense AA guns and BMPT, which is designed to replace AA guns in ground fightings. BMPT is not dedicated air defense vehicle, but could do air defense job in self defense and self defense is the main point here. Igla is dedicated fire and forget air defense missile, while ATAKA is dedicated for ground targets and could be also used against flying targets, same as Kornet or Krizanthema ATGM.

The BMPT, or tank fire support vehicle could be applied to medium and light brigades too.

The BMPT is supposed to have tank level armour so it can operate with tanks without being especially vulnerable.

The light tanks in the medium and light brigades will be based on the medium and light family vehicles, so basing a BMP-3 like vehicle on those chassis should be a good idea as it separates the BMP firepower and heavy ammo load from the BMP troop squad, so penetrations wont lead to losing a squad of troops.

This could mean another shift in armour... the Soviets started it by creating the BMP which combined heavier armour with significantly more firepower together with troop transport. They kept the BTR concept, which is just an APC that delivers its troops to the fighting and then withdraws and my provide limited fire support with a HMG or light cannon.

The BMPT in the new units is based on the concept of separation of the troops from the heavy ammo that could take out a whole vehicle if hit. The result is a firepower vehicle with the weapons of a BMP, but trading the troops for extra ammo.
This means you have the BMPT, a BMP that is tracked, but carries a relatively light armament of HMGs and cannon, and BTR which has HMGs or light cannon armament.

I agree, that BMPT principle vehicle could be applied to medium and light brigades. Maybe in that case they will have different designation. It could be placed on BMP-3 chassis for medium and on BTR chassis for light brigades. In difference with other BMPs and BTRs, they will not carry infantry troops. For that job they could use turret from BTR-82A, replace its main gun with twin GSh-30-2 and eventually place some Kornet ATGMs for self defense and proper FCS with thermal imager, laser range finder and missile guidance channel. Only problem of those vehicles will be weak armor, so they will be quite vulnerable to AT weapons.

Only problem of those vehicles will be weak armor, so they will be quite vulnerable to AT weapons.

Quite true, but then considering they will be operating within a brigade based on the same vehicle chassis with the same level of protection it makes perfect sense.

You wouldn't send a light brigade into a city against an enemy well equipped with AT weapons.

They would actually be more useful in open Steppe or desert where visibility would be excellent and less sophisticated enemies could be engaged at long range.

There is one little problem for Russia. If they will have to fight in steppes or deserts defending their country in conventional war, it will be against NATO or China, which also have large heavy armor units, what only mean they will need more heavy brigades and those lighter brigades will be more for quick reaction units. Also those lighter units will more depend on self propelled ATGMs and on attack helicopters for support against enemy heavy armor. Actually those units will need vehicle like BMPT, but with more ATGMs.

There is one little problem for Russia. If they will have to fight in steppes or deserts defending their country in conventional war, it will be against NATO or China,

In a full scale war against China or NATO it will be nukes deciding the results of the conflicts.

What happens to that NATO or Chinese heavy tank brigade when it gets to a deep fast flowing river?

What if it is the rainy season and tanks just sink in the steppe?

A well organised properly controlled armoured force of lighter vehicles can take on a better equipped but less prepared force.

Even in mountains a lighter force can move places a heavier force will just get stuck in.

Even a light force will have heavy firepower... including 10km range ATGMs like the Kornet-EM.

Also those lighter units will more depend on self propelled ATGMs and on attack helicopters for support against enemy heavy armor. Actually those units will need vehicle like BMPT, but with more ATGMs.

I would suspect a HERMES regiment would be useful in support with a regiment of Tornado-G vehicles... when the latter are fitted with 122mm rockets they will be quite potent, but when fitted with 300mm rockets then they will be quite powerful support units.