Russia Defence Forum

Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


+54
The_Observer
Scorpius
TMA1
Regular
lyle6
ahmedfire
GarryB
ult
hoom
dino00
archangelski
miketheterrible
magnumcromagnon
DanishDynamite
LMFS
AlfaT8
George1
Hole
Tolstoy
franco
Mindstorm
The-thing-next-door
Interlinked
Gosean17
SeigSoloyvov
PapaDragon
Book.
MonkeymodelBananaRepublic
KoTeMoRe
Cplnew83
Benya
Cyrus the great
Isos
GunshipDemocracy
MarshallJukov
0nillie0
higurashihougi
kopyo-21
Werewolf
Viktor
TheArmenian
flamming_python
TR1
collegeboy16
d_taddei2
Zivo
Cyberspec
psg
gloriousfatherland
AJ-47
Rpg type 7v
Flanky
medo
Austin
58 posters

    BMPT "Terminator"

    PapaDragon
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 11564
    Points : 11632
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    BMPT "Terminator" - Page 23 Empty Re: BMPT "Terminator"

    Post  PapaDragon Thu Oct 07, 2021 8:53 pm

    Broski wrote:So will the BMPT-3 come with one or two 57mm guns?

    Also, will the chassis look more like the T-14 or the T-15?

    Hopefully none

    There is T-14 and T-15 now, no need for UVZ pork barrel

    avatar
    Lennox

    Posts : 38
    Points : 40
    Join date : 2021-07-30

    BMPT "Terminator" - Page 23 Empty Re: BMPT "Terminator"

    Post  Lennox Fri Oct 08, 2021 8:39 am

    Pork barrel? The BMPT can freely rotate its turret in a space as small as its hull width. I'd like to see how the T-14 and T-15 compare with this pork barrel in doing that. Hell, the thing can change its shell type for both barrels independently and elevate its cannon to shoot windows and tall buildings. It is definitely needed in urban combat.

    Also, even though it's based on a T-72 chassis, its protection is on par with and in some cases surpasses the latest T-90 variant (with the exception of T-90M). The only thing wrong with this thing is how it's supposed to be used, which caused much delay in its adoption. Then again, they just finished the doctrine last year or earlier this year.

    GarryB, LMFS, Hole and Mir like this post

    lyle6
    lyle6

    Posts : 795
    Points : 797
    Join date : 2020-09-14
    Location : Philippines

    BMPT "Terminator" - Page 23 Empty Re: BMPT "Terminator"

    Post  lyle6 Fri Oct 08, 2021 10:53 am

    Lennox wrote:Pork barrel?
    Pork barrel is euphemism for patronage. Since UVZ derives most of its business from contracts with the government there's some tacit understanding that this is repayed with hefty support of the ruling party come voting time.

    Lennox wrote:
    The BMPT can freely rotate its turret in a space as small as its hull width. I'd like to see how the T-14 and T-15 compare with this pork barrel in doing that. Hell, the thing can change its shell type for both barrels independently and elevate its cannon to shoot windows and tall buildings. It is definitely needed in urban combat.
    You can't take cities (and forests, well closed-up terrain in general) from a determined foe with a mounted attack. You have to send the troops in and clear the space, room by room, house by house, and street by street. In close terrain the BMPT would just end up road bound along with the rest of the armor. If they can't follow the troops deeper into buildings, alleys or forest they can't provide effective fire support and and the infantry gets torn to pieces. In the end without infantry support the armor would end up easy pickings as well.

    Lennox wrote:
    Also, even though it's based on a T-72 chassis, its protection is on par with and in some cases surpasses the latest T-90 variant (with the exception of T-90M). The only thing wrong with this thing is how it's supposed to be used, which caused much delay in its adoption. Then again, they just finished the doctrine last year or earlier this year.
    The BMPT isn't being bought in anything more than boutique numbers. What little they buy is destined for experimentation and advertisement to foreign militaries, not really combat capable units.

    In terms of doctrine they are more like to return the assault engineers - updated for the 21st century of course. Heavy troops equipped with exosuits clad in extensive body armor and armed with machineguns, flamethrowers and explosives. For fire support they can rely upon UGVs like Marker which being a lot more compact, could actually follow the infantry to where the actual fighting is. To carry the troops into battle you would need a vehicle with a suitably voluminous compartment while offering tank-like protection - i.e. not a BMPT.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 31010
    Points : 31536
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    BMPT "Terminator" - Page 23 Empty Re: BMPT "Terminator"

    Post  GarryB Fri Oct 08, 2021 11:50 am

    Russian forces already have spectacular fire power, and with their new vehicle families their Armata divisions will already have all their vehicles with tank level protection and BMP like fire power.

    In fact a T-15 with the troop compartment filled with extra ammo and missiles is really not far off being a BMPT in the sense that the 57mm grenade launcher will offer serious fire power in terms of HE on target and APFSDS rounds as well as missiles for other targets... a couple of guys in the rear perhaps controlling drones and hull mounted external weapon mounts fitted with say 40mm grenade launchers and rifle calibre machine guns, and you would have a seriously powerful system that would not require BMPTs...

    Generally you mount two guns to boost rate of fire, but most of the time it is done for anti aircraft weapons... for guns with airburst HE ammo and also guided shells rate of fire becomes less relevant.

    If you think of a target 3km away from the vehicle that is 4m by 4m like a helicopter or something.... firing a 100 round burst of 30mm cannon shells would lead to a pattern of impacts that give a reasonable coverage of such a target... the problem is that there will be large gaps in this pattern of hits and if the target is a drone or a cruise missile then most if not all of those cannon shells will miss.

    With command detonated airburst ammo if you fire 3-5 rounds and design them so the explode forward in a cone of expanding fragments then 3-5 rounds exploding 10m before they reach the target will cover that 4x4m fabric in tiny fragment holes.... great for cruise missiles and drones and not requiring too many rounds to be fired... 3-5 rounds could be fired by a single barrel 2A72 or 2A42.

    With a 57mm Grenade you could probably use one or two rounds with the kill box... the interception area the target will be somewhere within by the time the fired shells reach the intercept area... simply because the 57mm grenade has a lot more fragments and a lot more explosive so will launch a much denser pattern of fragments when they explode.

    For more serious air targets however they might use a modifed 2S38 air defence vehicle with the high velocity 57mm gun with airburst ammo and guided rounds as well as cheap dumb HE rounds and APFSDS rounds that will be effective to much greater distances due to higher muzzle velocity.

    Pork barrel?

    Cynical PD thinking Russian weapon makers are as corrupt as US and western weapon makers, and think Russian military officers are as open to bribery and money wastage as western military are.

    The fact that they have a long history of using vehicles like air defence vehicles for fire power support and that to make them safer on the front line that basing them on a tank chassis is being suggested to make them safer, might really just be corruption is quite frankly amusing.

    The core of the BMPT idea is an air defence vehicle with the armour to operate on a front line... so in a sense the ideal BMPT would be a 2S38 based on an Armata platform... the T-15 chassis with extra ammo in the troop compartment, with the 2S38 gun turret... but in reality the 12 missiles carried on the T-15 Epocha turret plus the 57mm grenade launcher and rifle calibre machine gun would probably be a better combination. Add a couple of remote weapon stations on the fuselage rear sides with 40mm grenade launchers and rifle calibre machine guns with two crew in the rear aiming them and of course lots of extra missiles and 57mm grenades in the rear hull and you would have an ideal BMPT.

    kvs and Hole like this post

    kvs
    kvs

    Posts : 10882
    Points : 11027
    Join date : 2014-09-11
    Location : Canuckistan

    BMPT "Terminator" - Page 23 Empty Re: BMPT "Terminator"

    Post  kvs Fri Oct 08, 2021 2:09 pm

    Russia does not have a corporate financed political system like the USA. UVZ and other enterprises do not exert power by buying off
    United Russia or any other party. Russian election campaigns are not multi-billion dollar operations where spending amount translates into
    vote counts. This is what makes Russia a real democracy compared to the overhyped de facto one party state USA.

    GarryB and Hole like this post

    PapaDragon
    PapaDragon

    Posts : 11564
    Points : 11632
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    BMPT "Terminator" - Page 23 Empty Re: BMPT "Terminator"

    Post  PapaDragon Fri Oct 08, 2021 10:08 pm


    UVZ has been trying to sell BMPT to Russian Army for decades but Army simply wants more tanks in that weight category

    BMPT work for places like Middle East but in scenarios Russia is expecting a proper tank makes more sense

    Originally BMPT was supposed to have additional armor and protection and ability to fire both guns simultaneously which would make sense but in reality it's just regular T-72 with two 30mm guns which are reserved for different ammo types (plus they couldn't even be arsed to add some extra missiles)

    Product advertised and product delivered turned out to be two different things

    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 31010
    Points : 31536
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    BMPT "Terminator" - Page 23 Empty Re: BMPT "Terminator"

    Post  GarryB Sat Oct 09, 2021 5:57 am

    The west has the luxury of not being threatened by anyone so they can have a percentage of their inventory that is shit and get away with it most of the time...

    The irony is that the last 30 years should have been the peace dividend where there were no big powerful enemies wasting money on useless pointless conflicts that drain budgets and wear out equipment... they should have had 30 years to rebuild and restructure and reform to be leaner and meaner and all round much better than they were 30 years ago, but they have been stagnating and actually moving backwards... the more F-35s they have in service the more money it will drain from everything else.

    The BMPT is essentially a fire power vehicle with the protection of a tank, but with its fire power optimised for troops and area targets rather than hard enemy targets... a BMPT with tank level protection and tank level fire power is a tank...

    BMPTs have no troop carrying capacity.

    It is interesting that they are talking about dual channel engagement capability where a commander can deal with light targets with their MG and optics and the gunner can deal with another target using the main armament of the turret...

    The potential in that regard for adding 40mm grenade launchers with dual PKT machine gun mounts that can be independently trained on their own targets with their own optics... perhaps located on the side rear of the chassis of the T-15 might allow for the two external mounts to engage two targets and the gunner and commander to engage two more, where the gunner can engage targets with 57mm and missiles and rifle calibre machine gun coaxial weapons, while the commander can engage with his cupola mounted MG, but can also control missiles in flight too with his sight, while two crew in the rear could operate external weapon mounts... or perhaps tele-control separate robot land vehicles that can engage further targets.

    40mm grenade launchers are vastly more capable than rifle calibre machine guns at engaging enemy troops beyond about 1.2km and are are better at any range simply because the fragments from exploding 40mm grenades create a much denser pattern of damage than any burst of rifle calibre bullets.

    Rifle calibre weapons are cheap and useful though so a coaxial mount means within about 1km you can selectively fire an accurate burst at a target without injuring everyone nearby... but lobbing 20 grenades at a group of enemy troops 2.2km away would still be very effective... certainly more likely more effective than firing a burst of 100 rounds at the same group.

    Product advertised and product delivered turned out to be two different things

    The Army makes the decisions and they don't want to spend big money so instead of mini turrets, they got bow mounted weapons with fairly limited traverse and range of fire. They also seem to have a very strange set up for the 30mm cannon, but that is largely due to the manned turret also containing the ammo... an Armata variant with an unmanned turret makes more sense with a better ammo load out.

    The BMPT doesn't need APDS or APFSDS rounds... mostly HEI and a light APHEI is fine so instead of two 2A42 cannon, I would replace that with the twin barrel 30mm cannon from the Hind, which is a longer barrel version of what the Su-25 carries.
    Add a 40mm grenade launcher and with airburst 30mm and 40mm rounds you are pretty good to go... use a modified Epocha turret with four Kornets and 8 Bulat all ready to fire and say 1,000 rounds of 30mm ammo and 400 x 40mm grenades for the turret mounted weapons... or perhaps replace the 30mm twin barrel cannon for the much smaller 23mm twin barrel cannon in the current Hinds with 23 x 115mm rounds that are much much smaller but with a heavy HE payload for its calibre... you could probably get 3-4 thousand rounds in the turret and rear hull... you would probably need water cooling for the barrels...

    In terms of fire power those twin 23mm are devastating against most ground targets...
    avatar
    Lennox

    Posts : 38
    Points : 40
    Join date : 2021-07-30

    BMPT "Terminator" - Page 23 Empty Re: BMPT "Terminator"

    Post  Lennox Sat Oct 09, 2021 8:13 am

    PapaDragon wrote:
    BMPT work for places like Middle East but in scenarios Russia is expecting a proper tank makes more sense

    It works for urban warfare in general. Middle East just happens to have a lot of that. Doesn't mean it wont be useful elsewhere.

    PapaDragon wrote:
    Originally BMPT was supposed to have additional armor and protection and ability to fire both guns simultaneously which would make sense but in reality it's just regular T-72 with two 30mm guns which are reserved for different ammo types (plus they couldn't even be arsed to add some extra missiles)

    I have documents that say otherwise (look up the patents and technical drawings for its turret). It does have additional armor, which is why its protection is on par with the T-90 instead of T-72. Each of the 30mm has 2 ammo belts and you can change the ammo type independently with a push of a button like on the BMP-2 (ie. each gun isnt reserved for 1 ammo type). There is also a mode where only 1 cannon is fired instead of 2. And I don't see why it has to fire both guns simultaneously, what's wrong with alternating shots?

    Also, why add more missiles? The thing isn't meant to fight tanks. More missiles = more logistics problems.

    PapaDragon wrote:
    UVZ has been trying to sell BMPT to Russian Army for decades but Army simply wants more tanks in that weight category

    Like I said earlier. The problem with this thing is how it is supposed to be used (+ the logistic problems that come with the 30mm belts which require a lot of ammo). And even after they finished the doctrine earlier this year, it's still being tested and revised. Why buy something that you haven't figured out how to use. Another thing that delayed its adoption is the fact that it was conceived a long time ago. The nature of war changed to include unmanned vehicles. And the Uran-9 robot just happens to fit the BMPT role perfectly (it even has the same cannon + more missiles to your liking)



    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 31010
    Points : 31536
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    BMPT "Terminator" - Page 23 Empty Re: BMPT "Terminator"

    Post  GarryB Sat Oct 09, 2021 11:50 am

    Be aware that missiles for the BMPT is for manouvering targets at long range like aircraft and drones and light vehicles.

    Missiles shown like Ataka will be the HE frag equipped models for hitting point targets at extended ranges... like the western equivalent of a Kornet team.

    There are many situations where the enemy has little to no armour and vehicles designed to engage enemy troops in the open or the positions they are hiding in are more useful than a vehicle with a 125mm gun...

    Sponsored content

    BMPT "Terminator" - Page 23 Empty Re: BMPT "Terminator"

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Sun Oct 24, 2021 8:55 am