And still woefully under-equipped compared to IFVs they are supposed to supplant.
30mm cannon, rifle calibre machine gun mounted above the two 30mm cannon and two 30mm grenade launchers in the hull... actually sounds good enough along with Ataka missiles mounted on the turret...
I dont think they are to supplant infantry fighting vehicles. They are heavily armed rapid response attack vehicles. Useful in many situations from close quarters urban fighting to long distance attacks on infantry, small fortified positions, and lightly armored vehicles. I think it is a heavier and more direct answer to many problems where an IFV could be wasteful, as its job is to transfer and back up troops primarily.
The BMPT is a support vehicle designed to protect tanks from enemy infantry... whether ATGM teams or what ever... for use in places where it is just too dangerous to deploy infantry.
They would also be good convoy protection vehicles or base security vehicles.
Their lack of direct fire HE rounds like the 100mm gun of the BMP-3 or 73mm gun of the BMP-1 is not really a problem as they will be operating with tanks with direct fire 125mm guns.
The OG BMPTs as envisioned by the Soviets were primarily designed to accompany Soviet tanks as they pushed through highly irradiated zones where the thinner-skinned BMPs could not. <snip> constricting terrain so you could expect more or less equal numbers to tanks. That is simply too much, and a large part of why the Russian Army is not so sanguine about the BMPTs prospects alongside just better armed and protected IFVs coming online.
Not sure where that all came from, the BMPT is a tank support vehicle to provide protection for tanks from targets tanks are not ideal for fighting, like troops in the open and ATGMs etc etc. The vehicles the BMPT is replacing in Soviet use are the Shilka and Tunguska air defence vehicles and the BTR-40 air defence vehicle with twin 14.5mm HMGs that were used against ground targets. The problem with previous air defence vehicles is their serious lack of armour and their high cost (Shilka and Tunguska). When used correctly these vehicles were devastating, with their high elevation guns they could engage all sorts of targets on difficult terrain.
The real question at hand for the Russian forces is that the IFV armament is generally complimentary with the tanks armament, which means the BMP-3 weapons would be better suited to a range of enemy ground forces targets that does not overlap too much with those the tank is optimised to deal with.
Essentially the BMP-3s armament should be pretty good at dealing with a wide range of enemy infantry threats... in fact a mockup of an Armata BMPT seemed to show a 120mm gun/mortar with a 40mm grenade launcher and a 6 barrel 23mm cannon which would offer serious HE fire power out to about 13km range which is plenty, a main gun that can fire mortar and conventional shells for direct and indirect fire, a high rate of fire gatling gun for suppressing enemy positions which used heavy projectiles to make up for relatively low muzzle velocity (but still better than grenade launcher velocity).
The thing is that while the terminator is interesting a BMP-3 type armament with the single barrel 30mm gun replaced with either a 23mm cannon or a twin barrel 30mm cannon would offer better fire power and elevation to engage all sorts of difficult targets tanks don't have the gun elevation to deal with normally.
The IFV version of Armata could use the troop compartment for even more ammo and just retain the same weapons...
I thought bmpt was more or less for urban warfare as tanks performed very poorly as proven in first Chechen conflict.
In this regard, the current bmpt weapons seem sufficient.
Troops and tanks are used together because they compliment each other. Using tanks alone leaves them vulnerable to infantry attack, so BMPs are used to support and provide protection for the tanks and the tanks in turn provide protection for the BMPs and infantry.
The BMPT is an armoured vehicle designed to provide BMP protection to tanks but without troops... a bit like the use of AA gun vehicles to protect convoys and fire support for tank forces.
I think you are right bro, after mulling it over. i like this vehicle and it could serve quite a few functions but still it is a bit too specialized. IFVs could use their autocannons in a similar fashion, though with less armor, and get the same job done. now with the 57mm equipped T-15 it changes things. not only would it be superior in attack and fire support but it is better armored and on top of this it is a full fledged IFV. incredible.
The T-15 with a 57mm grenade launcher firing heavy HE rounds and also APFSDS rounds as well makes the Terminator redundant.
It is a mix of the 30mm cannon for armour piercing rounds... but the 57mm grenade launcher should have much more powerful APFSDS capacity than the 30mm, while the HE power wont be as good as the 100mm HE gun of the BMP-3 it will be pretty good with a HE shell of about 6-7kgs... which is only half the weight of the 100mm shells but it should be able to carry rather more and fire them in bursts and likely also have the laser command detonation system the 30mm guns use too to make it rather more capable.
Tank level armour means the troop compartment can be filled with extra ammo for use against a variety of threats... Kornet and Bulat also make it a very capable system too.
Perhaps two rear hull mounted remote weapon stations with HMGs and grenade launchers and two crew in the back to control them...
Home
Latest images
Register
Log in
