BMPT "Terminator"

A thermobaric warhead would also be nice.

From 30 to 57: what will be the tank support machine based on the "Almaty"

Uralvagonzavod is developing a new version of the Terminator BMPT

More
https://iz.ru/844064/sergei-samarin/ot-30-do-57-kakoi-budet-mashina-podderzhki-tankov-na-baze-armaty

I like the idea of 57mm BMPT much more than the kinda silly twin 30mm.

Not sure if it seriously overlaps with Derivation IFV/AA or provides capability/logistical synthesis with shared capability/components/ammo.

Well the experience from Syria (& Donbas?) is apparently that 30mm shells aren't sufficient to easily destroy bunkers etc & they had to frequently resort to Tank guns -> 57mm for bigger bangs.

hoom wrote:Well the experience from Syria (& Donbas?) is apparently that 30mm shells aren't sufficient to easily destroy bunkers etc & they had to frequently resort to Tank guns -> 57mm for bigger bangs.

BMPTs job is to follow tanks and rip infantry to shreds real fast, if they need more boom they have tanks in package

57mm is for IFV who need to both deal with vehicles and infantry so they need to compromise

Also, 30mm on BMPT has loads of ammo while 57mm gun has far less

57 mm issues are less ammo and inferior rate of fire. But range, destructive power and possibility of using smart fuses are all advantages that I think outweight the downsides.

For a BMPT the ideal would be to have a specially deep magazine and cooling of the cannon to get the best fire rate possible, even without double barrel, but still would be IMO way more effective to clear hideouts than a tank or a IFV with 30 mm cannons, especially in urban environments. In open battlefield the range of the cannon can allow to attack ATGM and technicals before they can open fire on you and save the more expensive ATGMs that are used quite often for that purpose.

The concept of the BMPT is overwhelming fire power for use against targets up to but not including tanks... they are vehicles to support tanks, not replace them.

Vehicles used previously mainly were SPAAGs like the Shilka and Tunguska with the electronics ripped out and replaced with more ammo.. especially in the formers case in afghanistan.

The BTR-40 with twin 14.5mm HMGs was considered a fully dual purpose anti aircraft and anti ground vehicle, and 23mm twin barrel towed guns have also be popularly used in the role on the back of trucks and lashed to the top of vehicles like the MTLB.

They are not supposed to replace tank based fire power... more like an IFVs fire power enhanced... but without the troop carrying capacity.

Considering they will be operating with IFVs and Tanks, personally I think the old design shown with a 120mm gun/mortar, plus a long barrel 40mm grenade launcher and a 23mm gatling covered all the options.

Against better fortified enemy the 30mm guns are becoming a bit light, but perhaps a 120mm gun might be overkill.

the BMP-3 armament of a 30mm gun and a 100mm gun was a nice balance but if the 30mm no longer cuts it against light armour and enemy IFVs then a step up in power is required.

With no troops to transport I would suggest a vehicle like an Armata or Kurganets or Boomerang could carry even more ammo... I mean above they show 80 rounds in a turret with no vehicle penetration, while with hull penetration it carried 120-140 rounds. If you add the entire rear troop compartment for an auto ammo handling system I am pretty sure you could triple the number of ready to fire rounds to over 300 rounds.

If a target takes a burst of 3-4 rounds of 30mm ammo then a single 57mm calibre round might get the job done... in which case 300 rounds is the equivalent of 900-1200 rounds of 30mm calibre ammo.


Of course 57mm rounds could defeat some targets no amount of 30mm rounds could deal with and against flying targets like small uavs an air burst 57mm round could deal with such targets with 2-4 shots compared with potentially hundreds of 30mm rounds fired to try to get a few contacts/hits.

And if 30mm is better then there will be IFVs with 57mm and likely APCs with 30mm weapons too... or perhaps 57mm low velocity grenade launcher calibre guns.

BMPT was designed from the beginning to replace AA guns in ground battles. Modern SP AA guns, like Tunguska, have radars, electronics, etc and are too expensive and too vulnerable because of thin armor to be exposed in the battle next to tank. Also they are not produced in such big numbers and they have other more important task to do, like shooting down small and very dangerous UAVs.

BMPT with twin 2A42 guns is excellent compromise. 2A42 gun have two rates of fire. Low rate of fire with 200 to 300 round per minute and high rate of fire with 550 to 800 rounds per minute. BMPT could fire as low as 200 to 300 rounds per minute with firing only with one gun and as high as 1100 to 1600 rounds per minute with high rate of fire with both guns. Depend on the need. It have high rate of fire, but not too high rate of fire like Tunguska with 5000 rounds per minute. BMPT is meant to finght with infantry groups and ATGM teams as well as with targets on higher places. BMPT targets are area targets, not single objects, so bursts od 30 mm rounds to cover needed area are more than good enough, that is why AA guns are so liked to fight against infantry. Destroying single targets is the task of tanks.

Rate of fire is important in the sense of delivering overwhelming fire power on an area target very very rapidly.

Normally a high rate of fire is critical for small fast moving air targets, but against ground targets it is just wasteful.

Using Shilka and Tunguska against ground targets sounds like it is wasteful too, but firing fixed bursts meant the wastefulness is eliminated... a 50 round burst is a 50 round burst at 300 rpm or 3,000 rpm from a 2A42 or a Gsh-30-2... the difference is how long it takes for the rounds to leave the gun and impact the target... a difference in this case of a ten second burst and a one second burst...

The 2A42 is a good solid weapon that is dust and sand proof and very reliable and accurate, but it is also heavy and has a slow rate of fire.

I think you know my opinions as we discussed this to death several times... a SPAAG is equipped to engage aircraft, which makes them devastating against ground targets, a tank is equipped to take on enemy vehicles from tanks down to carts, while IFVs are equipped to engage infantry and anything that could threaten the IFVs, the troops and the tanks.

I think the BMPT concept was for a fire power vehicle with the same level of protection as a tank has been made redundant with the Armata based IFV that does have tank level protection and serious fire power against a range of targets... but it also has troops.

The IFV model of Armata (T-15) with no troops... perhaps a couple of rear hull mounted RWS with MGs and grenade launchers independent of the main turret and no troops... just extra ammo in the rear and at the extreme rear perhaps two gunners to operate the RWS on the hull back?

A front mounted engine as it is the T-15 would allow this.

BTW the use of AA guns against enemy infantry is common... 20mm cannon or 23mmm towed cannon are obvious examples, but with their new 40mm Baikal grenade launchers and the new 57mm grenade launchers then these cannon might not be so widely used...

With IFVs and APC in the Russian military in the new vehicle types being equipped with a high velocity anti armour 57mm gun and a 57mm grenade launcher respectively... will a BMPT type actually be needed?

With BMP-3 it had serious firepower but lacked the tank level protection...

The thing is that an APFSDS round is a super highly specialised round... it just punches a relatively small hole in things and generally goes right through.

If the target is a BRDM or BTR it would just punch a neat little hole right through... any person or piece of hardware in the path of the round is obliterated but otherwise the vehicle would be fine.

The target needs to be heavily armoured, which means armour fragments and a rather slowed down and damaged penetrator bouncing around inside a tank is more effective.

The fact is that the vast majority of targets engaged by tanks over the last 100 years have been lightly or unarmoured targets... there were a few large armour on armour battles during WWII and perhaps wars in the middle east, but most of the time the tank is fire power support for infantry... and in a sense the BMP-3 with its 100mm gun and 30mm cannon mean the tank could almost not be needed most of the time... unless the enemy have very heavy anti armour equipment requiring a T-90 or similar heavy vehicle.

The 76.2mm gun of the T-34 was not a great anti armour weapon... it was adequate at the time it was introduced but became obsolete as an anti armour weapon during the war. The 85mm gun was not better than the 75mm high velocity gun on the Panther in the anti armour role but it was vastly superior in terms of its HE round against other targets.

There were only 1,300 Tigers and about 6,000 Panthers made, for which the 85mm gun was good enough... the majority of other vehicles they operated including trucks and other vehicles could be dealt with using the 76.2mm guns of older vehicles...

The Russian forces of today have an enormous abundance of weapons able to deal with enemy tanks and in the conflicts they have been involved in over the last 30 years since the end of the cold war they could probably have gotten away with not having tanks, but in terms of holding ground and dominating an area there is nothing like a tank.

The other thing is that they have missiles that fire through their main gun... A tank gun HE shell will be much cheaper than any missile design and against many targets will actually be just as effective, or even more effective... the missile rounds require guidance and flight control components and a fuse that take up internal space... in a HE shell you just have HE and fragmentation material and a fuse.

A simple comparison of the 100mm round of the BMP... the Missile and the HE round... the latter is smaller and more compact, but has a heavier HE payload with better fragmentation and is cheaper and has a greater effective range... 40 HE rounds and 8 guided missiles is a good balance of capability for a wide variety of targets.

Running tests of the BMPT

Boooo! Way to short!

Longer version.

https://tvzvezda.ru/news/forces/content/20193261511-zNlCC.html

Testing at UVZ. Are they new build or those from last year?

medo wrote:Testing at UVZ. Are they new build or those from last year?

If they were built last year they'd be pretty much new builds, the lack of camo is a telling sign.

From all I read here its look like the BMPT-3 is getting a 57mm gun. I think it’s a very good idea and that’s because the advantages that this gun has. But first we need to see what’s happen in USA and below is a link to the NGCV project that will replace the Bradley and maybe more vehicles.

“General Dynamics has revealed the latest iteration of its Griffin armored vehicle demonstrator, which now packs 50mm automatic cannon that the company hopes might turn into a contender for the U.S. Army’s Next Generation Combat Vehicle program. That over-arching project could result in one or more designs to replace multiple types of armored vehicles, including the Bradley Fighting Vehicle, and competitors are already lining up to offer their own pitches, all of which have super-sized main guns”.
Below is a link for the Griffin-3
http://thedrive.com/the-war-zone/24114/one-of-these-big-cannon-toting-armored-vehicles-may-replace-the-bradley-fighting-vehicle

If the American chooses the Griffin-3 with his 50mm gun, there is no doubt in my mind that Russia needs to get the 57mm as there prime gun for IFV, APC and old vehicles upgrade.
This gun will allow the BMPT to fight with tanks in the open area and with infantry in urban area.
The range of the 57mm is double than the range of the 30mm.
Some people say that one 57mm shell is equal to 15 30mm rounds.
The ammo for the gun included guided shell name ORKA that lock on a laser spot. belowis a link for the shell:
http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/news/naval-exhibitions/sea-air-space-2015/2612-bae-systems-unveils-the-orka-one-shot-one-kill-round-for-57mm-gun-at-sea-air-space-2015.html

The question that I have is who this BMPT-3 will look like, IMO as it will build on the ARMATA chassis, it will look like the T-15 with 57mm gun. Picture of the T-15 with 57mm gun can be seen in the ARMATA discussion page 2.
So, take the T-15 with 57mm gun, add GSh-23L in RCWS and install it on top of the turret. Take the infantry squad out of the vehicle, so we will have more space for ammo, and install two GSh-23L in both side of the vehicle which will give us a lot of firepower to deal with problems in urban area. I will change the Ataka missiles to the Kornet missiles to get more firepower to fight against enemy tanks, IFV etc.

Hole wrote:Boooo! Way to short!  

Is that a grenade launcher above and behind the two 30mm cannon?

It looks like either a 30mm or 40mm grenade launcher built in to the top of the turret like the upgraded BMP-2 had a grenade launcher mounted at the back of the top of the turret which elevated with the main gun... very nice if true as a low velocity grenade launcher would allow the vehicle to lob rounds over heavy front cover like a rock wall or other solid object you can't shoot through...

From all I read here its look like the BMPT-3 is getting a 57mm gun. I think it’s a very good idea and that’s because the advantages that this gun has. But first we need to see what’s happen in USA and below is a link to the NGCV project that will replace the Bradley and maybe more vehicles.
<snip> I will change the Ataka missiles to the Kornet missiles to get more firepower to fight against enemy tanks, IFV etc.

It really doesn't matter what gun the US uses... it pretty much has nothing to do with who has the bigger gun... the new Russian IFVs will have 57mm high velocity guns because the current 30mm weapons wont penetrate current NATO IFVs at battle distances (Marders and Bradleys and Warriors are about 32 tons).

They do have a new mini missile for shooting at targets at reduced ranges and I suspect it will pack a lot of those for dealing with enemy armour at short to medium ranges.

There will be Russian tanks and IFVs to deal with enemy tanks, the BMPT is supposed to be dealing with softer threats.

In fact I think the new 57mm medium velocity grenade launcher with a powerful HE round described as being comparable to a 76.2mm shell in terms of HE content could be used for most targets and a light cannon... perhaps a 23 x 115mm calibre weapon might be used against some targets too, while mini ATGMs would be used against enemy IFVs and ATAKAs or Kornets for enemy tanks.

Looks like one.

Second thought. Compared to the ones in the front the barrel looks to thin.

A heavier gun would have been a better choice. During war chaos, equipment can find itself in all sorts of situations. Having
usage flexibility counts for something. Waiting for deployment of specialized equipment is overly optimistic. I know that planning
for chaos is not the done thing, but reality could care less.

Second thought. Compared to the ones in the front the barrel looks to thin.

There is an aircraft version of the 30mm grenade launcher that has a huge barrel... I think it is to allow rapid fire of a lot of rounds without over heating.

The barrel on top looks like a standard grenade launcher barrel in comparison...



My understanding is that this heavy barrel includes a forced air circulation system inside it to improve cooling of the barrel for rapid fire performance, for example in gun pods or for use with belt feed arrangements where there are more than 29 rounds in the belt on most ground mounts for the weapon.

In comparison, here is a photo by Vitali with the AGS-30 on the left and the AGS-17 on the right... the AGS-30 being smaller and more compact with a narrow gun tube and no bumps on the body.



The new Balkan 40mm weapon is also a relatively slim and compact weapon that could be located there with the added bonus of not having empty shell cases to eject when being fired...