BMPT "Terminator"

It is very confusing.

This Kamaz Typhoon... they actually call it Taifun I think, but it is the same thing, is an armoured truck.

The Army will likely use it as an armoured truck.

The MVD and FSB etc will use it as both an APC and an armoured truck.

The Army will have boomerang-10 as a family of light wheeled armoured vehicles.

It will also have boomerang-25 and kurganets-25 as two different families of medium wheeled and tracked armoured vehicles.

It will also have the armata family of heavy tracked armoured vehicles.

It will have 8 types of motorised brigades... it will have heavy tank and heavy motorised rifle brigades both using the armata chassis. It will have medium wheeled tank and medium tracked tank brigades and medium wheeled motor rifle and medium tracked motor rifle brigades, and it will have light wheeled tank and light wheeled motor rifle brigades.

In other words there are tank brigades and there are infantry brigades (motor rifle), and they will have heavy tracked, medium tracked, medium wheeled, and light wheeled tank and infantry brigades.

For units outside these brigades there will be security and transport and other units that might find an armoured truck more useful than a small cramped IFV.

Generally the Taifun will be used where troops need to be protected from small arms fire, and need to be transported, but don't need fire support when they get there.

That is most common with MVD and FSB, though as shown on the model above it could certainly carry the turret off a BTR-80 and deliver support if needed.

More than a few anti terrorist operations I have seen footage of show the use of 14.5mm HMG fire from a BTR parked outside the bad guys residence.

When I looked at the pictures something catch my eyes and make me wonder, I went to in these pictures two tanks, one like the T-99, if that’s the name, and one like the BMPT.  I have a crazy idea; the tank that we saw is hybrid between tank with 125mm gun, and BMPT with the Gatling gun and the grenade launcher or maybe a mortar. As much as I think about that, it’s make sense, why to separate between the BMPTs and tanks, we can have one that can do both jobs. Now when the crew is in the hell, there is more room in the tank that can be used in a smarter way.
What say you?

Nice photos.

The Kamaz Taifun is actually an early prototype of the Kamaz Typhoon.

The Ural Typhoon is the Ural-ZA developed from the Ural-63095.

When I looked at the pictures something catch my eyes and make me wonder, I went to in these pictures two tanks, one like the T-99, if that’s the name, and one like the BMPT. I have a crazy idea; the tank that we saw is hybrid between tank with 125mm gun, and BMPT with the Gatling gun and the grenade launcher or maybe a mortar. As much as I think about that, it’s make sense, why to separate between the BMPTs and tanks, we can have one that can do both jobs. Now when the crew is in the hell, there is more room in the tank that can be used in a smarter way.

The roles are different.

Basically the role of a tank is heavy gun platform that can destroy enemy equipment and equals at long range with its heavy gun.
The role of the BMPT is close in firepower and direct fire support to replace infantry where it is too dangerous for infantry to operate.

The result is that the tank needs good sensors and long range weapons of high power... which generally makes high elevation difficult.

The BMPT on the other hand needs high firepower and high elevation weapons.

BTW don't let the 120mm rifled gun fool you, it is not a high pressure long range tank gun, it is actually a very long mortar gun barrel that can fire guided missiles, 120mm mortar shells, and 120mm howitzer type rounds.

It can't fire APFSDS rounds, only HE and HEAT and missiles and of course mortar shells.

In many ways the BMPT will actually replace the heavy firepower of the BMP, so the troop transports in a heavy brigade can have a much lighter armament... perhaps a mix of a few with 45 or 57mm gun and perhaps ATGMs, and others simply with a 14.5mm HMG or perhaps its 23mm calibre upgrade KPB. The result is more space for troops and lower danger of internal explosions from carrying lots of HE rounds and propellent.

I view the Armata-BMPT as a cross between the BMP-3, BMPT Terminator, and Vena.

The 120mm HEAT will be overkill against any IFV, wheeled or tracked out there, the 120mm with HE and the 23mm will be devastating against infantry in urban environments, and will excel at suppression and destruction of fortified positions. The 23mm can also perform as an anti aircraft weapon if it needs to. The area it's weakest against is heavy armor, and for that it has top-attack, guided 120mm mortar rounds, which should be more efficient than the Terminator's four ATGMs against MBT's. If "Afghanistan" APS can reliably defeat APSFDS, we'll have a real contender. It doesn't take much insight to look at that model and see a revolutionary piece of equipment, built on a foundation of decades of research and combat experience.

There's a few countries that come to mind who's troops would love to have something like it in their arsenal.

GarryB wrote:Nice photos.

The Kamaz Taifun is actually an early prototype of the Kamaz Typhoon.

The Ural Typhoon is the Ural-ZA developed from the Ural-63095.

When I looked at the pictures something catch my eyes and make me wonder, I went to in these pictures two tanks, one like the T-99, if that’s the name, and one like the BMPT. I have a crazy idea; the tank that we saw is hybrid between tank with 125mm gun, and BMPT with the Gatling gun and the grenade launcher or maybe a mortar. As much as I think about that, it’s make sense, why to separate between the BMPTs and tanks, we can have one that can do both jobs. Now when the crew is in the hell, there is more room in the tank that can be used in a smarter way.

The roles are different.

Basically the role of a tank is heavy gun platform that can destroy enemy equipment and equals at long range with its heavy gun.
The role of the BMPT is close in firepower and direct fire support to replace infantry where it is too dangerous for infantry to operate.

The result is that the tank needs good sensors and long range weapons of high power... which generally makes high elevation difficult.

The BMPT on the other hand needs high firepower and high elevation weapons.

BTW don't let the 120mm rifled gun fool you, it is not a high pressure long range tank gun, it is actually a very long mortar gun barrel that can fire guided missiles, 120mm mortar shells, and 120mm howitzer type rounds.

It can't fire APFSDS rounds, only HE and HEAT and missiles and of course mortar shells.

In many ways the BMPT will actually replace the heavy firepower of the BMP, so the troop transports in a heavy brigade can have a much lighter armament... perhaps a mix of a few with 45 or 57mm gun and perhaps ATGMs, and others simply with a 14.5mm HMG or perhaps its 23mm calibre upgrade KPB. The result is more space for troops and lower danger of internal explosions from carrying lots of HE rounds and propellent.

Thank for that, but look what we have. A big gun probably an upgrade 125mm plus MGs, plus 23mm Gatling gun with 10,000 spm and grenade launcher that are auxiliary to the turret, and they will have high elevation.
The BMPT’s job is to escort the tanks and defend them from “tanks hunter”, this hybrid will do excellent job.

As for urban fighting, the BMPT don’t have enough HE power and that’s in my view a big minus. I will take a good protected turret put there the weapons of the BMP-3 plus RWS and that’s will be my “infantry tank” that will be part of the infantry bridge.

Zivo wrote:I view the Armata-BMPT as a cross between the BMP-3, BMPT Terminator, and Vena.

The 120mm HEAT will be overkill against any IFV, wheeled or tracked out there, the 120mm with HE and the 23mm will be devastating against infantry in urban environments, and will excel at suppression and destruction of fortified positions. The 23mm can also perform as an anti aircraft weapon if it needs to. The area it's weakest against is heavy armor, and for that it has top-attack, guided 120mm mortar rounds, which should be more efficient than the Terminator's four ATGMs against MBT's. If "Afghanistan" APS can reliably defeat APSFDS, we'll have a real contender. It doesn't take much insight to look at that model and see a revolutionary piece of equipment, built on a foundation of decades of research and combat experience.

There's a few countries that come to mind who's troops would love to have something like it in their arsenal.

The BMPT has 2 30mm guns. It's ok to change it, but then it's not BMPT anymore.
You can not put to many weapons on a tank, at the end no one will know who to work with them. leave the mortar to the artilry, and the AA to the AA guys, and let's do what we need to do.
To change the weapon on the BMPT is ok, and the best option will be the 57mm gun, with smart ammo it will do a lot of demage. add to that 80mm rockets and you get a good vehicle.

I view the Armata-BMPT as a cross between the BMP-3, BMPT Terminator, and Vena.

In terms of weaponry, yes, I very much agree.

In role however that is not the case because the BMP-3 is a powerfully armed troop transport, the BMPT is a tank support vehicle and the Vena is indirect artillery support.

The armata-BMPT is a tank support vehicle... it might do double duty as a mortar carrier, but there is no way it would have room for troops and all that ammo.

The 120mm HEAT will be overkill against any IFV, wheeled or tracked out there,

The HEAT 120mm shell is for self defence for the 120mm NONA vehicle and is only for use in the self defence role and direct fire at that. It has an effective range of 1,000m and armour penetration of 600mm, so it would really only be useful against medium armoured and light armoured vehicles.

Against tanks they would use guided missiles like Gran or Kitilov. The HEAT round would generally be used against hard points like bunkers or thick walled buildings.

As for urban fighting, the BMPT don’t have enough HE power and that’s in my view a big minus. I will take a good protected turret put there the weapons of the BMP-3 plus RWS and that’s will be my “infantry tank” that will be part of the infantry bridge.

The original BMPT based on the T-90 chassis had two 30mm cannon and 4 ATAKA ATGMs. The 30mm cannon shells are powerful and would be effective against aircraft, but lack real HE punch.
The armata BMPT with a 120mm rifled gun/mortar would have plenty of HE punch in direct fire mode and indirect fire mode. The 23mm gatling in 10-20 round bursts would be like a cluster bomb launcher throwing 10-20 hand grenades in bunches out to about 2-3km and would be a very efficient and effective weapon against a range of target types.
The 30-40mm grenade launcher offers a low velocity weapon with a nice curved trajectory that can reach over frontal cover and hit targets the other weapons just can't reach.

It is a very nice combination of weapons that are quite complimentary.

If you read some of the older threads about the BMPT you will see I argued for a large calibre low velocity gun like the 100mm gun of the BMP-3 because in terms of HE firepower... 4 ATAKAs is just not enough. They aren't bad missiles but a vehicle that operates in an urban environment needs to have a lot of HE on board to spread around.

Delayed action 120mm HE shells penetrating the wall of a building and exploding inside is far more effective than splattering the outer wall with 30mm HE rounds.

The BMPT has 2 30mm guns. It's ok to change it, but then it's not BMPT anymore.

The T-90 based BMPT with two 30mm cannon has already been rejected by the Russian military.

The BMPT concept is a tank support vehicle to be used when it is too dangerous for infantry in the open to survive and IFVs are too vulnerable. In other words down town Grozny.

You can not put to many weapons on a tank, at the end no one will know who to work with them. leave the mortar to the artilry, and the AA to the AA guys, and let's do what we need to do.

I agree, but the armata-BMPT is not a tank it is a tank support vehicle. It needs high elevation weapons... it can use laser guided missiles to engage aerial targets... the low velocity 23mm gatling gun would not be great against most aircraft, but would be devastating against ground targets with a heavy projectile but a small shell case so the vehicle can carry a lot of ammo without taking up too much room. The 120mm rifled gun/mortar packs a powerful HE charge, can fire shells and mortar bombs, and also can fire tube launched laser guided missiles. Round that out with a 30-40mm grenade launcher which is small, high elevation, good HE charge, small compact ammo, and its low velocity means it can get into places higher velocity rounds wont go.

It is the ideal combination for a vehicle that is to support tanks in a close in built up area.

To change the weapon on the BMPT is ok, and the best option will be the 57mm gun, with smart ammo it will do a lot of demage. add to that 80mm rockets and you get a good vehicle.

The IFV in the heavy brigade unit will probably already be carrying a 57/45mm gun. 80mm rockets are not hugely accurate and are quite large things... they are between 1.5m and 1.7m long... there wont be much room for reloads.

A 120mm rifled gun/mortar has a better payload, better accuracy, much longer range, and is more flexible because it can fire shells, mortar bombs, or guided missiles.

As shown in Libya unguided rocket pods on the back of light trucks are pretty inaccurate and fairly pointless weapons.

From the air pointed down at a group of enemy then they are excellent to spray down and spread shrapnel and death, but against most point targets it really sounds like a better idea than it is. When shooting down at an angle if you miss by a few metres the rocket will still hit the ground near the target and fragments can still cause damage. From a ground target to a ground target a metre low can result in the rocket hitting the ground hundreds of metres short, while 2cm too high and it will miss completely and probably land thousands of metres away.

A 23mm gatling will deliver 23mm calibre HE charges in large groups so rapidly they will seem to all arrive at once... like a cluster bomb going off... just what you want.

and the AA to the AA guys

BMPT was not designed to do AA job, but it could do it in self defense. BMPT was in first place designed to replace AA guns from ground battles, where they are very effective, but too vulnerable because of thin armor and to expensive and valuable because of its special equipment inside.

Exactly.

The first BMPTs were Shilkas and ZSU-57-2s and BTR-152s with twin 14.5mm HMGs in the back which were all intended for the AA role but were also used in the ground to ground role to suppress enemy forces.

As Medo says... they were very effective in that role in terms of fire power, but their light armour made them vulnerable.

In fact ZSU-23-4 vehicles used to have all their electronics removed for a double ammo load especially for the purpose.

The ZSU-23-4 uses the powerful 23 x 152mm round which has high velocity and a heavy projectile. The 23 x 115mm round uses the same projectile but the 14.5 x 114mm case, so for the ground to ground role it probably would have made more sense, if they had the time and opportunity to change to that lighter round... the projectiles are the same but the ammo is much smaller and more compact and its lower velocity would not matter against ground targets.

Of course if they could change the calibre they could probably also add armour and make a new vehicle for the job... in fact some old tank like a T-55 with the main gun replaced by a 23mm 6 barrel gatling, or twin barrel 23mm gun, and the 100mm ammo replaced with piles and piles of 23 x 115mm rounds. Just a gunner and commander... it could be one continuous belt so no loader would be needed.

That would make them more efficient at a minor increase in cost, but in terms of storage and loading, you are probably looking at a couple of 20 shot pods holding 40 ready to use rockets, with laser guidance kits they would be direct fire line of sight weapons.

It would make them more effective in the anti aircraft role and for use against UAVs or light soft skinned vehicles.

AFAIK however the only vehicle that uses unguided rockets is linebacker, which is primarily an air defence vehicle.

Ugroza will revolutionise attack and assault helo performance, but for ground vehicle use I am not so sure.

Keep in mind that the 73mm gun of the BMP-1 is basically a closed off rocket launcher firing a rocket based on the rocket used on the RPG-7. In rocket form the RPG-7 had an effective range of 500m or less, while the rocket in the BMP-1 is considered to have an effective range of 800m and 1.3km against area targets.

At a minimum of 1.5m long I think they are simply too long, a 120mm rifled gun/mortar is more flexible and actually rather longer ranged. The 120mm rifled gun/mortar of the Vena can reach 13km and also fire a range of ammo types.

As an added bonus using the 120mm rifled gun means the 100mm rifled gun of the BMP-3 can be withdrawn from service.

The 120mm rifled gun/mortar is also being fitted to 2S1 122mm howitzer vehicles, so this means that not only the 100mm rifled tank gun of the T-54/55, the 115mm smoothbore gun of the T-62, but also the 100mm rifled gun of the BMP-3 and the 122mm gun of the 2S1 can all be removed from the inventory, leaving 120mm gun/mortar (and of course the 120mm mortar which is compatible in terms of mortar rounds anyway), the 125mm tank gun, and the 152mm heavy artillery round.

I believe the 160mm mortar round is only used in mountain units if at all, and the 240mm 2S4 mortar and 203mm heavy 2S7 vehicles can be kept for special units.

This represents an enormous shake up in calibres.

More importantly it is without a loss in performance... the 120mm gun will be bigger and heavier than the 100mm gun of the BMP-3, and its ammo is larger and heavier, but it is also longer ranged and more powerful too.

There were only three known rounds developed for the 100mm BMP-3 gun... a standard 4km range HE shell, an improved, more powerful 7km range HE shell, and a guided missile.

The 120mm gun/mortar can fire HE, and HEAT shells as well as rocket assisted shells, as well as missiles including Gran (for 120mm mortars) and Kitilov (for the 122mm artillery), and the full range of Russian and Western 120mm calibre mortar rounds and therefore also western designed guided 120mm mortar rounds too.

The NONA proved how effective a mobile 120mm mortar is in combat... they were very popular.

The Russians have long loved their mortars... at the start of WWII when the Germans started fighting the Soviets they came up against the widespread use of the 120mm mortar and they actually adopted the mortar themselves and put it into production... they didn't even do that with the T-34.

I have a question for you guys. Way we need 120mm gun/mortar on the BMPT that his job is to support tanks?
There are a lot of guns, mortars, and artillery in the armor brigade, we don’t need more like that on the BMPTs.
There job is to protect the tanks from “tank hunters” and to destroy IFVs and APCs to help the tanks do there job, for that they need a different gun.

What they need is 57mm gun. I’m not familiar with the Russian gun or there ammo, but 57mm gun like the Bofors, is very efficient gun and has very good ammo.
Some of the ammo type included the APFSDS-T that will be very effective against armour vehicles, and the 3-P round which is a multi-role round, and can be use in every situation as it has very smart fuse.

The tanks and BMPTs have big jobs in wars, no need to complicate it with more tasks.
The 23mm Gatling gun and the grenade launcher will be perfect as secondary weapons for the BMPT.

Link for Bofors 57mm ammo:
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2003gun/boren.pdf

I have a question for you guys. Way we need 120mm gun/mortar on the BMPT that his job is to support tanks?

The Russians and Soviets don't see a tank as an anti tank vehicle. They see it as an infantry support vehicle that is also very well equipped to take on enemy equivalents.

In addition to tank the Soviets liked to use their artillery in the direct fire role where practical. Hense the Su-76 was widely produced and used during WWII.

In more modern terms they have the BMP-1 with its 73mm gun, the BMP-3 with its 100mm gun optimised to fire a 100kg HE shell at relatively low velocity.

Despite this their tanks still carry 2/3rds of their main gun ammo as HE Frag or HEAT.

The vast majority of targets a tank fires upon in combat will not be another tank.

In COIN operations it will be even less.

Generally a tank will be used to reduce a hard point that has stopped the infantry advance... a mg nest... a sniper in a building, or some sort of bunker etc.

A direct fire 120mm gun/mortar is much much more accurate than a conventional mortar, whether delivering shells or mortar bombs.

Equally the relatively low velocity of the ammo means that except at very close range it tends to come in at a near vertical angle so the fragments are spread evenly around the point of impact so it is much more effective at killing.

There are a lot of guns, mortars, and artillery in the armor brigade, we don’t need more like that on the BMPTs.

That artillery will be used for targets out of direct fire range and might be allocated for specific missions. For a commander of a company of infantry vehicles having their own direct fire weapons is an enormous asset.

The Soviets/Russians also love their mortars.

When the Germans came up against Soviet mortars at the start of WWII they thought they were under air attack. It turned out to be a unit of 160mm mortars firing 40kg HE shells. Most Soviet WWII units had lots of 120mm mortars firing very very effective 16kg HE bombs. They also had a lot of 50mm mortars that were largely useless and a complete waste of time, but then so did many other armies.

The Germans were so impressed by the Soviet 120mm mortars they adopted the weapon themselves and deployed them widely.

There job is to protect the tanks from “tank hunters” and to destroy IFVs and APCs to help the tanks do there job, for that they need a different gun.

Tanks and friendly IFVs are perfectly capable of destroying enemy IFVs. The job of the BMPT is heavy firepower to neutralise enemy infantry formations whereever they might be... from the basement of a building to the top floor to half way up a cliff face. Previously the vehicles used for the BMPT role were anti aircraft guns like the Shilka but with the electronics removed so they could carry more ammo.

That is not to say they need air defence capability because they will also have air defence vehicles with them too.

What they need is 57mm gun. I’m not familiar with the Russian gun or there ammo, but 57mm gun like the Bofors, is very efficient gun and has very good ammo.
Some of the ammo type included the APFSDS-T that will be very effective against armour vehicles, and the 3-P round which is a multi-role round, and can be use in every situation as it has very smart fuse.

The 57mm Soviet round is enormous but they have improved its ammo and have a laser guided shell and other new rounds that make it look interesting. The main problem is ammo size... it is actually rather bigger than the 100mm HE round from the BMP-3.

The purpose of the BMPT is to protect tanks... the tanks themselves are perfectly capable of defeating enemy IFVs and tanks at extended ranges.

The 23mm Gatling gun and the grenade launcher will be perfect as secondary weapons for the BMPT.

I agree, but a powerful HE capacity is missing... on that armata model it was filled with the 120mm gun/mortar.

An unprotected building or group of troops in the open and a 50 round burst of 23mm gatling will deliver a shower of 23mm HE projectiles that will be very effective.

If there is a wall or buildings between you and the enemy a 10 round burst from a 40mm grenade launcher will also be very effective landing without warning...

A fortified building with firing slits with unknown number of snipers and MG positions and a 120mm shell with a 1/4 second delayed impact fuse will be far more effective than splattering the front with HE rounds from a 23mm gun or 40mm grenade launcher. The frontal protection will set off the lighter rounds which explode on impact and the fragments will be too light to penetrate to hurt the snipers or MG crew, who will continue to fire on your vehicles and dismounted troops.

A 120mm HE shell penetrating into the building and then exploding will kill much more effectively than any small light round.

Note the Soviets knew this from Afghanistan... the 30mm cannon of the BMP-2 was effective against a wide range of targets, but sometimes when the enemy hid behind rock walls... the 30mm shells would move the lighter rocks, but a 73mm HE round would bring the whole wall down because of the extra HE power.

There is no substitute for the right tool for the job.

It is not like a BMPT armata will have to be designed from scratch, the model shown could be used for the BMPT, and take off the 23mm gatling and its ammo supply and take off the 40mm grenade launcher and its ammo supply, put a remote weapon station on the rear with a PKT MG and fill all that freed up space with extra 120mm shells and mortar bombs and you have your heavy mortar carrier with the artillery avionics suite.

The BMPT would probably be suited to the IFV avionics suite, though aspects of the tank suite might be useful too. I would need to know more about each to make a proper decision..

The point is that it is a simple amalgam of existing systems... the 23mm ammo is already used by the late model Mi-35M2s with the 23mm chin turret. The ammo means that it can be used in KPV type HMGs with a 23mm cal barrel fitted. It reduces their anti armour performance but would greatly improve their anti personal performance, though I rather suspect that a 23 x 115mm round could be designed with a high velocity APFSDS sabot round, but you would need a dual feed mechanism and a digital fire control system as the trajectories would be totally different.

Really though, think of the Armata BMPT as a modern KV-2.

AJ-47 wrote:I have a question for you guys. Way we need 120mm gun/mortar on the BMPT that his job is to support tanks?
There are a lot of guns, mortars, and artillery in the armor brigade, we don’t need more like that on the BMPTs.
There job is to protect the tanks from “tank hunters” and to destroy IFVs and APCs to help the tanks do there job, for that they need a different gun.

What they need is 57mm gun. I’m not familiar with the Russian gun or there ammo, but 57mm gun like the Bofors, is very efficient gun and has very good ammo.
Some of the ammo type included the APFSDS-T that will be very effective against armour vehicles, and the 3-P round which is a multi-role round, and can be use in every situation as it has very smart fuse.

The tanks and BMPTs have big jobs in wars, no need to complicate it with more tasks.
The 23mm Gatling gun and the grenade launcher will be perfect as secondary weapons for the BMPT.

Link for Bofors 57mm ammo:
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2003gun/boren.pdf

I quite agree with you. BMPT doesn't need 120 mm mortar or any other big gun. It works with tanks, so why place 120 mm mortar on it, when 125 mm HE shell from tank will do the same job? Big guns only take valuable space for ammo, increase weight and decrease elevation.

30mm gun on BMPT is primary weapon, not secondary. Secondary is ATAKA ATGM. When choosing guns for BMPT, you have to know two things. Bigger caliber gun have too low rate of fire, gatling gun have too high rate of fire and you will be too quickly out of ammo. We could debate about compromise constructors choose for BMPT with two 2A42 guns and place instead GSh-30-2 or any other gun with similar capabilities, but for my opinion this compromise is good one. Only things I think they have to improve are higher elevation for main guns up to 70° or more and installing day/night sight in its FCS, which could follow guns to the higher elevation. Maybe they could also increase the number of ATGMs from 4 to 8, what is more than enough. Anything else is job for tanks or artillery and TOS behind.

Well... not really.

KV-2 was a super tank that was supposed to support attacks on heavy structures that a standard 76.2mm gun would do little to.

It really lacked the mobility to operate with infantry or armour in open country... in many ways the KV-2 was a siege engine... its role being to sit and fire and reduce heavy concrete fortifications... it would be the sort of vehicle you might have used to take on the Maginot line... they would have selected an area where the defence guns couldn't reach and it would just sit there and pound its way through.

In built up area fighting it could have been a powerful weapon to reduce buildings and anti tank structures to scrap, but in the mobile fluid tank warfare it ended up being used in it was a bit of a failure. If they had had enough tanks to pick and choose a fight they could have kept them aside and waited for urban combat or a siege, or when the Germans fortified a line it would be handy to go in there and smash everything with its enormous gun.

About the only tank destroyers they had were the SU-85 and SU-100 both armed with very powerful and very high velocity weapons that were very effective against any contemporary German armour... I believe the Soviet nickname for the Su-100 was translated into "f'ing end to everything". It was held in the greatest respect by the German forces too who feared its power.

Apart from those two vehicles and their ISU equivalents all the rest were basically direct fire artillery used to support tank and motor infantry operations.

The BMPT concept is not some sort of super tank, it is basically to compliment the tank... to engage the targets that threaten tanks that tanks are not good at fighting because their guns only elevate to about 20 degrees up down to perhaps 5 degrees down... it is a very limited range of elevation.

Late model BMPs have the firepower to do that, but they lack the armour to follow tanks everywhere.

With the new brigade structure it is all together possible that the BMPT has become redundant because the armata based IFV will have the firepower needed for the role so an armata IFV without the troops and extra ammo for its main weapons could be the solution.

Remember the model with the 120mm rifled gun/mortar is just a model.

It could offer another alternative in that the IFV is optimised for fighting IFVs... and the BMPT doesn't really need that because the tanks they operate with and the IFVs they operate with should be able to handle any armoured threat at much longer ranges.

This suggests that taking the gun/mortar of support vehicles and a 23mm gatling gun and a 40mm grenade launcher would offer the HE firepower in close that would be needed to suppress and enemy assault or attack on an armoured force.

I would love to see such a vehicle... that 23mm gun would be devastating... twice the rate of fire of the US Vulcan 20mm cannon with a much heavier HE projectile... it would be truly devastating... even in short bursts.

A quarter second burst would send 50 shells downrange, and though the muzzle velocity is only about 700m/s with HE shells it is not velocity that matters... a tight cluster of 23mm projectiles exploding would be devastating.

I quite agree with you. BMPT doesn't need 120 mm mortar or any other big gun. It works with tanks, so why place 120 mm mortar on it, when 125 mm HE shell from tank will do the same job? Big guns only take valuable space for ammo, increase weight and decrease elevation.

A 125mm HE shell is a relatively high velocity round from a gun that can't elevate beyond about 20-25 degrees. It can't elevate to hit targets above it and targets behind cover are totally safe... it is the same reason the BMP-3 has a medium pressure 100mm rifled gun... it packs a lot of punch and can elevate to lob shells over barriers. The difference is that the 120mm gun/mortar is already in service and use and can use a range of ammo types. It can carry a heavier round than the 100mm 2A70 gun of the BMP-3, and comes as standard in a mount that offers very high elevation options because it doesn't need a long recoil stroke.

30mm gun on BMPT is primary weapon, not secondary. Secondary is ATAKA ATGM. When choosing guns for BMPT, you have to know two things. Bigger caliber gun have too low rate of fire, gatling gun have too high rate of fire and you will be too quickly out of ammo.

IMHO the best compromise is to have both... the 23mm gatling has a very high rate of fire, but would not be used continuously to hose down an area. The 23 x 115mm round is very small compared with even the 30mm round so a lot more 23mm cannon ammo could be carried in a given volume.
As a weapon it is actually lighter than either of the two 2A42 cannon in the old BMPT and as it is gas powered it does not need an external electric motor to power it. Using it for very short bursts would make it an effective weapon.

The Shilka has already been used in the BMPT role, and its only real problem was that had relatively thin armour and that it needed to carry more ammo... the latter problem was solve by ripping out the electronics and loading more ammo.

The 23mm gatling uses the same projectile as the Shilkas gun, but with the much smaller propellent case the projectile just takes a little longer to get there.

The target really would not know the difference except that with a Shilka there are 4,000 projectiles per minute landing around them, but with a single 23mm gatling gun, which weighs 73kgs compared to the 2A42 which weighs 115kgs each, would be firing the same projectile at up to 12,000 rpm... 3 times faster... or enabling the same burst 3 times quicker.

We could debate about compromise constructors choose for BMPT with two 2A42 guns and place instead GSh-30-2 or any other gun with similar capabilities, but for my opinion this compromise is good one. Only things I think they have to improve are higher elevation for main guns up to 70° or more and installing day/night sight in its FCS, which could follow guns to the higher elevation. Maybe they could also increase the number of ATGMs from 4 to 8, what is more than enough. Anything else is job for tanks or artillery and TOS behind.

But that ignores the situation... a tank often can't elevate to hit the target in question, while artillery don't operate directly with the tank regiments or infantry regiments... they sit further back to the rear and respond to requests for support. With a BMPT the vehicle is right there with you and is available all the time to hit targets allocated to it. It is in the fight with you and is always available to use.

It is like having all the Machine guns in the rear and having to radio back to get them to engage targets for you... it is not as useful.

The BMPTs armament is a bit like a BMP, except instead of supporting the infantry it carries it supports the armour around it. It will have a range of targets to deal with so it needs a variety of weapons.

Missiles are a stopgap answer... a band aide answer. It is better that the vehicle be fitted with the tools to do the job.

That armata BMPT model is ideal in my opinion, but as a cheaper and lighter alternative I would think replacing the 120mm rifled gun with the 100mm rifled gun of the BMP-3 could be an option to increase ammo load or for commonality reasons, but at the end of the day the 120mm "shells" (I use ""s because the shells for the 120mm gun/mortar are just projectiles with a stick out the rear with propellent bags tied to it like a howitzer round) are compact and very powerful and would be ideal for the job.

I think all the weapons slaved to the turret makes sense because these weapons wont be all used at once... a specific target will require a specific weapon.

I think in COIN type operations the BMPT would actually be more suitable to a "gun platform" type role, and certainly in the convoy protection role (like the US used the Vulcan M163 in Vietnam) it would also be ideal, and for airfield protection it could operate with Pantsir-S1s in case of a ground attack was mounted on an airbase.

The KV-2 was designed to attack entrenched infantry and fortified potions. Unfortunately, it had many problems with the use of older designs, it wasn't properly upgraded, nor properly deployed over the course of the war. Similar to the BMPT model, it was used for both indirect and direct fire support using HE shells, but point taken, it was really slow, and wasn't actually there to support the T-34s or in this case MBT's, as the modern BMPT will be doing 90% of the time.

Well, I tried, there just isn't that many AFVs like the BMPTs we've seen.

Remember the model with the 120mm rifled gun/mortar is just a model.

It's an ideal setup, but it really is just a proposal. We'll just have to wait until next year to see the actual prototypes, fingers crossed.

Something I've noticed on the model is that the two auxiliary weapon mounts are symmetrical, with a different weapon on either side. The vehicle can probably use a wide variety of weapons, even twin 2A72s. Since the turret is unmanned, there's going to be a a lot of room for ammunition. I personally like the current setup, the 23mm is favorable. However, having one or two 30s could be useful if a regiment is light on MBT or 45/57 IFV models.

A 125mm HE shell is a relatively high velocity round from a gun that can't elevate beyond about 20-25 degrees. It can't elevate to hit targets above it and targets behind cover are totally safe... it is the same reason the BMP-3 has a medium pressure 100mm rifled gun... it packs a lot of punch and can elevate to lob shells over barriers. The difference is that the 120mm gun/mortar is already in service and use and can use a range of ammo types. It can carry a heavier round than the 100mm 2A70 gun of the BMP-3, and comes as standard in a mount that offers very high elevation options because it doesn't need a long recoil stroke.

You think on 120 mm gun/mortar from Vena or Nona? This is large complex and it is better to have independent vehicle like AMOS or NEMO in Sweden on Armata vehicle, than place it in BMPT, because there will be no room for anything else. Such mortar will be also in the line with tanks and BMPTs and give artillery support where needed.

But that ignores the situation... a tank often can't elevate to hit the target in question, while artillery don't operate directly with the tank regiments or infantry regiments... they sit further back to the rear and respond to requests for support. With a BMPT the vehicle is right there with you and is available all the time to hit targets allocated to it. It is in the fight with you and is always available to use.

It is like having all the Machine guns in the rear and having to radio back to get them to engage targets for you... it is not as useful.

The BMPTs armament is a bit like a BMP, except instead of supporting the infantry it carries it supports the armour around it. It will have a range of targets to deal with so it needs a variety of weapons.

Don't forget, BMPs with infantry will be still there, only in the second line.

Tank and infantry battalions have artillery batteries to work directly with them. Also with modernization artillery is more and more equipped with UAVs and other recce equipment, who scouts for targets for both, tanks and artillery, so howitzers and mortars could respond as quickly as tanks and BMPTs could.

Russian army have more than enough artillery, MLRSs and mortars, that BMPT really doesn't need to have big gun. It's just one piece in mosaic not one man band.

Well, the main gun still needs to aim at the top floors of buildings. Maybe the engineers figured they already have an effective 120mm gun/mortar system that can reach a high angle of elevation, and adopted it for the purpose of direct HE fire.

The KV-2 was a knee jerk reaction to the problem of fighting heavy bunkers and fortifications in Finland.

It was unbalanced which made it unstable, the turret could only be traversed on level ground and it made an enormous target.

It was basically heavy artillery for the front line to deal with hard targets.

Something I've noticed on the model is that the two auxiliary weapon mounts are symmetrical, with a different weapon on either side. The vehicle can probably use a wide variety of weapons, even twin 2A72s. Since the turret is unmanned, there's going to be a a lot of room for ammunition. I personally like the current setup, the 23mm is favorable. However, having one or two 30s could be useful if a regiment is light on MBT or 45/57 IFV models.

There was speculation that the T-95 had a 30mm cannon mount and if the armata tank has a similar turret to this it might have a high velocity 125mm gun with more restricted elevation limits so the positions for the 23 and 40mm weapons on this vehicle could be used for grenade or 30mm cannon if needed on the tank armata.

You think on 120 mm gun/mortar from Vena or Nona?

I don't think they would develop a new 120mm rifled gun with such high elevation... remember a high velocity gun only really needs high elevation if they are going after aircraft... A medium or low velocity gun uses high elevation to achieve upper register fire (ie above 45 degree mortar/howitzer type fire).

This is large complex and it is better to have independent vehicle like AMOS or NEMO in Sweden on Armata vehicle, than place it in BMPT, because there will be no room for anything else. Such mortar will be also in the line with tanks and BMPTs and give artillery support where needed.

The Russians have the NONA... they don't need a foreign equivalent.

This gun/mortar is used for the BMPT because it makes sense... a fortified structure from which RPGs or ATGMs are being fired or MGs or snipers will not be effected by 30mm cannon fire and tank guns might not be able to elevate to hit it. A 120mm shell on the other hand could bring the structure down.

Fitting this gun to the BMPT and a mortar carrier means using standard weapons. The BMPT will not be fitted with the artillery avionics suite a mortar carrier would be equipped with, but most of the BMPTs work will be direct fire, and most of the mortar carriers role will be indirect fire so they will have different sensors and electronics but in this case the same main gun.

Don't forget, BMPs with infantry will be still there, only in the second line.

The BMPs will be supporting their infantry squads and not necessarily looking out for the tanks.

Russian army have more than enough artillery, MLRSs and mortars, that BMPT really doesn't need to have big gun. It's just one piece in mosaic not one man band.

There is a lot of overlap in terms of fire power. For the tank support role the BMPT will not use a 120mm gun/mortar at long range... targets at more than 2-3km can be handled by the tanks, but in a convoy protection mission a burst of 23mm cannon shells can deal with a range of targets and a 120mm gun can deal with a fairly different range of targets... they compliment each other.

Maybe the engineers figured they already have an effective 120mm gun/mortar system that can reach a high angle of elevation, and adopted it for the purpose of direct HE fire.

(120mm VENA)

It is the same 120mm rifled gun/mortar as they are fitting to the 2S1 122mm SPGs, and I don't see why they would need to develop a different 120mm rifled gun for an armata BMPT.

The Russians have the NONA... they don't need a foreign equivalent.

This gun/mortar is used for the BMPT because it makes sense... a fortified structure from which RPGs or ATGMs are being fired or MGs or snipers will not be effected by 30mm cannon fire and tank guns might not be able to elevate to hit it. A 120mm shell on the other hand could bring the structure down.

Yes, but why, if they already have NONA for that job?

Because we are talking about two different jobs.

Just like sniper and machine gunner both fire full power 7.62 ammo at targets at medium to long range, but each has a distinctive role.

They both suppress enemy infantry, but they do it in very different ways.

The NONA is a mortar carrier that happens to have a gun/mortar.

BMPT is a fire support vehicle that needs HE power from a weapon that can elevate to hit a wider range of targets at relatively close range.

The gun/mortar fitted to Vena is ideal for both roles.

It is not that unusual... you agree that the 30mm cannon of the BMP-2 IFV is a good weapon for the BMPT. I personally think the GSh-30K would be better, but it uses the same ammo... the main difference is that the GSh-30K is used on Army Aviation Hinds, while the 2A42 is already in use in ground vehicles and Mi-28s and Ka-52s.

True, we are talking about different jobs for the same vehicle. It seems we differently understand term support in BMPT.

BMPT was there to support tanks in battlefield and to replace:

a) infantry in open battlefield, where tanks and BMPTs drive fast and infantry could not run behind them.
b) AA guns in ground battles

It was not meant to replace artillery, because artillery will be still there and do its job. MSTA-S and TOS are also build on tank chassis and self propelled mortars are places on armor vehicles, so they could follow tanks. Of course they will not fire on the move, but have enough range to support tanks. After all TOS is there to do the job you meant for gun/mortar on BMPT. TOS and BMPT together are excellent combination.

It is not that unusual... you agree that the 30mm cannon of the BMP-2 IFV is a good weapon for the BMPT. I personally think the GSh-30K would be better, but it uses the same ammo... the main difference is that the GSh-30K is used on Army Aviation Hinds, while the 2A42 is already in use in ground vehicles and Mi-28s and Ka-52s.

True, I always say this compromise is a good one, but it is not written in stone, so any other option with similar capabilities are also good. We do not know what caracteristics were given in front of constructors, that they decided for this combination.

It can effectively do both A and B, plus it can accurately raze a structure using direct or indirect fire at very close range if it needs to.

Both TOS and MSTA-S are used to raze city blocks, and will not provide the instant and pinpoint response the BMPT can provide which is absolutely essential in dealing with ambushes.

True, we are talking about different jobs for the same vehicle. It seems we differently understand term support in BMPT.

I think some are fooled by the BMP and think it is a tank (T) based BMP, but you and I know that BMPT means armoured tank support vehicle, or a vehicle to support tanks.

As a secondary use it is also a convoy support vehicle, but that is not totally different as at its core it is really an anti ambush vehicle... or more specifically it is an anti ambush vehicle designed to root out infantry that tanks find it difficult to engage.

BMPT was there to support tanks in battlefield and to replace:

a) infantry in open battlefield, where tanks and BMPTs drive fast and infantry could not run behind them.
b) AA guns in ground battles

I disagree with A, the BMPT is to replace infantry in close country like a forest or urban area where enemy forces can get very close to your armour and take out the armoured vehicles from close range where the armour cannot use its firepower and detection range to hit the enemy from stand off range.
In open country the infantry can keep up with tanks by mounting their IFVs, and more importantly any enemy forces can be attacked on foot with the IFV and tanks providing direct and devastating fire support... there is no need for BMPTs here because in open country the tanks can hit targets at extended ranges.
B I agree with because those AA vehicles are used as anti ambush vehicles... an enormous amount of firepower concentrated on an ambush will stop it and throw it back rapidly.

The problem really is that the BMPT made real sense before now because the BMPT brought the BMPs IFV firepower but with the protection levels of a tank, but with Armata et al the IFVs are going to have the armour of a tank and the firepower of a BMP. The air defence vehicles will have the armour of a tank and the firepower of a Shilka.

I mean you could achieve a Shilka like BMPT vehicle with an armata based IFV with a single 23mm gatling gun and about 5,000 rounds of ammo in the turret and rear troop compartment... add a 40mm grenade launcher and 2,000 rounds of 40mm grenades and you have a fire support vehicle... another partner fire support vehicle could be the standard IFV with a 45mm gun with high elevation and extra ammo in the troop compartment.

The thing about the BMPT was firepower plus tank level protection and mobility, and the IFV and SPAAG and even the standard mortar carrier in the armata brigade will all have that...

The US even had the M3 model of the Bradley, which removed the troops and doubled the ammo capacity for all the weapons as a fire support vehicle, though not with tank level armour.

It was not meant to replace artillery, because artillery will be still there and do its job. MSTA-S and TOS are also build on tank chassis and self propelled mortars are places on armor vehicles, so they could follow tanks.

I was not suggesting the BMPT replace the artillery. In fact when I was talking about the electronics and sensors I thought I was pretty clear that the mortar carrier with the same 120mm rifled gun/mortar would have the artillery avionics suite for both direct and indirect fire, while the BMPT could use the IFV suite for direct fire only.

The difference is that the BMPT will operate with the tanks, while the artillery will operate on its own further back.

After all TOS is there to do the job you meant for gun/mortar on BMPT. TOS and BMPT together are excellent combination.

TOS is a bit overkill for the role I have in mind for BMPT. TOS is for rapidly clearing minefields, and dealing with extensive bunkers and underground structures. BMPT will be hitting MG posts half way up buildings or on cliff faces or up the side of mountains where the 24 degree angle elevation of tank guns mean they can engage.

We do not know what caracteristics were given in front of constructors, that they decided for this combination.

Exactly. We don't know what other restrictions or demands are involved and we don't have access to information about what has been tried and whether it failed and why it failed. The 2A42 is a very reliable weapon even in very dusty conditions. It might be that the GSh-30K is too sensitive to dust. Or it could be that being an Air Force designed weapon that it uses electrically fired 30mm cannon shells and the Army has demanded percussion fired rounds only and they didn't think it was worth converting the weapon to percussion.

I remember the GSh-30 was criticised by the Su-25 pilots in the Georgian conflict because of its very high rate of fire resulting in the pilots firing too many rounds at certain targets. When shooting at trucks it would only require a few hits but because of the high rate of fire they were firing rather more rounds than they needed to and ammo was getting wasted.

The GSh-30K is the modified version of the GSh-30 and is fitted to Hinds fixed to the side of the aircraft. The alterations include longer barrels resulting in a higher muzzle velocity, and muzzle flash hiders to reduce the muzzle blast. The rate of fire has also been reduced from 3,500rpm to about 2,000 rpm but it also has a low fire rate of about 350 rpm too which can be used to fire single shots. It weighs 21kgs more than the GSh-30, but at 126kgs it is still only about 11kgs heavier than the 2A42.

I think the main problem is that the GSh-30K is not dual feed like the 2A42 so you would need to load the ammo belts with a mix of ammo types, whereas with the 2A42 you can load up two different belts of ammo and flick a switch to choose between the two different ammo types... say HEI-T and API-T.

Both TOS and MSTA-S are used to raze city blocks, and will not provide the instant and pinpoint response the BMPT can provide which is absolutely essential in dealing with ambushes.

Yes, in the brigade you will have 4 regiments of tanks and IFVs, and they wont all be moving together in single file, they will likely be attacking from different directions, perhaps against different but related objectives.

The BMPT operates with the tank regiments, the infantry regiments will have IFVs to support their operations.

When any of those regiments comes across stiff resistance then artillery can be called in, whether it is a minefield that needs to be crossed rapidly... TOS, or enemy mortar fire... mortar carriers and MSTA in the counter battery role, or an enemy armoured column has been spotted starting up... MLRS with anti armour munitions.

Or there is a hardened bunker that direct fire has not bothered then MSTA with 152mm concrete piercing shells can chip away at for 10 minutes before we attack from another angle.

BMPT can provide which is absolutely essential in dealing with ambushes.

That is the critical point... anti ambush... for tanks and convoys.