BMPT "Terminator"

George1 wrote:Russian army to get bulk of Terminator armored vehicles in 2018
................
More:
http://tass.com/defense/967511

Will these be converted from T-72 or T-90?

PapaDragon wrote:

George1 wrote:Russian army to get bulk of Terminator armored vehicles in 2018
................
More:
http://tass.com/defense/967511

Will these be converted from T-72 or T-90?

Considering they are based on a T-72 chassis if they are going to convert it would be T-72's dunno why they would waste a T-90 over this.

SeigSoloyvov wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:

George1 wrote:Russian army to get bulk of Terminator armored vehicles in 2018
................
More:
http://tass.com/defense/967511

Will these be converted from T-72 or T-90?

Considering they are based on a T-72 chassis if they are going to convert it would be T-72's dunno why they would waste a T-90 over this.

What I'm wondering is how many Terminators can be acquired for $417,000,000 (24 bln rubles)? In that case, knowing the approximate cost of a single unit would be useful in estimating the total unspecified number of BMPTs the Russian MoD ordered from Uralvagonzavod. The contract probably includes other products and services, including Terminator 2s. So I guess we won't know for certain until more information is available.

http://tass.com/defense/967511

"The Russian Defense Ministry inked a contract to deliver the Terminators at the Army 2017 forum. The total sum of the agreements sealed between the Defense Ministry and Uralvagonzavod back then had surpassed 24 bln rubles ($417 mln)."

SeigSoloyvov wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:

George1 wrote:Russian army to get bulk of Terminator armored vehicles in 2018
................
More:
http://tass.com/defense/967511

Will these be converted from T-72 or T-90?

Considering they are based on a T-72 chassis if they are going to convert it would be T-72's dunno why they would waste a T-90 over this.

Much better to use t-72 chassi. It is much more cheaper and with the big turret's weight in less you can add as much as you want protections like applique armour or bigger era with a final price still less than a t-90. You can even use first series of t-72 which cost even less than half a million and add protection to the lvl of modern tanks and even better.

Pretty photos of BMPT-2 at the Luzhskii 33rd Artillery Range as part of demonstrations alongside T-80BVM and T-90M. It did not take part at Zapad 2017, as some websites have claimed.

kopyo-21 wrote:I think they still use the 30mm grenade lauchers because of large stock of both guns and ammunitions.

I think so too. In the end, this is only a cost-effective modernization for an old vehicle.

I love this idea, BMPT-72A completely bases on tank T-72. It can install more a 57mm grenade launcher AGS-57 & its ammunitions in a compartment attached to the rear turret like the idea of T-14 Armata tank above.



http://otvaga2004.ru/armiya-i-vpk/armiya-i-vpk-concept/bmpt-72a/

The new bmpt vehicle could also have a heavy recce vehicle unit which would have additional dual manpad mounted the vehicle could also be used to find high pay off targets and snipe them with anti tank missiles. It's like the Belarusian 2T stalker concept

GarryB wrote:I rather suspect any new 125mm guided shell could be used against most air targets.

Generally the air defence component of a division has dedicated air defence systems like Tunguska and TOR, but one of the BMP battalions (usually a BMP-2 equipped one) has a gripstock and 3-4 MANPADs in each vehicle for air defence use...

With Hermes being developed (like an SA-22 but with terminal guidance) a battery of Hermes vehicles each with 40 missiles could be connected to the local air defence battery and its missiles directed at enemy aircraft if needed...


Not to mention every vehicle with a 30mm cannon (ie IFV and APC) with modern optics and fire control systems allowing fairly accurate aiming and target engagement, not to mention near future high velocity 57mm guns I think it wont be very safe flying above a Russian ground force.

I get you on all of that and course there's also strelets and Sonsa R. But the point I was getting at was a recce vehicle like the 2T stalker it was meant to work pretty much alone or in pairs so bmpt with a modified turret with 7.62mm, ags-30, single 30mm or 57mm gun, dual verba, and AT-15(ideal due to flight speed and range) could be useful as recce and sniping at armour or high pay off targets.

Although Belarus I thought anyway had a good idea they didn't have the money to actually put into production you could of course put the turret onto various vehicles such as Bmd-4, Bmp-3, MT-LB, BTR -80, typhoon family.

Actually, one of roles of BMPT is for fighting in the city. The 57mm 2A90 is good and powerfull but its long barrel makes the vehicle with it can not rotate the gun turret in narrow areas, the same problem with MBTs. Therefore, I think the compromised solution is to pair double 2A72 30mm guns (for lighter and less vibration than 2A42) with a 57mm grenade launcher. Their barrels are short so easier to rotate in narrow areas while their fire range/powers are enough.

However they should improve the ammunition feeding to make sure both of 30mm guns can fire the same ammuntion (HEI or API) simultaneously instead of firing gun by ammunition like BMPT-72 now.

kopyo-21 wrote:Actually, one of roles of BMPT is for fighting in the city. The 57mm 2A90 is good and powerfull but its long barrel makes the vehicle with it can not rotate the gun turret in narrow areas, the same problem with MBTs. Therefore, I think the compromised solution is to pair double 2A72 30mm guns (for lighter and less vibration than 2A42) with a 57mm grenade launcher. Their barrels are short so easier to rotate in narrow areas while their fire range/powers are enough.

However they should improve the ammunition feeding to make sure both of 30mm guns can fire the same ammuntion (HEI or API) simultaneously instead of firing gun by ammunition like BMPT-72 now.

The BMPT-72 uses the 2 2a42s not 2a72s and the 2a42 is a dual feed gun in the demonstration video the BMPT-72 fires both of its guns simultaneously.

On BMPT-72, due to limitation of ammunition feeding, 1 gun is just feeded 1 type of ammunition, either HEI or API intead of 2. Therefore they often feed HEI rounds for 1 gun and API rounds for other. Sure they can fire both guns simultaneously but different rounds.

kopyo-21 wrote:Therefore, I think the compromised solution is to pair double 2A72 30mm guns (for lighter and less vibration than 2A42) with a 57mm grenade launcher.

2A72 is lighter but far less accurate than 2A42 without a rigid frame supporting the barrel (which leads to an increase in weight). Even with a rigid support, the 2A72 is not necessarily more accurate than the 2A42 or even as accurate. There's a reason why the 2A42 is used on helicopters and not the lighter 2A72.

GarryB wrote:On the BMP-3 the 100mm barrel offers support...

On other vehicles like the 30mm gun mount on that drone vehicle or that turret upgrade with a single 30mm gun and four ATGMs called Kliver had a supporting structure around the barrel... so the problem is not insurmountable....

Yes, but as I said, adding a rigid frame to support the barrel leads to an increase in weight, which makes the lighter weight of 2A72 compared to 2A42 meaningless. For the BMPT, there is no 100mm barrel, so a rigid frame must be constructed to allow a pair of 2A72s to be used effectively, at which point the question must be asked: why not keep the 2A42? The point of using the 2A72 in the BMP-3 was apparently so that they could fit a 30mm cannon into the turret of the BMP-3 along with the 100mm gun, and because the muzzle brake of the 2A42 can't function with a 100mm gun barrel right next to it. I don't know why they used the 2A72 on the Uran-9, but my guess is that the 2A72 is more reliable than the 2A42, so stoppages in the field are rarer and the UGV can stay in combat longer (since there is no crew inside the drone to do spontaneous troubleshooting). Alexey Khlopotov (Gurkhan) may know. He once mentioned that the introduction of the 2A72 in the ground forces was for political reasons of some kind, which he did not specify. For a vehicle like the BMPT, replacing the 2A42s with 2A72s as kopyo-21 suggested is rather meaningless.

Just add 2 A0-18s and a vasilek and then you have the ultimate fire suppression vehicle.

@Interlinked

There are very simple but important things you don't know about 2A72 gun and how it was created.

The 2A42 use gas-operation so when firing, it leaks smock into the turret, especially when firing at high rate-of-fire mode. That was reason why they rarely select that firing mode.

In the other hand, the 2A72 use long-recoil operation so without the problem (leaking the smock) like 2A42. The 2A72 gun is simpler, less parts, cheaper to produce and cheaper to maintain while still have the same ballistic and accuracy like 2A42.

On the paper, the 2A72 gun have lower rate-of-fire than 2A42. However, considering that the 2A42 rarely use the high rate-of-fire mode, they are quite on par.

You also don't know why many vehicles like BTR-82A or Uran or Tiger use 2A72 gun instead of 2A42. It is very simple. Besides no leaking smock, when firing, its recoil is very low (just 6KN) compare to 30-40KN of 2A42 so it is much more suitable for ligh vehicles. In most of case, lower recoil force leads to lower vibrations then higher accuracy.

The key reason both Ka-52 and Mi-28N use 2A42 although its recoil is very strong is because it has higher rate-of-fire to deal with low-flying and low-speed air targets (helicopters, UAVs, transportation aircrafts, etc). It is installed outside of Ka-52 and Mi-28N so leaking smock when firing is not an issue.

Hope you realize that your comments are meaningless, not mine.

GarryB wrote:There is no reason why they have to use different rounds.

Do you mean they use/feed only HEI or only API rounds for both 2 guns? In don't think they do like that because every type of rounds has its owned advantages and targets.

kopyo-21 wrote:

GarryB wrote:There is no reason why they have to use different rounds.

Do you mean they use/feed only HEI or only API rounds for both 2 guns? In don't think they do like that because every type of rounds has its owned advantages and targets.

The 2a42 is a dual feed autocannon it can swich between 2 difforent ammo types on the fly.

If the BMPT does not have this function for whatever reason then all you need to do to fix it is add 2 new amunition boxes and 2 new feed belts and connect them to the secondary feed positions of each gun.

I know the 2A42 gun is dual-feed, can be feeded 2 type of rounds parallel. However as mentioned in previous posts, the guns on BMPT-72 can be feeded only 1 type of rounds instead of 2. This means either:

- 1 gun is feeded HEI and the other is feeded API.
- Or both of guns are feeded HEI.
- Or both of guns are feeded API.

kopyo-21 wrote:@Interlinked

There are very simple but important things you don't know about 2A72 gun and how it was created.

The 2A42 use gas-operation so when firing, it leaks smock into the turret, especially when firing at high rate-of-fire mode. That was reason why they rarely select that firing mode.

In the other hand, the 2A72 use long-recoil operation so without the problem (leaking the smock) like 2A42. The 2A72 gun is simpler, less parts, cheaper to produce and cheaper to maintain while still have the same ballistic and accuracy like 2A42.

First sentence and you are already being offensive for no reason at all... Leaking smoke is not a problem for the BMPT, and the drawbacks of the 2A72 outweigh its advantages for a medium or heavy vehicle. So why did you say that the BMPT should have its 2A42s replaced with 2A72s?

kopyo-21 wrote:On the paper, the 2A72 gun have lower rate-of-fire than 2A42. However, considering that the 2A42 rarely use the high rate-of-fire mode, they are quite on par.

You also don't know why many vehicles like BTR-82A or Uran or Tiger use 2A72 gun instead of 2A42. It is very simple. Besides no leaking smock, when firing, its recoil is very low (just 6KN) compare to 30-40KN of 2A42 so it is much more suitable for ligh vehicles. In most of case, lower recoil force leads to lower vibrations then higher accuracy.

I know perfectly well why the 2A72 is used on the Tigr and BTR-82A. The reason why it is used in the Uran-9 is less clear. The RWS's being advertised for unmanned conversions of manned vehicles like the BMP-3 have the 2A72 and not the 2A42 even though the vehicles are more than heavy enough for the 2A42, so it can't be because of "recoil force".

This is not about the 2A72 being more suitable for light vehicles. I am talking about something else. A bigger mystery is why you think that the 2A72 is better for the BMPT than the 2A42.