BMPT "Terminator"

Wow.... that is so cool... waist hull gun positions...

In the first photo, we can see clearly there are two belted ammunition feeds in the 30/40mm grenade launcher position. The first one is obviously for AGL, the second one is for 7.62mm gun that paired with AGL as described in its specification??? However if we see the second photo, where is the 7.62mm gun installed?

There do seem to be two belt feeds for different sized ammo but there is also an extra gun position on the hull side behind the turret, so the four gun mounts (ie 2 PKT and likely two 30mm grenade launchers) are separate installations.

The specifications of BMPT object 781. This is very different to what many sources described about the project. Crews of 7 including 5 gunners, 1 commander and 1 driver. Just wonder where was the commander's compartment? Did he seat between 2 gunners of 2A72 or 2 gunners of Ags-17 and PKT?

I suspect looking at the image I reposted above the layout is driver front and centre with one gunner on each side of him... so three crew in front of the turret, the commander and central gunner in the turret and one further gunner operating the waist gun positions behind the turret in front of the engine... that is a total of 6 crew... so maybe the waist guns have one crewman each so two gunners behind the turret, two crew in the turret and three crew in front of the turret... two in the turret and 5 in the hull.

Like GarryB, my main beef with the current version is that they went with dual 2A42's, even tho they offer 0 surplus value compared to a single 2A42 with dual feed capability. As far as i have been able to figure out (and i really hope somebody can correct me on this, i really do), the 2A42's are currently both single fed, and use different types of ammo by default. At range, it is not practical to fire both weapons at the same target, as the different ammo types will have differing ballistics. So you can really only use one weapon for one target, unless you use the same ammo in both guns. But then you may not have the right round for the right target available when it counts...

AFAIK they do have armour piercing ammo and ballistics matched HEI ammo... the problem is that the AP ammo is not their most potent type... it is weight and velocity limited to match the HEI ammo so both rounds hit the same target with the same aim point.

The only advantage of mounting two 2A42 cannon is increased rate of fire and if you are going to fire them together then you are limited to the lower performing AP ammo to keep all the rounds on target.

If that is the case then obviously a much better solution is to have one belt of ammo with mixed round types in a single feed setup with a GSh-30K as fitted to the model Hind with the fixed twin 30mm cannon mounted on its side.... much higher rate of fire (you don't have to fire continuously... set bursts are fine... 5-10-20-30 or whatever round bursts depending on the target).

Ironically the twin 30mm gun is actually lighter than two 2A42s as well, though I suspect the 2A42 might be more resistant to dust and more reliable.

The double 2A42 to me is basically an expensive publicity stunt to make the vehicle look more badass, unless somebody can give me some references that show both guns are actually capable of dual feeding.

I rather suspect commonality and reliability and cost won out over anything more exotic... weight is not really an issue here.

The ROF of 2 2A72 gun are totally 660-900 rpm and little bit faster than 1 2A42 gun does (550-800 rpm) while better gun's survivability. 2 gun firing at the same time also cause no spinning on the turret so the firing accuracy is improved.

I think they went for ROF so that is probably why they went for two 2A42s... I don't think they intend for this vehicle to ever fire one gun only, and even if they did they are near the centre, so any rotational forces are too much of a tangent to the actual rotational axis of the turret to make any difference.

Note with the improved more powerful 2A80 100mm rounds they had problems with the BMP-3... the new 7km ranged 100mm HE rounds increased the stress on the turret because it was asymmetric, but that was fixed too... basically it wasn't designed for that sort of recoil force, but modifications allowed it to be used that way.

The Army rejects Air Force weapons, because they are more complex. The YakB-12,7 was quiet unreliabale in Afghanistan. That´s why the Mi-28 and Ka-52 use Army weapons.

I cant help but wonder what could be, if they looked at some of the cannons in use with the Air Force. IMHO there is much potential there for such a type of vehicle :

- compact weapons = easier to integrate multiple weapons = engage more threats simultaneously. More suitable for engaging at higher elevations also due to smaller dimensions.
- high volume of fire = longer combat endurance, better suppression against infantry, more effective against air targets such as UAV's or loitering munitions.

One of the reasons I never believed the western mantra that the Soviets only copied and had no talent of their own... just looking at the performance of their guns... aviation and small arms suggests they really did know what they were doing... it just didn't always meet with western standards... which are mostly screwed up anyway... I hear Americans talk about a lack of accuracy of AKs and look at their demands for accuracy of their assault rifles and then look at videos posted on the internet in Afghanistan... it was the same with artillery and air power... in the Afghan Soviet war the west always derided the Soviets for resorting to air attacks to deal with insurgents that always ended up taking out a village... and then I see high tech NATO doing exactly the same...

Ahh well.

The main problem is that most of those aviation weapons use aircraft designed 30x165mm rounds which are electric fired, while Army rounds in the same calibre 30x165mm use percussion... and changing the ammo to the other type also means altering the weapon to the different ammo too.

It can be noted that high rate of fire weapons, though typically fired in bursts, are probably more prone to malfunctions during prolonged usage....

Well documented cases of the 2A7 running out of control in the early air cooled version... but later models with water cooling solved those issues. the first 12.7mm 4 barrel gatling on the Hind also overheated when a full ammo load was fired in one burst but the later model that added 15kgs or so also solved that problem too.

IMHO : If they are going to build many BMPT's, than the vehicle as it is now makes perfect sense. If they are going to use only limited numbers, i feel they could have gone a different path.
On the other hand, with the Armata family around the corner, i don't see that much future for the current BMPT, and it probably does not make much sense to spend a lot of money or complicate logistics on a limited number of vehicles
either.

Exactly... for older forces using T series tanks and BMPs and BTRs, then they do make sense, though pretty shortly I would think a 57mm grenade launcher with a shit load of ammo would be quite devastating enough on its own...

Looking at the image below, it would be logical to develop armement modules which are placed at the location of the ATGM launchers. Probably we will see Kornet Anti tank modules instead of ATAKA

True and equally interesting are the mini ATGMs called Bulat that seem to carry 6 or more missiles per mini retractable missile pod on the new 30mm turrets for APCs/IFVs. The penetration performance is likely reduced and shorter ranges likely the goal for these mini missiles but then accuracy can make up for smaller payloads on the many lighter vehicles around the place.

The Army rejects Air Force weapons, because they are more complex. The YakB-12,7 was quiet unreliabale in Afghanistan. That´s why the Mi-28 and Ka-52 use Army weapons.

Not sure where you heard that... the YakB-12.7 was replaced by the upgraded YakBYu-12.7 because the former overheated firing off a full ammo load in one burst.... it only weighed 45kgs. The latter weapon weighed 65kgs and could fire continuously the entire load of ammo without overheating.

their main problem was that the enemy started firing back with heavier calibres, like 14.5mm and 23mm calibre weapons that outranged the 12.7mm.

They wanted to replace it with a longer ranged weapon and they ended up using a 30mm twin barrel gun scabbed onto the side of the fuselage, but its recoil was enormous so it could not be put into a chin turret where they wanted it.

They wanted a twin barrel 23mm gun in a chin turret but they couldn't get it right for quite some time... it wasn't till the 1990s or so when they got a working 23mm gun in a chin turret on a Hind in service.

Neither the 23mm GSh-23 nor the GSh-30K used on the Hinds were army weapons.

The 2A42 was used on the Mi-28 family and the Ka-50/52 family, and also the Ka-29 in some variants.

It will be interesting to compare combat experience in Syria with the Hind using the 23mm and 30mm, and the Mi-28 using the 30mm ammo.

Note the 23mm rounds in the Hind are very popular in 23mm gunpods in the Russian and Soviet military on fixed wing aircraft, helicopters, and other platforms (including patrol aircraft like the An-72P)

FFS; will they stop bringing new systems out on the basis of legacy platforms such as the T-72 chassis?

It is better to use new chassis for new vehicles, but if they have a requirement that an old chassis can meet and there are lots of them then why not use them?

Just like the 2S1 becoming the 2S34... if you have the old vehicles and plenty of spares and support equipment, why not put a new gun on it and eliminate the 122mm calibre and gun from the inventory and get a new vehicle with improved performance and flexibility?

The german Keiler (mine clearance vehicle) uses the chassis of the M48!
They had a lot of Leo 1´s standind around but they choose an even older chassis. Because it´s cheaper.

Terminator-3 Tank Support Vehicle Will Be Able to Take Down Drones – Developer

The BMPT-72 Terminator tank support combat vehicle has recently proven its worth in the Syrian conflict, and began to be introduced into the Russian Army in April.

Uralvagonzavod is in the process of creating a new third generation of its Terminator series of tank support vehicles, Rostec Armament cluster industrial director Sergei Abramov has told Sputnik.

"Taking into account the experience of the combat use of the Terminator, we are now working on the shape of a new modification of this machine," Abramov said.

"The improvement of its tactical and technical characteristics, and the modernization of its chassis are being discussed. The new vehicle will be able to operate against all types of targets: air, ground, enemy troops and material targets," the official added.

Noting that the existing Terminator-2 has proven "very successful," Abramov said that there were still multiple ways it could be improved over the long term. For instance, whereas the current version of the vehicle has a crew of five, a three-man version has also become available. The latter is made possible through increased automation of the vehicle and its weapons, the official explained.

Other innovations include ground-to-air projectiles with an adjustable trajectory, which will allow the Terminator-3 to bring down unmanned aerial vehicles, as well as burst projectiles and larger-caliber main guns, a defense industry source told Sputnik.

Noting that it's too early to officially name the next-gen tank support vehicle, Abramov said it could be dubbed Terminator-3, pending defense ministry approval.

Terminator developer Uralvagonzavod created the first version of its combat support vehicle in the late 1990s based on the experiences of the Soviet Afghan and Chechen wars. The Terminator made its first public appearance in 2000. Equipped with twin 30mm autocannons, two grenade launchers, four ATAKA anti-tank guided missiles and a 7.62mm PKTM machine gun, the system is built on the chassis of a T-72 main battle tank. Current Terminator-2 operators include Russia and Kazakhstan, with Algeria set to receive several hundred starting in 2018, and other countries, including Azerbaijan, Peru, and Syria showing interest.

Last year, the Terminator-2 was spotted at the Hmeymim airbase in Syria, where it was examined by President Bashar Assad.

https://sputniknews.com/military/201806091065270875-terminator-3-new-capabilities/

So after all the Terminator 3 will indeed use bigger cannons, makes much sense. According to Sputnik BR one "50" mm cannon (57 in all probability) will substitute the twin 30 mm ones.

https://br.sputniknews.com/defesa/2018060811418235-terminator-exterminador-veiculo-blindado-russia/

The Bmpt concept was to fill two roles to support tanks against infantry and ATGW teams and secondly as a multi role fire support vehicle. In built up areas it would be useful for both tanks and bmpt to work in conjunction.

The beauty of bmpt concept is that it could be tailored to your needs -- threat faced ---- budget --- what equipment you already own etc. I am surprised that we haven't seen other countries trying to produce there own versions in various quality from crude to high quality. When you think about all you really need is an armoured chassis (tank preferred) any AA gun in storage and any ATGW you have in storage put it all together add any optics ranger finger fcs etc you want maybe add armour and/or caged armour and you have vehicle which basically does the job and it can be crude as u want or good quality and obviously effectiveness will depend on what weapons you use vs your threat. As I've mentioned before something like a zpu-4 mounted on armour chassis could be useful as VBIED killer. The SAA was pictured with a T -55 chassis with zpu-4 although it didn't specify it they used it in such role.

Something as basic as the btr-t could have been useful in syria and I am surprised SAA never made there own crude version. A T-55 chassis with caged armour and two m1939 37mm guns (sitting in storage) along with konkurs or AT-6 and have a fairly reasonable similar vehicle. I know that zsu-57-2 in the past has had a roof welded on top of turret and used as fire support vehicle and to honest it could have potential if u revised turret made it unmanned auto feed for the guns and add ATGW along with era or added armour, and we all know that zsu-23-4 has been used in ground support yet another vehicle that could get same treatment although turret armour would need additional armour bejng weak. Obviously these mentions would be what other countries could do not Russia. The west I believe don't have such type of vehicles. I actually like it when you see forces modify and bastardise vehicles into something more useful. I remember hez were seen with large calibre AA guns 85mm / 100mm mounted on armoured vehicles and used as fire support not bad considering these guns in there current state would no longer be useful in there designed role of anti air system. Other useful guns you could use s-60 57mm,  GSh-6-23, GSh-6-30 or any other gun sitting on an rotting aircraft.

U am actually surprised that Serbia or Belarus hasn't developed anything like this they both like to tinker with vehicles and make prototypes.
Serbia could use M-84 or T-72 chassis along with the guns off a praga twin 30mm oor a double or single bofors 40mm along with cheap sagger 2T5 a radio guided ATGW the sagger slower speed wouldn't be a huge problem as it would likely be targeting stationary vehicles or buildings.

As for Belarus the developed the 2T stalker a heavy armoured recce vehicle based on the T-72. Although a recce vehicle it could still cover the same roles of bmpt as fire support and dealing with infantry etc supporting tanks, having a single 30mm gun, 7.62 mm, AGS-17, 2x AT-6 it's got the equipment and additionally it would also provide limited air defence as it's also equipped with 2x sa-18.

To be honest I think a mix of all three vehicles would be ideal in a unit. You would have your MBT, BMPT and 2T stalker heavy armoured recce vehicle
(Inc limited air defence). Although I would replace some of the weapons on 2T replace 30mm with 57mm gun, AGS -17 with AGS-30 or AGS-40, AT-6 with either kornet EM or Khrizantema-S and finally the sa-18 with verba. You now have a unit that is versatile and fit for all situations and be highly lethal.

Makes it sound like the Bulat missiles are not shaped charge anti armour missiles, but are HE equipped missiles for hitting enemy positions... much like ATGMs are often used in absence of an armoured enemy.

With a 57mm grenade launcher it makes you wonder why they would have guided HE missiles though and the 57mm grenade would have a very large HE projectile in itself...

So it has Kornet ATGMs for anti armour use, Bulat guided missiles for precision HE delivery to targets and a 57mm gun and rifle calibre machine gun... sounds like it is very well armed.

So it is the APC variant of the Boomerang... so a current div, would have BTR-80 with 14.5mm or 30mm cannon, so the APCs in new Armata and Kurganets and Boomerang divs will have Kornet, 57mm grenade launchers, Bulat missiles, and rifle calibre machine guns... presumably the IFV version will have the low velocity 57mm grenade launcher replaced with a 57mm high velocity gun and the same other weapons...

Interesting...