BMPT "Terminator"

Wonder are the HE/ATGM reliable and cheap enough to fully replace the traditional howithzer ? Replace the cannon with missile launcher can saved a lot of space for other weapons and equipments.

Actually I believe future MBT may looks similar to BMPT Terminator, if ATGM become reliable enough to replace "dumb" ammo.

I would think high pressure guns with kinetic rounds will remain standard for MBT vehicles... the calibre might go down with EM guns but the velocities will greatly increase... the smaller calibre is bad for ATGMs, which will likely be carried separately if carried.

For every measure there will always be a countermeasure so while Heat wont replace APFSDS the reverse will also be true... APFSDS wont replace HEAT either.

I know it has been touched upon briefly a bunch of pages back, but it was sort of dismissed rather quickly, but i was wondering if somebody would care to elaborate on this subject :  
Would the 23mm GSh-23V make for a viable weapons platform for a heavy IFV, or even a secondary weapon station on an MBT ? I know that it has been installed on such vehicles as the MT-LB alongside machine guns & automatic grenade launcher, and more recently it made an appearance on the Azerbaijani BRDM-2 upgrade "ZKDM". But is the weapon still in active use mounted on ground platforms in any significant numbers? I tried locating footage of the weapon being fired from a ground platform, but found none. Information about the general performance and capabilities of this weapon also seems to be rare in English.

Is this weapon even suitable for engaging infantry or soft targets on the ground? Is there a place for it in modern combat? If it is still a viable platform in the modern battlefield, could somebody explain the possible advantages it offers?  

I personally imagine it would have some suppressing power against infantry, but probably lacks power against armored targets. At any rate there are a lot of cannons in service that are much more effective in dealing with armor. However, could it possibly be used as part an active defense system? For example integrated into the T-14  AESA radar and fire control system. Due to its high rate of fire, and given the right ammunition, it might be useful to engage incoming missiles or slow flying shells in a highly hostile environment with no friendly units operating directly around the vehicle. As a secondary function, it could be used to engage infantry and soft targets by the vehicle commander (if needed).

I know the weapon has obvious drawbacks, i am just curious about this weapon system in particular, and if it has any future with the upcoming generation of armored vehicles.

Thanks in advance !

0nillie0 wrote:Would the 23mm GSh-23V make for a viable weapons platform for a heavy IFV

Even 30mm caliber does not meet full requirements of today, 23mm is beyond any hope. That is why Russia introduced 57mm.
Not just it allows to have whole new level of projectile power. It also opens way for many specialized and smart round options.

or even a secondary weapon station on an MBT ?

Secondary weapons are in 30mm+. And automatic grenade launchers as we already discusses. Gatling guns are too bulky and ammo hungry, yet 23mm just not enough.

For example integrated into the T-14  AESA radar and fire control system. Due to its high rate of fire, and given the right ammunition, it might be useful to engage incoming missiles or slow flying shells in a highly hostile environment with no friendly units operating directly around the vehicle.

You do not need a radar or gatling gun to do that. BMP-3 already can provide this role. Yet new 57mm guns will do it better with smart rounds similar to AHEAD system.

But is the weapon still in active use mounted on ground platforms in any significant numbers? I tried locating footage of the weapon being fired from a ground platform, but found none. Information about the general performance and capabilities of this weapon also seems to be rare in English.

The main user of this weapon is the Hind, which in its latest models has it mounted in a chin turret.

the critical thing is that it uses much less powerful ammo than the Shilka or ZU-23-2.

The ammo is not much larger than HMG ammo... 23 x 115mm ammo is comparable in size (ie length and width) to the 14.5 x 114mm HMG round and has a very low muzzle velocity but a heavy projectile for its calibre.

As such it is excellent for anti personel use with HE shells, but not so effective against armour.

Rather than replacing the 30mm cannon in the anti armour role (ie IFV), it is more of a replacement for 14.5mm and 12.7mm HMGs ...ie an APC weapon.

As a secondary weapon for heavier vehicles it would be interesting as the smaller round means rather more ammo could be carried in comparison with a 30mm calibre weapon.

Is this weapon even suitable for engaging infantry or soft targets on the ground? Is there a place for it in modern combat? If it is still a viable platform in the modern battlefield, could somebody explain the possible advantages it offers?

Powerful HE round for its calibre, low recoil, compact ammo, allows very high rate of fire in the gatling models of the weapon but the twin barrel guns fitted to aircraft like the Hind should make them rather devastating.

It is used by the 6 barrel gatling gun of the MiG-31B and also the twin barrel 23mm cannon of the MiG-21 and MiG-23. The MiG-27 and Su-24 have a larger 30mm gatling using the standard 30 x 165mm round.

(note the Shilka and Zu-23-2 and the Il-2 Shturmovich have a 23 x 152mm round but the 23 x 115 uses the same HE shell but have a much smaller propellent case).

I know the weapon has obvious drawbacks, i am just curious about this weapon system in particular, and if it has any future with the upcoming generation of armored vehicles.

When the 14.5mm HMG round becomes obsolete it would be useful to rebore the guns to 23mm calibre and use this round with a much better HE round but less penetration performance.

I also think a version of the South African anti material rifle NWT-20 or something with 14.5mm and 23mm barrels would be interesting...

Even 30mm caliber does not meet full requirements of today, 23mm is beyond any hope. That is why Russia introduced 57mm.
Not just it allows to have whole new level of projectile power. It also opens way for many specialized and smart round options.

For use against enemy IFVs or heavier vehicles as you point out even 30mm is stretched, the 700m/s muzzle velocity of the 23 x 115mm round just would not cut it against anything but soft targets. Of course in compensation you can carry twice as much ammo than the 30mm and the rate of fire of the 6 barrel gatling fitted to the MiG-31 is like 12,000rpm... the twin barrel model fires 3,000 rpm.

Secondary weapons are in 30mm+. And automatic grenade launchers as we already discusses. Gatling guns are too bulky and ammo hungry, yet 23mm just not enough.

Actually Soviet and Russian gatling guns are astounding in their light weight and lack of need for an electric motor to make them work but they burn through even more ammo than western gatlings...

A 40mm or 57mm grenade launcher would make more sense with much lower rate of fire but large HE punch.

A model of the BMPT of the Armata model has been shown and talked about on this forum and the model in question seemed to have a 120mm rifled main gun, with what looked like a 23mm gatling and a 40mm or 57mm grenade launcher.

the 120mm rifled main gun would have to be a gun/mortar, which would be able to fire 120mm mortar rounds as well as 120mm shells and 120mm and 122mm guided missiles.

The BMPT is not a tank or a troop transport so is off topic on this thread but its purpose is to support tanks where infantry can't operate safely.

In my opinion, a BMPT is an anti infantry vehicle with tank level armour and the fire power of an anti aircraft gun system and an IFV so that it can basically take on anything short of a tank. remember these vehicles are to support tanks so the tanks can take on enemy tanks and the BMPT is to take on everything else, from aircraft to ATGM teams at short, medium and long range.

As such it needs long range guided rounds (ie 120mm guided rounds) high velocity rounds with HE punch (120mm HE shells), as well as low velocity high trajectory round with HE punch (57/40mm grenades and 120mm mortar bombs) but also the ability to shower an area with HE... and that would be where the 23mm gatling would come in in my opinion. A 20 round burst would create a cluster of 23mm shells that would leave the gun so rapidly they would land like a shotgun blast around the aim point... any troops or ATGM mounts caught in that would be shredded... the muzzle velocity would mean the rounds would get to the target much faster than grenades that travel much much slower.

I think the three different types of weapons compliment each other but that is just my opinion.

I pretty much also think that Armata with IFVs and mortar carriers and anti aircraft guns all mounted on tanks makes the concept of a separate BMPT vehicle a little redundant... but it would be excellent convoy protection vehicle or anti personel vehicle for guard duty or in places where there are no enemy MBTs so all the targets are soft or can be dealt with a 120mm HE shell. (note a 120mm mortar bomb is 16kgs and is rather effective in a range of roles).

I should add however that a robot land vehicle with a twin barrel 23mm cannon would be interesting... small compact weapon that is light but very powerful because of its rate of fire and reportedly very accurate.

The ammo is compact so rather more ammo could be carried in comparison to the rather more powerful 30mm cannon. The ammo is only slightly bigger than 14.5mm HMG ammo and while it has a low velocity it packs a powerful HE punch that is rather greater than any HMG.

I would also be interesting on UCAVs too and is still used in aircraft gun pods and late model hinds.

@Garry: the 120mm gun model requires a large turret and that means considerable space and weight. I still prefer the old Terminator configuration with 30mm gun and guided missile for heavy punch.

Abandonment of traditional huge turret & cannon will save a lot of space and weight for other stuffs to be packed in, but that demands signifcant improvement of guided missiles.

I don't think the 120mm ammo capacity will be as much as it would carry if it was a mortar carrier, but the ammo is significantly smaller than 125mm rounds... simply because it uses bagged ammo charges that can be packed into any space.

For the 120mm ammo I would probably carry 20-30 HE rounds and about 8 guided missiles, with the rest of the internal space filled with 57/40mm grenades and 23mm cannon shells... maybe 500 of the former and probably about 1,000 rounds of 23mm.

In comparison the 2A72 armed terminator carries about 850 rounds of 30mm ammo and 4 HE armed missiles plus 600 30mm grenades for two grenade launchers.

how about replacing the twin 30mm cannons with two 57mm cannons and keep the rest of weapons the same.

It is known only about the intention of the designers to put on a new weapons platform ship gun caliber 57 mm with a range of 16 kilometers.

Has anyone here seen the source for that? It has always been a possibility, but is it actually confirmed or just an assumption?

how about replacing the twin 30mm cannons with two 57mm cannons and keep the rest of weapons the same.

The newest model Terminator that is known has the 30mm grenade launchers from the front corners of the hull removed and the two crew who controlled them also removed so it is a three man crew vehicle with two 30mm cannon and 4 Ataka guided missiles with HE warheads for point targets out to 5-6km or so and a coaxial PKM machine gun.

It has two 30mm cannon to increase rate of fire reportedly and also because the small turret means the dual feed systems cant be used properly so one cannon has HE rounds and the other AP... which sounds a little strange to me.

Personally I would go for all three crew in the front hull (ie centre driver and commander and gunner either side where the grenade launcher operators sat, with a 100mm rifled gun from the BMP-3 and replace the two 30mm cannon with a twin barrel 30mm cannon as used on the Hind and the Tunguska.

the twin barrel 30mm cannon has an excellent rate of fire and is long enough to generate good muzzle velocity, but the ammo is large so I would actually consider replacing it with the tried and true 23 x 115mm twin cannon as used in the current model Hinds with probably twice as much ammo.

the Terminator has a large turret ring... it is a tank, so the BMP-3M setup would allow 40 odd 100mm HE rounds to be carried around the perimeter of the turret ring with say 8 guided missiles for hard targets and the central area where the two crew would normally sit you should be able to get a few thousand 23mm shells... plus I would mount at the rear of the turret a 40mm grenade launcher like Balkan the same way it is mounted on the upgraded BMP-2s... ie turns with the turret but elevates independently.

But then I saw the BMPT based on the Armata with a 120mm gun which offers more firepower than the 100mm gun with better range and using a standard calibre already in use, so the 100mm ammo could be eliminated from the inventory and be replaced by a more powerful longer ranged round.

The 23mm gatling is interesting... I think the twin 23mm gun offers lighter weight and more compact design with better accuracy but still a good rate of fire and would be simpler, but the gatling is fine too as its very high rate of fire means even very short bursts can form clusters of rounds like a cluster bomb that impacts almost together for increased effect (as opposed to a slower rate of fire weapon sending streams of shells).

the 57mm autogrenade launcher looked good till I found out it fires 3kg shells and that makes it pretty damned astounding... comparable to some 82mm rounds!

the different weapons compliment each other... some having heavy HE payload and flat trajectory, while others have steep curved trajectory for hitting targets behind cover.

The different weapons cover different threats without too much overlap of performance.

For instance having a 30mm cannon and a 23mm cannon would be a waste as they are both too similar.

In the same sense a high velocity 57mm gun with guided shells could replace both a 30mm cannon and the 100mm rifled gun in that it has good HE fire power and with guided shells it can hit fast moving aerial targets that 30mm cannon bursts are effective against... with the issue of the size of the round negated by the fact that guidance means much less rounds are needed for a kill.

twin 57mm guns only make sense when a high rate of fire is needed.

The new 57mm guns probably fire at 120 rpm or faster but it is the guidance capability that means you wont be needing to fire dozens of rounds at each target for a kill... one or two shells is more likely and so the weight and complication of having two guns in addition to having two gun feeds and two gun stabilisation systems and of course having to zero two guns just makes it not worth it when with that sort of rate of fire the second round from a single barrel gun will be following closely behind the first round fired.

Two guns would be useful if the ammo was dumb.

Would be interesting to see a new old design like the T-35 with a central gun with say a 120mm gun/mortar and extra turrets around it with MGs and grenade launchers like 40mm Balkan grenade launchers in remote weapon stations with a crewman controlling each turret as a sort of vehicle based MG nest that can engage multiple targets at once (ie one for each turret).

Special hardware could be used to detect enemy sniper or small arms fire so this vehicle could patrol around the place detecting snipers and dealing with them on a COIN type battlefield.

Would be interesting isnt it?

I think they are confusing things... the T-15 will be the IFV version of the Armata and will likely end up with a 57mm cannon able to take out enemy IFVs... standard armament for an IFV is a missile to take out enemy tanks and a main cannon able to take out enemy IFVs... in the 1980s the 30mm was enough, but now a bigger gun is needed, so the 57mm would make sense.

no good idea me thinks too heavy, too little ammo and not much advantage over 1x57mm. For heavier punch you need AGTMs for engaging IFV or APC 57mm is more than enough. BTW would love to see invincible AH-64 and A-10 after meeting Russian 57mm round...

Which raises the problem... a BMPT needs to be able to fight pretty much everything except tanks because it will operate with tanks that can deal with enemy tanks so the ideal BMPT armament would be an IFVs armament without troops and perhaps therefore double the ammo with the anti tank guided missiles replaced with HE armed missiles... so with tank based IFVs then doesn't the concept of a BMPT become redundant?

I do like the 120mm rifled gun for its HE fire power, and the 23mm gatlings and 57mm grenade launchers make sense as supplimentary weapons.

Oddly if you went for a 57mm high velocity gun I would keep the 23mm gun and 57mm grenade launcher as they offer different capabilities, though I might change the 23mm gatling to a 23mm twin barrel gun... the ataka missiles become rather redundant with a high velocity 57mm gun able to spit out unguided 2-3kg HE shells to 8+km.

Personally I would leave the 57mm high velocity gun for the IFVs and SPAAGs and go with what equates an evolved BMP-3 armament with the 120mm gun and 23mm cannon and 57mm grenade launcher.

Has anyone here seen the source for that? It has always been a possibility, but is it actually confirmed or just an assumption?

I suspect that is kinetic range rather than effective range... the HE rounds might travel that far at optimum angle and for shore bombardment it might be useful... of course with guided shells it might even be effective... don't know... but I would suggest a more conservative 12km range more likely.

I suspect that is kinetic range rather than effective range... the HE rounds might travel that far at optimum angle and for shore bombardment it might be useful... of course with guided shells it might even be effective... don't know... but I would suggest a more conservative 12km range more likely.

Sorry, I should have been more clear. I was referring to the claim of the BMPT having the 57mm gun, as opposed to twin 30's or a 120mm gun/mortar. And yes I agree, 12km effective range is more likely. Your point about shore bombardment is valid, this 57mm gun is also a navalised weapon, so 16km probably refers to HE bombardment.

artist vision, nice though

IMO, since that version of the gun doesn't penetrate into the hull, something like this would still be a BMP. IF they produce a BMPT, something I'm skeptical about, I think it'll use a modification of the naval version of the 57 turret set on the T-14's hull. This way it could carry much more ammo.



It'll be interesting to see what costs more, the T-14, or T-15.

GarryB, I don't understand  why you want a 120 mm for a new BMPT.

Having a t-14 hull with a 120mm gun makes it downgraded T-14 not a BMPT. It's suppose to have enough punch with high rate of fire to destroyed armoured carriers and infantery not tanks.

If they achieve to do what you said, they can also add the 23mm canon on T-14, it's the same but with a better main gun.

With more munitions, the T-15 with 57mm gun is comparable to a new bmpt.

Isos wrote:GarryB, I don't understand  why you want a 120 mm for a new BMPT.

Having a t-14 hull with a 120mm gun makes it downgraded T-14 not a BMPT. It's suppose to have enough punch with high rate of fire to destroyed armoured carriers and infantery not tanks.

If they achieve to do what you said, they can also add the 23mm canon on T-14, it's the same but with a better main gun.

With more munitions, the T-15 with 57mm gun is comparable to a new bmpt.

Obviously a 120mm gun/mortar is going to have more elevation range than a 125mm gun. This is an essential requirement for BMPT's, which have to dust the upper floors of buildings. It's also really good at lobbing HE, which is one of the reasons why the 100/30 has been one of the most popular weapon combos on the global arms market. 120/23 offers more capability than 100/30, with less overlap, in addition to long range top-attack anti-tank rounds which out range all current GLATGMs. So it does hit a lot of the marks to be a excellent BMPT configuration.

57/kornet also hits a lot of marks, but we don't know enough about the new rounds to really say which is "better"

IMO, since that version of the gun doesn't penetrate into the hull, something like this would still be a BMP. IF they produce a BMPT, something I'm skeptical about, I think it'll use a modification of the naval version of the 57 turret set on the T-14's hull. This way it could carry much more ammo.

The 57mm gun ammo is enormous... almost the size of 76.2mm ammo... there will be no variant with a 57mm gun and no hull penetration. The model for the PT-76 could only carry 120 rounds and the PT-76 is huge.

GarryB, I don't understand why you want a 120 mm for a new BMPT.

BMPT is not a tank... don't think of the 120mm gun I am talking about is a mini 125mm gun or a NATO 120mm gun. The weapon I am talking about is like the 120mm gun/mortar of the VENA and NONA... think of it as a direct fire mortar with a range of about 13km or so that can hit point targets and can use guided missiles with a gun launcher instead of an external missile launcher.

The 120mm gun means enemy ATGM teams can be hit and destroyed at great range... so for the BMPT the 120mm gun replaces the four ATAKA missiles as accurate long range HE fire power.

Having a t-14 hull with a 120mm gun makes it downgraded T-14 not a BMPT. It's suppose to have enough punch with high rate of fire to destroyed armoured carriers and infantery not tanks.

Don't think of it as a tank gun, think of it as the 100mm rifled gun in the BMP-3... except instead of reaching 7km it can reach over 13km and instead of having its own custom designed 100mm guided missile it can use the 120mm missiles developed for mortars in that calibre, but also 122mm missiles developed for 122mm artillery. It can also use special 120mm shells and also 120mm mortar bombs from around the world.

With tanks carrying 125mm or 152mm guns and IFVs with 57mm guns and the BMPT and armata mortar carriers (ie the Vena equivalent vehicles) with 120mm rifled gun/mortars and APC models (ie BTR-T) armatas with 30mm cannon like the BTR-82A then you can remove the 100mm rifled gun of the BMP-3 from service gradually as the BMP-3s are retired... Armata units wont need to carry another ammo type.

If they achieve to do what you said, they can also add the 23mm canon on T-14, it's the same but with a better main gun.

The main gun on T-14 probably can't elevate as high as a 120mm gun/mortar to hit the upper stories in buildings while operating in a city, and Armata is supposed to be for urban warfare.

With more munitions, the T-15 with 57mm gun is comparable to a new bmpt.

A 57mm gun armed T-15 would be a powerful IFV, but it would be a troop transport vehicle... I think lighter higher rate of fire weapons (23mm guns and 57mm grenade launchers) plus much heavier guns (120mm gun/mortars) would pack more punch with the rear troop area for extra ammo.... the two vehicle types are for completely different missions.

120/23 offers more capability than 100/30, with less overlap, in addition to long range top-attack anti-tank rounds which out range all current GLATGMs. So it does hit a lot of the marks to be a excellent BMPT configuration.

Well put, though I would add that the armata unit will already have 120mm calibre mortars and guns with a Vena equivalent mortar carrier, and the local supporting aviation unit with hinds will have the 23mm ammo too.
As the IFVs will have 57mm guns to be able to take on enemy IFVs on equal terms then the 100mm/30mm combination becomes redundant... APC models like BTR-T will likely carry either 30mm or they could carry 23mm versions of the KPVB.

The 57mm gun ammo is enormous... almost the size of 76.2mm ammo... there will be no variant with a 57mm gun and no hull penetration. The model for the PT-76 could only carry 120 rounds and the PT-76 is huge.

Surprisingly the current 57mm turret does in fact have external magazine storage, and carries 80 rounds. The only protrusion into the hull is a small central support column.

But why to replace? to deal with you have 57mm gun. Max mass of HE in 120mm rouns is about 5kg in Kornet is 10kg so what has bigger punch?

Kitolov-2 is SALH guided, and can be fired in a top-attack profile. It has something like 12km of range. For the anti armor roll it's excellent, and for the anti-ATGM team roll... it's a 120mm mortar.

GunshipDemocracy wrote:

Zivo wrote:

But why to replace? to deal with you have 57mm gun. Max mass of HE in 120mm rouns is about 5kg in Kornet is 10kg so what has bigger punch?

Kitolov-2 is SALH guided, and can be fired in a top-attack profile. It has something like 12km of range. For the anti armor roll it's excellent, and for the anti-ATGM team roll... it's a 120mm mortar.

True but still worse than Kornet. BTW korent´s range is 10km in upgraded version.

Only with the thermobaric version, HEAT it's 8km, which is still nothing to scoff at. However, it will only have 4-8 rounds depending on the configuration choice they make. The effective range of the 57 is probably around 6km, which is good enough for most tasks, and with guided rounds roughly twice that. Obviously 57/kornet is a good combination. Were it lacks is cost-efficiency, and material destruction. Kornets, while cheap for an ATGM, are more expensive than a 120mm HE mortar bomb, and you can't carry as many of them. If you're attacking a large structure, lobbing a few 120mm rounds will clear it. To use Kornets, $20,000 and half, if not all your thermobaric load. The 57 can pick up a lot of the slack, but it still isn't going to match the efficiency of the 120mm.

Admittedly, my current opinion is that the 57/kornet is probably the better choice for a BMPT. It's a tank support vehicle, and as such, should be with MBT's most of the time. For the most part, the aforementioned disadvantages can be supplemented by an MBT's 125mm gun. War is a team sport.

However, if it was up to me I'd just scrap the BMPT roll. Instead, develop a heavy RWS that replaces the entire bustle and 7.62mm RWS on the T-14, give it a GSh-23 or GSh-30-2 plus a 7.62 coaxial, and put it on every third T-14.

Surprisingly the current 57mm turret does in fact have external magazine storage, and carries 80 rounds. The only protrusion into the hull is a small central support column.

Interesting... thanks for posting. Previously the Russian Army has rejected turrets with ammo all stored above the turret ring because of the risk to enemy fire... this is just a drawing, but it suggests they can be flexible...?

You need bigger punch? AGTM or beam riding cheap rockets like 130mms ones Lighter than 120mm with ammo I presume.

Not really a 130mm missile carries a payload of 5-6kgs of HE but it rather long and heavy and the original BMPT has 4 Ataka missiles in total. there is no likelyhood if fitted with a 120mm gun/mortar that they would have less than 20 rounds...

But why to replace? to deal with you have 57mm gun. Max mass of HE in 120mm rouns is about 5kg in Kornet is 10kg so what has bigger punch?

120mm rounds are closer to 16kgs and Kornet wont fit down the barrel of a gun.

Needless to say if you have a 120mm gun/mortar you likely have 20-30 rounds... if kornet is used you will likely have 4 rounds.

Baikal has 75 degree elevation of 57mm

Indeed but I was talking about why 120mm rather than 125mm.

A 57mm gun armed T-15 would be a powerful IFV, but it would be a troop transport vehicle... I think lighter higher rate of fire weapons (23mm guns and 57mm grenade launchers) plus much heavier guns (120mm gun/mortars) would pack more punch with the rear troop area for extra ammo.... the two vehicle types are for completely different missions.

What I am asking is... do you need two completely different versions or do you just modify the IFV to not carry troops and have a double or triple ammo capacity...

As for armata variant - the one presented as green little mockup had secondary armament 30mm gun and 4 barrel Gatling ... the only one in Russia so far was Yakushev-Borzov YakB-12.7mm. Interesting if this concept will be followed up.

there is a reason the Hind has dropped the 12.7mm gatling for a twin barrel 23mm cannon.. and a 12.7mm and a 30mm 2A42 on the same vehicle is a little redundant with a 120mm.

In terms of HE power the 30mm has too high a velocity so you wont be lobbing 30mm HE Frag rounds over cover.

A grenade launcher like the 57mm or 40mm plus a cannon like a 23mm weapon make rather more sense and compliment the 120mm better.

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.

I was under the impression that the T-15 would have comparable frontal armour to the T-14 Armata. Does the necessary placement of the engine at the front compromise the value of the armour that much?