BMPT "Terminator"

It doesn't have the sensors to be a modern SPAAG. It can be used like the old good zsu-23 without radar but against modern missiles and jets that would be useless. Can shoot down low flying helicopters though but so can a normal ak-47 or rpg-7 but that doesn't make them anti air systems.

However they have some atgm with proxy fuze that can be deadly to anything flying. But they need to detect it first and it will reduce the number of atgm for use gainst ground target.

Precisely. The 2A42 has a fairly low rate of fire of about 300 rounds a minute. Any higher than that cannot be sustained. The two barrels can double that rate but it is still way below the 2000+ rounds a minute that the Tanguska's 2A38M can deliver! I think that was part of the initial rejection of the BMP-T by the Army. They thought the gun was not powerful enough, but if you need a more powerful gun just use a tank!

As a fire support vehicle the 2A42 is more than adequate to do just that and it is very well armoured to protect the crew. It apparently offers better armour protection than the T-90.

If you look at it's armament it is again very clear that it is optimized towards fire support for tanks and ground troops. Apart from the twin 2A42's it has 2 AGS-17D auto grenade launchers and a coaxial general purpose machine gun. Last but not least it has 4 ATAKA-T ATGM's for more heavy duty tasks.

It's a unique and heavy duty combat vehicle that can not only deliver enormous firepower but it can take punishment as well. The Army needs to order a fairly substantial number of these vehicles asap!

Once again you are seriously contradicting yourself!

Not at all.

No. I said the vehicles the BMPT is replacing are SPAAG adapted to a ground support role.

The role of the BMPT is to provide overwhelming fire power against GROUND targets, but it is given a secondary role of engaging light drones or helicopters because its armament of 30mm cannon makes it suitable for such a role.

It has no radar to detect and track air targets, but it does have excellent thermals and a laser range finder to engage drones and light aircraft out to the range of the 30mm cannon and also the ATAKA which is the HE version.

The vehicle the Russian Army were using in Afghanistan as I explained in the ground to ground fire power support vehicle was the ZSU-23-4 which is a SPAAG.

In Chechnia they used Tunguska SPAAGs, but both had the obvious flaw of having very thin armour because they are not supposed to be operating on the front line.

The BMPT is a vehicle with cannon based SPAAG like armament but without the radar and equipment for finding air targets... when using Shilkas and Tunguskas in the ground role the radar equipment was all removed and replaced with more ready to use belted ammo.

In that sense the BMPT is replacing the SPAAGs used because its design and features make it better for the job.

The point is that the BMPT is not a BMP... it is a SPAAG for use against light aircraft and also ground threats.

And I stand by that.... the BMPT is not a troop transport vehicle either APC or IFV (BTR or BMP), it has SPAAG armament and is intended to engage light air targets like drones and any helicopters that pop up, but its main role is ground targets like infantry positions.

Once again you are seriously contradicting yourself!

The Tunguska is likely to be replaced with the Pantsir and also the 2S38 with the 57mm gun, the BMPT is replacing the misuse of SPAAGs against ground targets... so instead of using the Pantsir or the 2SS38 against ground targets in a tank support role they will use the BMPT.

The above is exactly what you are implying with the BMPT and the BMP-T.

They are different things in the sense that the BMP-T does not exist and is a typo... a bit like the Tu-26, or the Su-19... which turned out to be the Tu-22M2 and Su-24 respectively.

You are the one implying that they are two different things but they are not and any person with a some intelligence would know its the same thing.

The codes mean something and are not able to be changed without changing their meaning... there is no BMP-T, for instance the BMO-T is a tank based troop transport for the engineer divisions... you can't call it BMOT because that would mean something else.

From Vitaly Kuzmins excellent site:

When I mentioned Zircon and Tsirkon you are the one that said "They are interchangeable because they sound the same." Trying to twist it around is really not very intelligent - it's actualy quite stupid!

Stupid? Cyrillic is the alphabet the Russians use and many letters do not translate directly into latin/English...

The Ts sound in Russian is very similar to the s sound in pleasure... but it does not sound like an s it actually sounds like a z so it is sometimes translated as a z instead of a ts.

In English, depending on the word the letter c and the letter k can sound the same or make the same sound so

In English e and i can also be very close in pronunciation too so....

Zircon, Zerkon, Zirkon, Tsercon Tserkon, Tsirkon, Tsircon... can all be pronounced to actually sound the same in English.

In Russian there is more of a T sound in the Zed sound so Tzerkon or Tzircon would also be valid.

But the point is that the word they are using no matter how it is spelt is this:



Zirconium... normally abbreviated to Zircon.

I don't dispute that it will be able to kill drones but I have not seen that "they have specifically mentioned that the BMPT will have an anti drone role" presuming "They" are Rosboronexport?

It can receive target information from the local air defence unit (TOR or Pantsir), but it does not have radar to track targets.

It does however have excellent day night optics and guns that can elevate to hit targets up in the air and it is getting air burst 30mm cannon shells specifically to make it more effective against drones... which is why the Mi-28NM is getting airburst 30mm cannon shells too.

From this website:

http://roe.ru/eng/catalog/land-forces/armored-combat-vehicles/BMPT/

BMPT has weapon systems capable of engaging heavy armoured ground and aerial targets, and fortifications.

It wont be shooting down enemy helicopters because it cannot reach Apaches hovering 8km away, but it can engage the multitude of small light drones using cannon fire and Ataka missiles and perhaps later on Kornet-EM missiles with a range and altitude of 10km.

Its excellent optics and high elevation 30mm cannon as well as command detonated air burst 30mm ammo would make it excellent against drones.

Precisely. The 2A42 has a fairly low rate of fire of about 300 rounds a minute. Any higher than that cannot be sustained.

It actually has a low rate of fire and a high rate of fire option, when used in the BMP-2 they used the lower rate because it was good enough but teh higher rate fill the turret with gun fumes... not a problem on a helicopter mount or the exernal mount on the BMPT.

Against drones it would likely only fire one barrel with airburst rounds. Against armoured helicopters like the Apache the fragments from airburst rounds might not be very effective, but it is big enough to be easier to actually hit with full calibre rounds anyway.

The two barrels can double that rate but it is still way below the 2000+ rounds a minute that the Tanguska's 2A38M can deliver! I think that was part of the initial rejection of the BMP-T by the Army.

The 2A42 was chosen because it is reliable and dirt resistant and its dual feed design makes it more flexible than the 2A38M which has a fixed single feed belt.

If you used the 2A38M then you couldn't load APFSDS rounds or even APDS rounds because their ballistics are totally different from the HE rounds.

They thought the gun was not powerful enough, but if you need a more powerful gun just use a tank!

So you are saying the move from the 73mm gun of the BMP to the 30mm cannon of the BMP-2 was a bad move... the 73mm rocket was way more powerful...

Last but not least it has 4 ATAKA-T ATGM's for more heavy duty tasks.

The Atakas will most likely be the HE versions for hitting point targets out to 6km like ATGM team positions or hovering helicopters.

If there is an enemy tank that needs to be engaged the tanks the BMPT is operating with all have 125mm smoothbores that would be much more effective.

It's a unique and heavy duty combat vehicle that can not only deliver enormous firepower but it can take punishment as well. The Army needs to order a fairly substantial number of these vehicles asap!

It is interesting that the website says it is to support both tank and infantry forces, so it might be used with tanks instead of supporting troops and BMPs, but equally it might be used to support troops where the enemy has no tanks... in both cases a fire power vehicle with excellent optics and powerful weapons.

Once again you are seriously contradicting yourself!

Not at all.

Yes you did and you keep on contradicting yourself as you go along with your repetitive rambling.

Quick sample from your own words >>

The role of the BMPT is to provide overwhelming fire power against GROUND targets, but it is given a secondary role of engaging light drones or helicopters because its armament of 30mm cannon makes it suitable for such a role.

The point is that the BMPT is not a BMP... it is a SPAAG for use against light aircraft and also ground threats.

And I stand by that.... the BMPT is not a troop transport vehicle either APC or IFV (BTR or BMP), it has SPAAG armament and is intended to engage light air targets like drones and any helicopters that pop up, but its main role is ground targets like infantry positions.

It can receive target information from the local air defence unit (TOR or Pantsir), but it does not have radar to track targets.

It does however have excellent day night optics and guns that can elevate to hit targets up in the air and it is getting air burst 30mm cannon shells specifically to make it more effective against drones... which is why the Mi-28NM is getting airburst 30mm cannon shells too.

From this website:

http://roe.ru/eng/catalog/land-forces/armored-combat-vehicles/BMPT/

Nowhere is it "specifically mentioned that the BMPT will have an anti drone role" by Rosboronexport as you implied  

They thought the gun was not powerful enough, but if you need a more powerful gun just use a tank!

So you are saying the move from the 73mm gun of the BMP to the 30mm cannon of the BMP-2 was a bad move... the 73mm rocket was way more powerful...

No GaryB I said they should rather use a tank if they needed more firepower. Soviet/Russian tanks have 100mm guns and they go all the way up to 125mm...

It is interesting that the website says it is to support both tank and infantry forces, so it might be used with tanks instead of supporting troops and BMPs

Even all those Western websites I cited that referred to the BMP-T, knew back then that the Terminator is a Tank Support Vehicle and not a SPAAG.

But I'll tell you what. From now on I will refer to the BMP-T as the BMPT in the hope to save a lot of forum space and further embarrassment!

Боевая машина поддержки танков (БМПТ)
Tank Support Combat Vehicle (BMPT)
Now known as Fire Support Combat Vehicle

http://bastion-karpenko.ru/bmpt/

The fighting in the Donbas has revived the military's interest in BMPT or, as they are now renamed, fire support combat vehicles. The fact is that during the battles, IFVs and armored personnel carriers demonstrated very low survivability, and the main battle tanks showed that they have mediocre capabilities to fight the enemy's manpower, which is armed with wearable anti-tank weapons. In conflicts of this kind, the Terminator BMPT, rejected by former officials of the Ministry of Defense, would certainly be useful. This combat vehicle has high firepower (thanks to the presence of small-caliber guns, guided missiles, automatic grenade launchers and machine guns) and a perfect all-day fire control system. Another important detail: The Terminator is much better protected than the T-90A tank, not to mention the T-72B3. According to military experts, this vehicle is capable of replacing up to a platoon of infantrymen, 2-2.5 infantry fighting vehicles or 3-4 armored personnel carriers by its combat potential. This is very important at the present time, when there is a certain shortage in the conscription contingent. "Terminator" is criticized for some shortcomings, for example, some military experts think the caliber of the guns is small, perhaps it is. But, the process of developing and testing a new version of the BMPT, radically different in armament from the existing machine, can stretch for many years. As a result, such a machine may not get into the troops at all, and in order to fend off existing threats, it was needed, as they say, "yesterday".

http://roe.ru/eng/catalog/land-forces/armored-combat-vehicles/BMPT/

The BMPT Fire Support Combat Vehicle considerably augments firepower, safety and combat capabilities of any unit and crowns any of your operations with success.

BMPT Fire Support Combat Vehicle is designed to provide fire support to tank and infantry units, detect and destroy concealed and dispersed targets on the battlefield. BMPT has weapon systems capable of engaging heavy armoured ground and aerial targets, and fortifications. However, its main mission (and advantage) is to detect and destroy highly concealed targets before they can inflict damage on your forces.

The Combat Vehicle has a cutting edge all weather/day and night sighting system, two 30mm 2A42 automatic cannons, four supersonic laser guided missiles, a 7.62mm PKT machine gun and two 30mm remotely-controlled, vertically-stabilized automatic grenade launchers. BMPT has substantial protection against anti-tank weapon systems, as of now, no combat vehicles have similar all-round, top of the class protection.

Drones are even more half-baked than the BMPT.

The Russian army disagrees, hence theres more uran 9 and udars in service than the 6 man clown car.

There are no more AK wielding only goat farmers - practically everyone could source RPGs and ATGMs to threaten armor with. And no sometimes the attacker has no choice - operational considerations like terrain simply make such pains impossible to avoid. In urban areas its practically impossible not to get engaged from multiple directions - its just how it is.

Hence why tanks and IFVs should always get ample infantry and expendable UGV support in urban areas, as well as rapid artillery and UAV support. Terrain is never an excuse to be outflanked, especially with cheap surveillance from drones. Also a single hull mounted PKT with an extremely limited firing arc does not count as engaging enemies from multiple directions.

And yes, hull mounted MGs are actually a good idea - most tanks have a deadzone immediately in front of the tank where none of the tank's weapons could depress sufficiently low enough to engage targets say in a trench just immediately ahead. It could be an extension of the driver's sight similar to the commander's sight which also got paired with an MG to become a fully fledged remote weapons station.

Well I guess you know better than 50 decades worth of AFV designers since WW2.

limb wrote:
The Russian army disagrees, hence theres more uran 9 and udars in service than the 6 man clown car.

There's at least 300 BMPTs in the Algerian army alone, with Russia slowly but surely following up with a battalion of BMPTs to arrive in the coming years. Nobody bought the Uran 9 and Udars in anything but boutique numbers.

limb wrote:
Hence why tanks and IFVs should always get ample infantry and expendable UGV support in urban areas, as well as rapid artillery and UAV support. Terrain is never an excuse to be outflanked, especially with cheap surveillance from drones.

Have you ever been in an urban area? Everywhere you look there's cover and concealment. Get a sledge hammer and bust some holes the size of your fist and each building could have a hundred firing ports - are you going through each and every one of those holes with your drones?

limb wrote:
Also a single hull mounted PKT with an extremely limited firing arc does not count as engaging enemies from multiple directions.

Chalk that up to this particular BMPT's design. It was after all designed when RWS are controlled using physical glass optics, not fully remote controlled electronic weapon mounts like this one:

limb wrote:
Well I guess you know better than 50 decades worth of AFV designers since WW2.

5.

Yes you did and you keep on contradicting yourself as you go along with your repetitive rambling.

Quick sample from your own words >>

The Russians and Soviets often used SPAAGs in the ground role... in Afghanistan and in Chechnya they used Shilkas and Tunguskas respectively in the ground fire role because their immense fire power. They were not ideal in that role because their very thin armour made them rather vulnerable to all sorts of enemy fire, but they were found to be useful because of the enormous cannon based fire power they weld.

The BMPT is a ground vehicle with no space for troops, it is not a troop transporter... the tank based IFV they have shown is the BTR-T or tank based troop transport (BTR).

The BMPT is a vehicle with tank level protection and the fire power of a SPAAG.... it is not exactly as powerful as an actual SPAAG because it has very specific requirements that a SPAAG does not have.

It loses some rate of fire potential by using 2A42 cannon instead of something better like a twin 23mm or twin 30mm cannon, but it makes up for that with flexibility with the dual feed belts as I have explained.

Two 2A42s have a good rate of fire when needed... not quite high enough for proper AA use against fast jets, but good enough against helicopters and drones.

Nowhere is it "specifically mentioned that the BMPT will have an anti drone role" by Rosboronexport as you implied

What do you think it means by Aerial targets?

BMPT has weapon systems capable of engaging heavy armoured ground and aerial targets, and fortifications.

A-10s? Apaches? How successful do you think the BMPT with two 30mm cannon and no radar would be against A-10s and Apaches armed with Hellfires and Mavericks?

Why would it need to deal with such targets when the unit has Tunguskas and soon Pantsirs and perhaps TORs?

The BMPT will be on the front line operating amongst the tanks... right where those small top attack drones have been operating... but a tank can't elevate its guns to shoot down such drones... hmmm... I wonder if they think a BMPT with direct datalink contact to the IADS and its own thermals and high elevation 30mm cannon that are definitely getting air burst 30mm cannon shells might be able to deal with that?

Or maybe they meant Aerial targets... ie shooting the radio masts off vehicles and buildings so they can't communicate....

No GaryB I said they should rather use a tank if they needed more firepower.

If tanks had more fire power why would they have used Shilkas in Afghanistan and Tunguskas in Chechnya?

BMPTs are not used instead of tanks normally, they are used instead of or to compliment BMPs to help protect tanks from infantry and now drone threats...

Soviet/Russian tanks have 100mm guns and they go all the way up to 125mm...

They only elevate to 20-25 degrees and cannot be aimed in urban areas in enemy forces on top of buildings.

BMPs can but generally their thin armour means they get taken out quickly and can no longer support the tanks which then get picked off too.

Even all those Western websites I cited that referred to the BMP-T, knew back then that the Terminator is a Tank Support Vehicle and not a SPAAG.

I never said it was a SPAAG... I said they used SPAAG in a direct fire ground to ground role and this is to replace those SPAAGs being misused in that role.

SPAAGs normally operate well away from tanks and not in direct support of them.

It is like saying that the SPG-9M is going to be used in situations they previously had to use ATGMs like Konkurs because it can fire HE rounds to 4km with reasonable accuracy... you are implying that means the SPG-9M is an ATGM and is going to replace ATGMs which is not what is happening.

But I'll tell you what. From now on I will refer to the BMP-T as the BMPT in the hope to save a lot of forum space and further embarrassment!

There is no such thing as a BMP-T, it is an error western publishers and writers make because they are fucking ignorant.

A BMP-T would be a BMP equivalent of a BTR-T.

A BTR-T is a troop transport with HMG or light cannon armament like a BTR-80 but the T means it is based on a tank chassis.

A BMP-T would be a TROOP TRANSPORT based on a TANK chassis, so it would have a BMP level armament on a tank type chassis.

A BMP-T would be a T-15, but it is a T-15 and not a BMP-T.

A BMPT is not a troop transport and has no space for carrying troops of any kind... it is a fire power vehicle used to support tanks.

BMPT does not equal BMP-T and vice versa.

The fighting in the Donbas has revived the military's interest in BMPT or, as they are now renamed, fire support combat vehicles. The fact is that during the battles, IFVs and armored personnel carriers demonstrated very low survivability, and the main battle tanks showed that they have mediocre capabilities to fight the enemy's manpower, which is armed with wearable anti-tank weapons. In conflicts of this kind, the Terminator BMPT, rejected by former officials of the Ministry of Defense, would certainly be useful.

Another factor is that being on the front line actually amongst the tanks and infantry it can use its night and all weather optics to spot drones and has the elevation and airburst 30mm cannon shells to effectively deal with them... unlike a tank which would have to use its 50 cal gun...

The Russian army disagrees, hence theres more uran 9 and udars in service than the 6 man clown car.

The BMPT will be operating where the enemy drones are heading for and can use airburst 30mm cannon shells to deal with drones that get within range.

Also a single hull mounted PKT with an extremely limited firing arc does not count as engaging enemies from multiple directions.

The PKT in the BMPT is mounted on the turret...on top of and behind the twin 30mm cannon.

In fact in this image it looks like they could fit a grenade launcher there too which would be more effective most of the time than a rifle calibre machine gun...

WOW! Going full retard here!

The Russians and Soviets often used SPAAGs in the ground role...

Yes because they were impressed by how the Americans used the Duster in Vietnam. Since then everybody does it. They even use truck mounted anti-aircraft guns in this role. Checkout all those youtube videos of the proxy wars in the Middle East.

The BMPT is a ground vehicle with no space for troops, it is not a troop transporter... the tank based IFV they have shown is the BTR-T or tank based troop transport (BTR).
The BMPT is a vehicle with tank level protection and the fire power of a SPAAG.... it is not exactly as powerful as an actual SPAAG because it has very specific requirements that a SPAAG does not have.
It loses some rate of fire potential by using 2A42 cannon instead of something better like a twin 23mm or twin 30mm cannon, but it makes up for that with flexibility with the dual feed belts as I have explained.
Two 2A42s have a good rate of fire when needed... not quite high enough for proper AA use against fast jets, but good enough against helicopters and drones.

Instead of stating the obvious rather tell me something I do not know...

What do you think it means by Aerial targets?

Yes. yes, yes that includes a lot of "flying machines" but still (again) nowhere in their specs on the BMPT do they "specifically mentioned that the BMPT will have an anti drone role" as you boldly claimed.

A-10s? Apaches? How successful do you think the BMPT with two 30mm cannon and no radar would be against A-10s and Apaches armed with Hellfires and Mavericks?

But, but, but GaryB - you claimed the BMPT is a SPAAG!

Well GaryB you can use the rest of this year to ponder this one, but I do suggest that you find a good spot in your garden and "let it go". Any method will do.

Algerians converting their T-62 fleet into "Mini terminators" using Berezhok turret that was worked well for their BMP-1MA and BMP-2MA modernization programs

https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/algerian-t-62/#respond

MonkeymodelBananaRepublic wrote:Algerians converting their T-62 fleet into "Mini terminators" using Berezhok turret that was worked well for their BMP-1MA and BMP-2MA modernization programs

https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/algerian-t-62/#respond

Pretty interesting idea for the T-62s

Like the BMPT-72 but basically cheaper and for an older platform

Yes because they were impressed by how the Americans used the Duster in Vietnam. Since then everybody does it. They even use truck mounted anti-aircraft guns in this role. Checkout all those youtube videos of the proxy wars in the Middle East.

The BTR-40 with twin barrel 14.5mm HMGs and the BTR-152 with twin 23mm cannon as well ZSU-57-2 and Shilka use predates Duster use in Vietnam.

The difference is that western SPAAGS are shit, while the Soviet systems were effective but obviously as I keep pointing out lacked armour for front line use in this fire support role.

Yes. yes, yes that includes a lot of "flying machines" but still (again) nowhere in their specs on the BMPT do they "specifically mentioned that the BMPT will have an anti drone role" as you boldly claimed.

The BMPT has not radar and uses 2A42 30mm cannon with a relatively low rate of fire that makes them useless against most fighter aircraft, and CAS machines.

The BMPT has the advantage of operating on the front line so it would be closer to enemy aircraft than TOR or Tunguska, but no enemy aircraft would get anywhere near the BMPT except drones which are too small to be detected at longer ranges.

Any helicopter wanting to destroy Russian tanks will be operating 6-7km or more away... distances where 30mm cannon and Ataka missiles would be useless.

The only targets the 30mm cannon would be of any use against that is in the air would be drones.... deny it all you please and tell us what other aircraft will get within 3km of a BMPT?

But, but, but GaryB - you claimed the BMPT is a SPAAG!

I have never said the BMPT was a SPAAG... please quote me... I look forward to reading it...

I have repeatedly said the Soviets and Russians used SPAAGS in the ground fire support role because AA guns are good against a range of ground targets too with their high velocity and high rate of fire, but the BMPT replaces SPAAGS in the ground to ground role, not in the air defence role for which they would be poor because operating back from the front line they could not reach air targets over their own tanks let alone defend themselves from Hellfires.

Well GaryB you can use the rest of this year to ponder this one, but I do suggest that you find a good spot in your garden and "let it go". Any method will do.

Perhaps some revision of the english language might help you.

Algerians converting their T-62 fleet into "Mini terminators" using Berezhok turret that was worked well for their BMP-1MA and BMP-2MA modernization programs

Not really... the BMP-2 turrets are thin and could be penetrated with SLAP rounds from a 50 cal from some directions... 23mm cannon would be dangerous to this vehicle too and with just one cannon the fire power would be rather less as well, but it seems like a reasonable use of an otherwise unwanted vehicle.

I would say it would be more useful to mount the turret of a BMP-3 to a T-62... wider range of weapons and ammo... better armour too.

GarryB wrote:

I have never said the BMPT was a SPAAG... please quote me... I look forward to reading it...

I see you find it increasingly difficult to keep up with yourself but that is what happens when you suck things from your arse and present it as a fact - but yes I'll humour you >>

https://www.russiadefence.net/t1613p550-bmpt-terminator
Post 570 on page 23 - the second last paragraph in your usual elaborate response - highlighted for your convenience to make it more easy for you to read.  

GarryB wrote:The point is that the BMPT is not a BMP... it is a SPAAG for use against light aircraft and also ground threats.

Mir wrote:

GarryB wrote:

I have never said the BMPT was a SPAAG... please quote me... I look forward to reading it...

I see you find it increasingly difficult to keep up with yourself but that is what happens when you suck things from your arse and present it as a fact - but yes I'll humour you >>

https://www.russiadefence.net/t1613p550-bmpt-terminator
Post 570 on page 23 - the second last paragraph in your usual elaborate response - highlighted for your convenience to make it more easy for you to read.  

GarryB wrote:The point is that the BMPT is not a BMP... it is a SPAAG for use against light aircraft and also ground threats.

In a lingo of Mortal Kombat, this was Fatality.

BMPT doesn't have a fire control system to be used against air targets. Low flying helicopters could be easy targets but for drones and planes it won't be useful at all.

You would spent all the ammo hitting a plane.

Hahahaha

on its own yes, it does appear I am saying the BMPT is an SPAAG, but that is only taken out of context.

Before stating that I was mentioning the SPAAGs they were using before the BMPT was developed for which I then stated the BMPT replaces SPAAG in the ground support role they were unsuited to because of their high cost and thin armour.

What I said next in that post should have made it pretty clear that I did not mean the next SPAAG to replace the Tunguska in service was going to be the BMPT.

I said:

The point is that the BMPT is not a BMP... it is a SPAAG for use against light aircraft and also ground threats.

Remember the armoured forces the BMPT and T series tanks operate with will still have Tunguskas and TORs to shoot down helicopters and A-10s and other threats, so the BMPTs will mostly be used for engaging light very low flying drones, but also ATGM positions and snipers and MG positions and troop concentrations etc etc.

Now if I was saying, as you claim, that the BMPT is a SPAAG then why even mention Tunguskas which if you are correct should be getting replaced by their BMPT replacements...

The 2A42 cannon of the BMPT can fire in single shot mode and also at about 300 rpm in a low rate setting and at about 500 rpm in a high setting that is never used in the BMP-2 because it fills the turret with fumes.

Hardly the 2,500 rpm of each of the two 2A38M cannon on the Tunguska.

BTW the website for international sales of the BMPT mentions it is to engage low flying air targets too.

GarryB wrote:Hahahaha

on its own yes, it does appear I am saying the BMPT is an SPAAG, but that is only taken out of context.

Yes this whole discussion with you around the BMPT is hilariously funny

You went even further to state that the BMPT is a dedicated drone killer >> (post 598)

GarryB wrote:They [Rosoboronexport] have specifically mentioned that the BMPT will have an anti drone role

That also turned out to be completely sucked from your butt hole  

http://roe.ru/eng/catalog/land-forces/armored-combat-vehicles/BMPT/

The BMPT Fire Support Combat Vehicle considerably augments firepower, safety and combat capabilities of any unit and crowns any of your operations with success.

BMPT Fire Support Combat Vehicle is designed to provide fire support to tank and infantry units, detect and destroy concealed and dispersed targets on the battlefield. BMPT has weapon systems capable of engaging heavy armoured ground and aerial targets, and fortifications. However, its main mission (and advantage) is to detect and destroy highly concealed targets before they can inflict damage on your forces.

The Combat Vehicle has a cutting edge all weather/day and night sighting system, two 30mm 2A42 automatic cannons, four supersonic laser guided missiles, a 7.62mm PKT machine gun and two 30mm remotely-controlled, vertically-stabilized automatic grenade launchers. BMPT has substantial protection against anti-tank weapon systems, as of now, no combat vehicles have similar all-round, top of the class protection.

Apologies for the repost but Rososboronexport only refer to ground and aerial targets, and fortifications, but no "specific mention" has been made that it will have an anti-drone role. I don't dispute that it will be able to kill drones but again I have not seen on the Rosoboronexport website that "they have specifically mentioned that the BMPT will have an anti drone role".

So considering your remark that "the BMPT is a SPAAG" and your false statement that Rosoboronexport have "specifically mentioned" that the BMPT will have an anti-drone role, and no amount of backtracking will change the fact that you said that the BMPT is a dedicated SPAAG, and can engage ground targets in a secondary role>>

GarryB wrote:The point is that the BMPT is not a BMP... it is a SPAAG for use against light aircraft and also ground threats.

How did the bmpt perform in ukraine so far?

You went even further to state that the BMPT is a dedicated drone killer >> (post 598)

You understand English but I hope it is your second language... a dedicated drone killer would be something that is only used against drones... like one of those drone jamming guns.

The BMPT is a tank support vehicle intended to defeat targets tanks are not ideal at engaging... enemy troops and other targets on the battlefield that tanks are not ideal to engage... ohh, I don't know... like drones... because what other aerial targets are you going to suggest a BMPT can possibly engage?

It will be operating amongst your tanks so what helicopters or aircraft will get within 3km of the BMPTs?

Apologies for the repost but Rososboronexport only refer to ground and aerial targets, and fortifications, but no "specific mention" has been made that it will have an anti-drone role.

What aerial targets could they possibly mean that would be flying over your tanks and BMPTs?

But obviously it refers to aerial targets so your misinterpretation that I am saying BMPTs are SPAAGS must be wrong because they say it is used against aerial targets and if that does not mean drones that must mean it means every aerial target which makes it an SPAAG doesn't it?

Or you could be wrong and I might be right and they mean drones regarding the only aerial target able to get close to friendly tanks and armour the BMPT would be operating with because of their small size and very low flight altitude and low speed meaning conventional air defence systems might have trouble seeing them... especially if they are being launched from enemy armoured vehicles right on the front line anyway.

I don't dispute that it will be able to kill drones but again I have not seen on the Rosoboronexport website that "they have specifically mentioned that the BMPT will have an anti drone role".

So you are telling me I am totally wrong but admit I am obviously right... yeah... great.

Then list all the air targets the BMPT will be used to defeat and explain why the TOR and Pantsir and BUK systems operating with the army had not already engaged those air targets from much greater distances from the targets (your tanks and BMPTs) that they are trying to engage.

The BMPT with EO sensors (which Pantsir and Tunguska use to engage aerial targets too) and air burst 30mm cannons should be rather capable of hitting air targets... given warnings for nearby air defence units as to what is flying around and where they should be able to find even quite small threats and the combination of a laser range finder and EO optics and air burst ammo a high rate of fire would actually be a waste of shells... the 2S38 doesn't use high rate of fire to shoot down air targets either... the whole point of air burst rounds is the fill the interception box the target is going to be in when your shells arrive on its flight path... it fills the interception box with fragments instead of shells.

The irony is that the 2A38M cannon can fire hundreds of rounds a second, but with air burst shells would likely only need a fraction of a second burst which makes its high rate of fire a bit redundant.

The 2A38M gun has a fixed belt feed that is normally a mix of HE frag and Fragmentation incendiary rounds having all airburst ammo would be problematic because a target like an A-10 or Apache you would want to hit hard with 30mm cannon rounds and not just 30mm cannon round fragments.

Which is probably why it is being replaced by the 9A91 gun on the 2S38 vehicle.

To simplify it by making it in three dimensions instead of four, a man running through an open field can speed up or slow down or change direction at any time but if they are running and the flight time of your rounds are a few seconds or less so he wont have time to stop or go backwards then the interception box is in front of him and is the size so that no matter what he does... turn left or right, speed up or slow down in the 1-2 seconds it takes your bullet to get there he will be somewhere inside that box, so the task then becomes enough guns with enough rate of fire to fill that box with bullets so no matter what he does when you start firing you will still hit him.

The problem for air defence guns is that the smaller the target the denser the number of bullets you will need to ensure the target gets hit, and the solution has normally been to go for a smaller calibre with a higher rate of fire and higher muzzle velocity... but in this case replacing the bullet with a grenade that will fill the interception box with fragments is a much simpler solution... even firing a couple of grenades just to ensure destruction.

The BMPT isn't going to be shooting down drones with an immense rate of fire... it has two dual feed 30mm cannon... its primary role is shooting at soft targets like infantry, but it is also use to shoot at aerial targets and targets behind light cover and light vehicles too so for the dual feed the obvious load would be one feed belt on both guns being HEI, so that enemy troops or a soft enemy position can be fired at using two 30mm guns firing HEI rounds at 500 rounds per minute each which would be rather devastating. For harder targets the APDS round could be loaded on one belt for one of the guns, and the other gun can have its remaining belt being air burst 30mm rounds... both of which will most likely be fired at the lower 300rpm rate of fire.

A 2-3 round burst at most drones would shred them and destroy plastic propellers and bring them down.

The main problem is detecting them, and they have all sorts of AD nearby that should be able to detect such things now...2-3 30mm rounds being much cheaper than launching a TOR or Pantsir missile.

So considering your remark that "the BMPT is a SPAAG" and your false statement that Rosoboronexport have "specifically mentioned" that the BMPT will have an anti-drone role, and no amount of backtracking will change the fact that you said that the BMPT is a dedicated SPAAG, and can engage ground targets in a secondary role

Dedicated?

OK.. two weeks.

They use them as fire support in close-up fire fights but notice there's almost no scratch. The twin 30 and grenade launchers must be really effective in suppressing the hell out of the enemy.

I think we just found where the new side skirts for the T-72B3 came from.

Grenade launchers are devastating, much better than rifle caliber machine guns... Even misses can kill or injure groups of soldiers.