BMPT "Terminator"

i believe this is the pic your looking for and a link about it http://www.military-today.com/tanks/bmpt.htm

Almost... that is the BMPT, which in many ways is an armoured support vehicle for tanks.

The picture should be of a standard tank (T-90MS) but with extra add on armour and Nakidka kits, and ARENA-2 and SHTORA-2 etc etc plus a V shaped dozer blade to help clear any obstacles.

AJ-47 wrote:
Fight in urban area will be led by the Armata IFVs and APCs, and not by the tanks. The tanks and the BMPTs will support the assault from the distance.

I disagree,  the MBTs smoothbore gun has a much larger range of elevation and depression now so it wont be a stranger in an urban firefight(except for I think more than 40- 45 degrees or so because of recoil length, and anything lower would expose weaker armor so it will be avoided). While it will not be CQC like BMPT, the MBT can still use its high velocity gun to pierce cover with hardened programmable rounds- imagine sending a round through a building block to the enemy staging area.
The BMPT has lower velocity gun which is more optimized for lobbing HE shells at enemy without piercing armor or cover, but I think it will have a much larger HE shell capacity(smaller propellant) and also the aux. weapons are there for the other crew to use.
Question: how will the BMPTs 5 crew be situated in the hull? I am thinking for a back mounted engine the hull could be either extended forward or the turret ring pulled back to make room for the two gunners, sitting back to back or their backs on the hull.

Question: how will the BMPTs 5 crew be situated in the hull? I am thinking for a back mounted engine the hull could be either extended forward or the turret ring pulled back to make room for the two gunners, sitting back to back or their backs on the hull.

I'm pretty sure the BMPT Armata will only have 3 crew members. The GSh-23-6 and the AGS-30 are controlled by the gunner. All assuming the KBTM model is the final product.

Fight in urban area will be led by the Armata IFVs and APCs, and not by the tanks. The tanks and the BMPTs will support the assault from the distance.

Separating tanks from infantry is interesting... in the past it was a bad thing because without heavy armour the infantry is vulnerable to enemy heavy armour, but with friendly IFVs armed with Kornet-EM and 45/57mm main guns and having MBT level armour then the force becomes a bit more flexible.

The original concept of the BMPT was to allow MBTs to enter areas like built up areas without needing infantry support because the life of an exposed soldier is very short in urban warfare. The BMPT was therefore intended to replace dismounted infantry which raises a few interesting ideas... instead of sending in IFVs and APCs... why not send in MBTs and BMPTs and in practical terms level the urban environment room by room, building by building. But I guess that answers itself... a tank can't fight room for room... you need dismounted infantry for that.

Not to mention it will have ammo that can penetrate more or less meter thick armor, much more precise anti-soft and indirect fire capabilities.

For not so well protected targets they could develop an armour piercing HE round that penetrates 300-400mm of armour and then explodes. It would be terribly effective against IFVs and light armour as well as fairly well built bunkers and fortified buildings.

Question: how will the BMPTs 5 crew be situated in the hull? I am thinking for a back mounted engine the hull could be either extended forward or the turret ring pulled back to make room for the two gunners, sitting back to back or their backs on the hull.

The real question is... if the IFV and MBT are tank level armoured vehicles do you need a separate BMPT vehicle. I think it would be useful and would use the BMPT T-90 as a basis. With a rear mounted engine there should be room in the front hull for 5 crew as there is room for three crew with the engine in front.

Based on the BMPT vehicle shown with the 120mm gun/mortar, plus 40mm grenade launcher and 23mm gatling gun... all those weapons are aimed by turning the turret so are pretty much likely under the control of the gunner. the different elevation capabilities allow the different ballistics of each weapon to be used... all three guns can be pointed at the target using the turret traverse and independently elevated so they will all hit the target at whatever range. This means three crew would be all that is needed, but I would like to see to flat turrets in the front hull fitted with a PKT 30 cal MG and a Balkan 40mm grenade launcher to allow two separate crewmen to operate independently of the turret and aim at targets in front of and to the side of the tank.

Having separate flat unmanned turrets should allow a wide range of traverse and elevation for a range of targets to be engaged without distracting the gunner or commander or driver.

Based on the BMPT vehicle shown with the 120mm gun/mortar, plus 40mm grenade launcher and 23mm gatling gun... all those weapons are aimed by turning the turret so are pretty much likely under the control of the gunner. the different elevation capabilities allow the different ballistics of each weapon to be used... all three guns can be pointed at the target using the turret traverse and independently elevated so they will all hit the target at whatever range. This means three crew would be all that is needed, but I would like to see to flat turrets in the front hull fitted with a PKT 30 cal MG and a Balkan 40mm grenade launcher to allow two separate crewmen to operate independently of the turret and aim at targets in front of and to the side of the tank.

The BMPT is a real issue, I’m not sure if the picture that we sew is for the BMPT or another option for a tank.
I will wait to see the reel deal. The interesting point is why we need IFV and BMPT in the same unit.I assume that the IFVs, are not carry dismount soldiers, and the IFVs is like the AIFSV-(Armor Infantry Fire Support Vehicle) that work with the APCs, as the BMPT work with the tanks.If this is the case I think one vehicle can do both jobs.

Zivo wrote:

Question: how will the BMPTs 5 crew be situated in the hull? I am thinking for a back mounted engine the hull could be either extended forward or the turret ring pulled back to make room for the two gunners, sitting back to back or their backs on the hull.

I'm pretty sure the BMPT Armata will only have 3 crew members. The GSh-23-6 and the AGS-30 are controlled by the gunner. All assuming the KBTM model is the final product.

I hope the BMPT will have 5 soldiers, so they can produce more fire power.
As for the AGL, I think it’s the AGS-57 with range of 6,000 meters.


http://raigap.livejournal.com/29866.html

Apparently a new T-72 BMPT conversion will be shown by UMZ soon, with 3 crewmebers. Export driven, so it could be one of the pilot BMPT customers (Kazakhstan) has decided to go for a larger batch from old T-72s.

EDIT: Speak of the devil....

http://gurkhan.blogspot.com/2013/08/blog-post_17.html

Well, personally I want that BMPTs would have only 3 crew and be placed like in the MBTs.
The KBTM turret armament is good, but I want it on a high mount similar to MBTs with a mini turret on top
that would be seperate from commanders sight/RWS. There would also be a clip in mini turret at the front,
similar to the artillery Armata(Koaltition). The two mini turrets are controlled by remote datalink, from a
nearby APC,IFV, command, etc. or by driver and commander. The mini turrets would have small calibre weapons
AGL as suggested by GarryB. The controls for these mini turrets should also be portable, st nearby dismounted infantry
can direct fire from the BMPT themselves, the BMPT may have nice situational awareness due to advanced sensors,
but an infantry's vision is more "connected" to the battlefield.

GarryB wrote:The original concept of the BMPT was to allow MBTs to enter areas like built up areas without needing infantry support because the life of an exposed soldier is very short in urban warfare. The BMPT was therefore intended to replace dismounted infantry which raises a few interesting ideas... instead of sending in IFVs and APCs... why not send in MBTs and BMPTs and in practical terms level the urban environment room by room, building by building. But I guess that answers itself... a tank can't fight room for room... you need dismounted infantry for that.

What a tank can do though is shoot out the ground floor, and then when the infantry rushes in to secure the ground floor, move its gun up to the upper floors. Something like that I believe is standard procedure in Russian urban warfare.
Such heavy uparmoured vehicles do raise interesting possibilities; notably there may be little need for anyone to be dismounted when the column is moving around; anyone who dares stick their heads up will be blasted. When a building or a block needs to be secured however the armoured vehicles can take position around or cordon off the wider area to prevent attacks on infantry from other directions, while the infantry dismounts from the IFVs and APCs and storms the position.

I'm not particularly knowledgable on urban warfare but that's my guess anyway.

To be fair, there just isn't a lot of literature on how exactly the BMPT is supposed to be used.

However, after watching countless hours of footage from Syria, the importance of such a vehicle is obvious.

>>The problem of getting higher elevation for the main gun, is that we need to make a bigger opening to allow the barrel go higher and that’s will weaker the turret and that’s not a good idea. To mount the 45mm gun on the side of the turret, will keep the turret stronger, will keep a lower silhouette, will be easier to fix the gun as it mount outside, and it will not take any space inside the turret. The 45mm round is telescopic and it will take less space then four 30mm rounds.<<

High elevation just requires a taller turret... a thicker turret... look at most SPGs and you can see that a slightly higher gun mount plus deeper turret allows for very high elevation.
The effect will be negligible on a vehicle with an unmanned turret as there are no crew inside the turret needing protection so it makes little difference in terms of protection yet enables the vehicle to defend itself in urban areas... and offer much better direct fire support that could allow any vehicle with a 100mm rifled gun go give up its big gun and use smaller lighter weapons.

45mm rounds will take up 125mm ammo space... more useful to have 125mm ammo space in the MBT and leave the 45mm rounds to the IFVs.

>>I’m with you on the RWS, and I will go with the 50 cal as it’s more powerful and has longer range.<<

But don't you agree that a 50 cal will have less ammo and will not be more powerful than a 40mm grenade launcher? I think the combination of 30 cal MG and 40mm grenade launcher combine punch and ammo capacity and accuracy for dealing with point targets to 1.2-1.5km and area targets out to 2.5km.

I suspect a 50 cal mount will have 500 rounds or so, while a 30 cal will have 2,000 rounds ready to fire.

The 400 odd 40mm grenades will be very useful too.

>>If the tanks will operate very close with the IFVs, maybe there is no need for 45mm, and instead we can mount the 2A42 with the Kord 12.7HMG on the side of the turret. The same HMG should be mounting in the commander’s RWS on top of the turret. <<

That is the issue... the IFVs will sometimes operate with tanks and other times operate alone depending on the mission and the requirements for the MBT are of course to be able to penetrate all the enemy armoured vehicles, while the IFV needs to be able to penetrate the enemies equivalent vehicles... some of the new NATO IFVs are over 30 tons.

>>Agree with that.<<

In COIN operations where the threat of enemy armour is zero then a BMPT like vehicle would probably be rather more useful than a tank.

The BMPT is a real issue, I’m not sure if the picture that we sew is for the BMPT or another option for a tank.

It had a 120mm rifled gun/mortar and would be no good as a tank due to lack of velocity of its main gun. It pretty much has to be a BMPT model... and the 23mm gatling gun pretty much confirms it... most ground targets don't require a 23mm cannon firing at 12,000 rpm... used in 5 or 10 round bursts however it would be devastating to ground targets to have 5-10 23mm HE rounds bursting on target almost at once... like a cluster bomb filling the air with shrapnel.

The interesting point is why we need IFV and BMPT in the same unit.I assume that the IFVs, are not carry dismount soldiers, and the IFVs is like the AIFSV-(Armor Infantry Fire Support Vehicle) that work with the APCs, as the BMPT work with the tanks.If this is the case I think one vehicle can do both jobs.

IFV is to transport and support troops in combat. The BMPT is a substitute for infantry support for tanks in places where exposed infantry would not last very long. IFVs carry troops and also the firepower to support those troops and take on tanks (with ATGMs) and enemy IFVs (with 45/57mm gun). BMPT is supposed to take on groups of enemy forces operating ATGMs or hiding in buildings or cliffs above or below the line of sight of standard tank main armament... it is an anti ambush vehicle and could also be used as a convoy escort.

Apparently a new T-72 BMPT conversion will be shown by UMZ soon, with 3 crewmebers. Export driven, so it could be one of the pilot BMPT customers (Kazakhstan) has decided to go for a larger batch from old T-72s

The drawings still show 5 seats...

I still think the missiles need to be replaced with heavy guns... either 100mm rifled from the BMP-3 or 120mm gun/mortar. Both can have laser guided precision when needed but both also offer cheap HE punch over a wide range of angles and out to decent ranges.

TR1 wrote:Apparently a new T-72 BMPT conversion will be shown by UMZ soon, with 3 crewmebers. Export driven, so it could be one of the pilot BMPT customers (Kazakhstan) has decided to go for a larger batch from old T-72s.

EDIT: Speak of the devil....

http://gurkhan.blogspot.com/2013/08/blog-post_17.html

It seems we get the same with upgrade electronic stuff, and still nobody know what to do with it.
IMO the 2 gunner in the front of the BPMT can't help much as the limitation of there weapons. Better to have 2 RWS on the top of the turret with HMG and AGL.

[quote="GarryB"]

High elevation just requires a taller turret... a thicker turret... look at most SPGs and you can see that a slightly higher gun mount plus deeper turret allows for very high elevation.
The effect will be negligible on a vehicle with an unmanned turret as there are no crew inside the turret needing protection so it makes little difference in terms of protection yet enables the vehicle to defend itself in urban areas... and offer much better direct fire support that could allow any vehicle with a 100mm rifled gun go give up its big gun and use smaller lighter weapons.

1. No, higher turret will not help for higher elevation, you still need to open the turret a little bit more to get it.
2. SPGs are not fighting in the first line, so they less exposed to direct fire, so it's less important for them.
3. It's true that for unmanned turret it's less important, but if we can do it better why not.

45mm rounds will take up 125mm ammo space... more useful to have 125mm ammo space in the MBT and leave the 45mm rounds to the IFVs.

We can install the gun and the ammo on the right side of the main turret and cover it with armor, so it will not take space inside the main turret. Other gun will not have the power to penetrate the IFVs/APCs.
If you work very close with IFVs, you can replace the 45mm gun with the 2A42 30 mm guns.

But don't you agree that a 50 cal will have less ammo and will not be more powerful than a 40mm grenade launcher? I think the combination of 30 cal MG and 40mm grenade launcher combine punch and ammo capacity and accuracy for dealing with point targets to 1.2-1.5km and area targets out to 2.5km.
I suspect a 50 cal mount will have 500 rounds or so, while a 30 cal will have 2,000 rounds ready to fire.
The 400 odd 40mm grenades will be very useful too.

For RWS the best combination will be 50 cal and the Balkan 40mm AGL.

That is the issue... the IFVs will sometimes operate with tanks and other times operate alone depending on the mission and the requirements for the MBT are of course to be able to penetrate all the enemy armoured vehicles, while the IFV needs to be able to penetrate the enemies equivalent vehicles... some of the new NATO IFVs are over 30 tons.

Agree.

In COIN operations where the threat of enemy armour is zero then a BMPT like vehicle would probably be rather more useful than a tank.

Agree again.

It had a 120mm rifled gun/mortar and would be no good as a tank due to lack of velocity of its main gun. It pretty much has to be a BMPT model... and the 23mm gatling gun pretty much confirms it... most ground targets don't require a 23mm cannon firing at 12,000 rpm... used in 5 or 10 round bursts however it would be devastating to ground targets to have 5-10 23mm HE rounds bursting on target almost at once... like a cluster bomb filling the air with shrapnel.

I'm not sure that the picture we saw is the BMPT. On the barrel we can see the fume extractor, so it's probably high pressure gun, it has to long barrel for a mortar, and I can't see if it's rifled or not. The 6×23mm gun shows me that it has capability against hello and drone, more than against ground target.
I think the BMPT "Terminator" is more equipped for CQC or open space, I think 1,600 RPM for both 30mm gun is perfect for CQC, and 8 ATGM is perfect for fight in open spaces.  

IFV is to transport and support troops in combat. The BMPT is a substitute for infantry support for tanks in places where exposed infantry would not last very long. IFVs carry troops and also the firepower to support those troops and take on tanks (with ATGMs) and enemy IFVs (with 45/57mm gun). BMPT is supposed to take on groups of enemy forces operating ATGMs or hiding in buildings or cliffs above or below the line of sight of standard tank main armament... it is an anti ambush vehicle and could also be used as a convoy escort.

I think if we take out the dismount infantry from the IFV, we can find common ground between the BMPT and the IFV and use only one vehicle.

During WWII, the Red Army was using the self-propelled guns SU-76, Su-122 and even SU-152 as fire support vehicles in urban areas. They would go in, blast the enemy infantry sniper positions, hideouts and everything else with direct gun fire. They also would fight against German Tiger and Panther tanks in open areas.
In my opinion, the modern day BMPT's missions should be along similar lines:
-Heavy gun (120mm or greater) for blasting away at anything that breathes in urban area with direct fire.
-Same heavy gun will be used for indirect fire (artillery)
-ATGMs (barrel launched) for use against enemy tanks in open terrain.


In essence, the BMPT would be a 3 in 1 vehicle: Anti-guerilla warfare (particularly in urban areas), anti-tank and artillery.
Of course, one can add 40 mm grenade launcher and/or some machine gun/gatling gun. These will be secondary weapons meant for suppression fire. The main weapon of the BMPT will be its 120+mm gun.

With the above reasoning. The BMPT would be replacing the Gvozdika and Acacia self-propelled howitzers.

2. SPGs are not fighting in the first line, so they less exposed to direct fire, so it's less important for them.

I Know.  

3. It's true that for unmanned turret it's less important, but if we can do it better why not.

When given a design choice of either having a high elevation main gun... with the consequence of having a larger turret, OR having to mount a 45mm cannon and all its stabilisation and aiming systems and of course its ammo... I think the cheapest simplest option is better elevation range for the main gun.

We can install the gun and the ammo on the right side of the main turret and cover it with armor, so it will not take space inside the main turret. Other gun will not have the power to penetrate the IFVs/APCs.

So you want to store live ammo in the turret above the turret ring within the line of enemy fire?

That is a bad thing that makes the vehicle vulnerable to enemy fire from all directions.

The high elevation 125mm main gun can penetrate all IFVs and APCs. A new shell with an APHE design could make it ideal for the role and it would be useful against bunkers and buildings too as most AP rounds just punch holes in targets and don't do major damage behind the protection layer. APHE on the other hand would obliterate the troops inside a troop carrier without needing to hit ammo or fuel.

If you work very close with IFVs, you can replace the 45mm gun with the 2A42 30 mm guns.

A 23mm cannon has the HE power to deal with most soft targets on the battlefield without the high velocity of the 30mm which is also unnecessary for most ground targets while having small compact ammo.

For RWS the best combination will be 50 cal and the Balkan 40mm AGL.

Perhaps here we can disagree... I think the 300-500 12.7mm rounds out to about 2km range will not be as useful as 2,000 rounds of 7.62mm ammo and anything requiring more punch can be dealt with using 40mm grenade ammo out to 2.5km. I would actually be tempted to change the ammo ratio to 1,000 rounds of 7.62mm ammo and 1,000 40mm grenades as I think the grenades will be much more useful than either calibre MG. Grenade fragments tend to reach around corners and into places bullets often never manage to reach.

I'm not sure that the picture we saw is the BMPT. On the barrel we can see the fume extractor, so it's probably high pressure gun, it has to long barrel for a mortar, and I can't see if it's rifled or not.

It states in the article that the picture came with that the gun is a 120mm rifled gun/mortar.

The 6×23mm gun shows me that it has capability against hello and drone, more than against ground target.

Fairly low muzzle velocity of about 700m/s makes it not so ideal for shooting at high speed aerial targets, but its rate of fire certainly should make it effective against slow movers.

The very high rate of fire means bursts arrive more like a shotgun blast rather than a stream of projectiles which makes evading the rounds almost impossible.

I think the BMPT "Terminator" is more equipped for CQC or open space, I think 1,600 RPM for both 30mm gun is perfect for CQC, and 8 ATGM is perfect for fight in open spaces.

For ground targets rate of fire for the 30mm guns is not so important, while 8 relatively expensive missiles with HE warheads is not so efficient... a BMP-3 carries a 100mm rifled gun with 40 rounds of HE shells to engage ground targets and is therefore better equipped to deal with point ground targets out to about 7km.

I have nothing against ATGMs, but I think a gun mount... in the case of the BMPT with a 120mm g/m is very well equipped to take on ground targets.

In fact if you do a search I suggested the best BMPT based on the T-90 before the armata model was revealed was either a 100mm rifled gun from the BMP-3 and a single twin barrel 30mm cannon as fitted to the Hind and Su-25 as it gave better HE firepower (40 shells vs 8 missiles) plus 8 Missiles fired through the 100mm gun... the smaller calibre not so important when fitted with HE warheads, plus the twin barrel 30mm gun had a high rate of fire (2,500rpm and reduced rates of 300rpm if needed for ground targets) where the twin barrel gun is actually lighter than the two 2A42 cannon.
The only question I had was to whether the twin barrel 30mm cannon had dual feed options.

Replacing the 100mm rifled gun of the BMP-3 with a 120mm gun mortar makes it even longer ranged and much more powerful and flexible... being able to fire shells plus mortar bombs, and 120mm and 122mm laser guided missiles.

I think if we take out the dismount infantry from the IFV, we can find common ground between the BMPT and the IFV and use only one vehicle.

To a degree, yes... but using the known armament configurations in this case... not really.

The armata BMPT likely will have a 120mm gun/mortar for direct firepower plus ranged firepower to deal with new ATGM teams plus perhaps a 23mm gatling gun and 40-57mm grenade launcher for indirect HE firepower... most of its firepower is directed at troops in the field or in fortifications.

the armata IFV will likely have a high velocity 45 or 57mm cannon plus Kornet-EM ATGMs for long range target engagement of armour, and it will likely have a 40-57mm grenade launcher and various MGs to support its infantry in combat.

The US had the Bradley in two versions... one as a troop carrier and the other carrying extra ammo in place of the troops and I think a fire support IFV with extra ammo could be used, but at the end of the day troops can often be more flexible and dangerous to an enemy and often are the only way to clear houses and buildings short of heavy air strike.

I anything I would think the BMPT might also act as a mortar carrier for the unit that has the direct firepower to protect itself.

With the above reasoning. The BMPT would be replacing the Gvozdika and Acacia self-propelled howitzers.

Indeed and with the 2S1 getting 120mm gun/mortar barrels replacing its 122mm calibre guns you could say the BMPT was replacing light artillery and also mortar vehicles in the tube artillery section.

Or indeed the tube artillery section is getting uparmoured so it can move into the front line with the MBTs and IFVs... a radical change!

http://www.military-informant.com/index.php/army/3400-1.html

Algeria tests BMPT and maybe they will buy 200 - 250 BMPTs.

It seems BMPT become more and more important for urban combat and for support tanks and in my opinion it should be, what it at first meant to be, a replacement for AA guns in ground battles. I don't know, who comes out with idea, that BMPT could replace infantry, because no armored vehicle could replace infantry in combat, but could protect and support it. It is also not meant to give artillery support, because tanks have guns and there are also SPGs and TOS behind to do that job.

Algeria was next country to fail under rule of MB. Algeria knew it was next. It comes as no surprise that they are looking best ways to counter anticipated uprising.

I think the bmpt would be a nice way to create demand for older tanks in their inventory, ie a simple cheap upgrade
for T-55s, T-62s and T-72s where the turret is replaced with bmpt armament and the chassis beefed up.

http://vpk.name/news/110713_na_vooruzhenie_rossiiskoi_armii_mogut_postupit_terminatoryi.html

Russian army could accept BMPT in armament. Most probably they will produce them with Kazakhstan for both armies.

George1 wrote:Armata T-15 will be BMPT Terminator replacement if i guess right?

IMO, the T-15 looks weak armored when you look at the engine compartment and i hope it is not BMPT replacement, because right now it does not look like it would be capable to drive along side of T-14's and taking hits from Tanks.

I really hope the BMPT is the version with GSh-6-23 gatling or 30mm 2A42.

Werewolf wrote:

George1 wrote:Armata T-15 will be BMPT Terminator replacement if i guess right?

IMO, the T-15 looks weak armored when you look at the engine compartment and i hope it is not BMPT replacement, because right now it does not look like it would be capable to drive along side of T-14's and taking hits from Tanks.

I really hope the BMPT is the version with GSh-6-23 gatling or 30mm 2A42.

Totally agreed.

I would expect they replace 2 2A42 guns by 2 Gsh-30K that can adjust the rate of fire either 300-400 rpm or 2000-2,600 rpm. One gun will fire HE rounds to handle soft or arial targets while the other one will fires APFSDS rounds to cope with armored tagets. One more Ags-40 grenade launcher controled by commander will support 30mm HE rounds by lope more powerfull 40mm HE rounds on station targets within 2,500m range.

I really like the idea of using twin barrel 120mm mortar guns on the BMP-T. The addition of a 2A72 cannon mounted on the side of the main gun [just like on the BMP-3] with two 14.5mm auto-cannons mounted on the side of the turret and a 57mm grenade launcher positioned on top of the turret, would make it even more lethal.

The only reason for having a twin barrel is to increase rate of fire and to be honest with a 120mm gun introducing automated loading would do rather more to increase rate of fire than having a second gun.

I think I have mentioned before that my personal preference for the BMPTs armament would be a 100 or 120mm main gun for HE fire power, plus a coaxial twin barrel 30mm cannon as used on the older model Hind, plus a 40mm or 57mm grenade launcher.

the new model of armata BMPT showed a long barrel 120mm gun plus a 6 barrel 23mm gatling, plus a grenade launcher.... this I approve of because the 120mm gun can fire a wide range of in service guided and unguided rounds from shells to mortar bombs and guided missiles developed for the 120mm mortar and the 122mm guns. The 23mm cannon lacks velocity but has a heavy payload and high rate of fire and small compact ammo. the grenade launcher offers high angle HE capability.