BMPT "Terminator"

The targets are armoured vehicles so represent a target 2-3m high and 3m wide and 5-6m long, so accuracy is not a huge problem.

Against targets like enemy infantry the HE rounds don't need a direct hit as fragments fill the empty spaces.

When targets are moving sometimes a bit of spread is actually useful.

Note the 30mm gun on the Uran-9 is supported right to the muzzle.

Also a wobbly barrel is not a problem as long as it wobbles the same or similar each time... a totally rigid barrel is not necessarily more accurate, and accurate is the wrong word anyway... consistent is what they need and want.

The two extra gunners could be used to control robots/drones in some scenarios.

lyle6 wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:
Oh thank God, they are using 3 men crew on these instead of 5

Err, no. The two bow gun mounts are still in place.

He would be referring to when the crews entered the vehicles, there were only 3 of them for each vehicle. Suspect the bow guns could be fired by the commander or even the driver.

franco wrote:

lyle6 wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:
Oh thank God, they are using 3 men crew on these instead of 5

Err, no. The two bow gun mounts are still in place.

He would be referring to when the crews entered the vehicles, there were only 3 of them for each vehicle. Suspect the bow guns could be fired by the commander or even the driver.

I think those granade launchers have their own independent optics, so they could not be used by commander or driver. Those two crew members will be inside when needed. But in the video they have only fire training with its main 2A42 gun. They are not needed.

Can't they make it easy to controle like on video games (war thunder). They already make them remote controled with no crew so it should be easy to be manned totally by one guy inside with a ps4 joystick.

The only fault I see with the vehicle is that the bow gun positions have limited traverse... It would be much better if they were small flat turrets with 270 degree traverse and perhaps 60-70 degrees elevation and maybe minus 20 degree depresson with the grenade launchers.

The BMPT works like a tank... the commander finds targets and threats and directs the gunners and driver... the commander directs the different gunners in this case to engage different targets so the two bow gunners could be assigned specific targets or to look down specific fields of view... the driver will be directed to drive from safe position to safe position allowing the gunners to engage their targets.

The 30mm cannon and Missile tubes means the main gunner can engage armour and a range of heavy targets including drones, while the two grenade launcher gunners can pretty much hit all sorts of targets within 2km range.

The point is that the commander searches for targets, and moves the vehicle from cover to cover... in the BMPT he has two extra "gunners" and that is important because the BMPT is intended to engage enemy infantry positions.... snipers, ATGM postions, MG positions etc etc so a lot of the time the bow gunners will be dealing with important targets defending the tanks it is operating with. The main gunner can deal with drones and enemy light armour... the point is that the BMPT can engage three targets at a time and that is its purpose.

An older model BMPT had waist positions for guns and mini turrets but I suspect the bow mounted weapons are better able to engage targets to the front... the armour is best at the front so it makes sense to have the weapons pointing forward too.

Regarding the comment overstuffed coffins... these vehicles have vastly better armour than the troop carrying BMPs they replace and having 5 men is less than the 3 crew and 8 troop capacity of the BMP they replace.

For the roles of the BMPT the west is still using AIFVs which means 3 crew + 8 more coffins (following PD "logic").

PapaDragon wrote:

It never received proper armor upgrade, it's just an MBT without a proper weapon and two redundant crewmen stuck inside

It is supposed to replace the Shilka in that role and its armour while poor is adequate against the most common threats it will face in urban warfare.

Though I believe it would have been much better to give it a single cooled 30mm autocannon and a low pressure cannon or 160mm mortar in an unmanned turret and possibly some racks that could accept the full range of helicopter ordinance (s5,s8,s13,gunpods), but that said it is still a very useful vehicle in its desired role.

Whats the point of bow MGs anyway, to justify the space to put 2 more crewmen, and thus increase weight. Its so obvious that they're near useless compared to the coaxial MG. Its like bringing the hull mg back again. The point of the BMPT is to engage the enemy at a distance with concentrated firepower, not randomly shoot rifle calibre dakka.

Though I believe it would have been much better to give it a single cooled 30mm autocannon and a low pressure cannon or 160mm mortar in an unmanned turret and possibly some racks that could accept the full range of helicopter ordinance (s5,s8,s13,gunpods), but that said it is still a very useful vehicle in its desired role.

Ive always thought autmatic naval  cannons that could deliver  guided HE shells  and destroy anything at a long distance that isnt an MBT would be extremely useful. Imagine a BMPT with a high elevation 76mm AK-176, or even A-190 100mm and 4 kornets on an armored unmanned turret obliterating helicopters, IFVs entranched infantry , infantry in buildings, etc. witha 2 or 3 round bursts of proximity fused frag rounds or sabots.

It is supposed to replace the Shilka in that role and its armour while poor is adequate against the most common threats it will face in urban warfare.

Air defence vehicles were previously used for the roles but only because of their immense fire power. Their poor armour makes them too vulnerable for the job these days.

I wouldn't really put it against UVZ if they try foist some on the Russian Army just to get foreign customers more acceptable of this new but very much needed niche for their own armies.

For convoy defence and airfield defence roles it is fine, the simple fact is that the T-15 makes it redundant... modern vehicle with MBT level armour... lots of ready to fire guided missiles and a 57mm grenade launcher able to lob heavy HE bombs around the place not to mention high velocity APFSDS rounds for any armour or structure, plus of course optics and lasers etc to mark target for aircraft and artillery... the rear troop compartment filled with more ammo and perhaps a couple of low profile remote weapon stations...

Whats the point of bow MGs anyway, to justify the space to put 2 more crewmen, and thus increase weight. Its so obvious that they're near useless compared to the coaxial MG. Its like bringing the hull mg back again. The point of the BMPT is to engage the enemy at a distance with concentrated firepower, not randomly shoot rifle calibre dakka.

The BMPT is supposed to operate with tanks in places where infantry outside the vehicle would be just too vulnerable to enemy snipers or fire.

The purpose of the bow guns is to enable the vehicle to effectively engage three targets at one time... the bow gunners can engage enemy snipers or MG positions or anti armour teams, while the main gunner with 30mm cannon can engage gun positions and light vehicles and aircraft, while the missiles can engage enemy weapons out to 6km or so.

Remember this vehicle operates with tanks so enemy tanks are not the problem, it is infantry and air and ground light targets in numbers that this vehicle is intended to deal with.

Air burst 30mm cannon rounds would be rather useful for enemy troops behind walls etc, or air targets like drones.

The best equivalent would be the T-35 which from memory had three turrets... the big central one with a short barrel 76.2mm gun for use against bunkers or groups of enemy troops or light structures, while the two side turrets had machine guns for dealing with enemy infantry. As the vehicle approached enemy lines the big gun would deal with enemy guns that could defeat the vehicle while the mgs dealt with enemy troops... obviously coordination in a modern vehicle should be much better.

Ideally a T-14 based BMPT will have three crew in the hull front and no one in the turret... allowing more weapons of different types and much larger volumes of ammo to be carried, but essentially the BMP armament is designed for use against enemy infantry and light vehicles including enemy equivalent BMPs with anti tank missiles for emergency self defence. A BMPT needs similar weaponry really but without the troop capacity, which could be used for more ammo.

I'd say there's nothing wrong with the concept of the bow gunners

The idea is similar to that when you're defending a building. You will want soldiers stationed around the building so that their fire sectors will cover all angles.

In the same way here you have the gunner covering the front sector by default, but with the commander also marking and looking out for any big threats so that the gunner can engage an enemy in any direction by turning the turret. So far so good, just like a normal tank.

But then you also have the bow gunners, who ostensibly cover the sides of the vehicle, spotting threats as soon as they appear and either engaging them if they can, or alerting the gunner/commander to the threat.

The problem I have is only with how it's implemented in practice. The bow gunners are at the front corners of the vehicle, making them vulnerable. Their field of vision and optics also probably do not cover the whole side of the vehicle sufficiently, rather they are orientated by default at 45 degree angle to the front, and will therefore have to rely more on peripheral vision a lot of the time. They are also a little under armed, a grenade launcher might not be ideal to deal with far-off threats in time, or positions on the upper floors of buildings.

I'd rather advocate the Armata approach here. The vehicle should be redesigned in such a way so that the bow gunners are sufficiently inside the vehicle and protected, maybe like the infantry complement of a T-15 would be for instance. Or alternatively base the vehicle on the T-14 chassis and expand the crew capsule so that it fits 5; 3 on the front row, and the 2 bow-gunners back to back facing the sides sitting behind the front row.

Following on from that, the bow gunners vision should be based off of optics and cameras along the sides of the vehicle, that are coalesced together to give them a 180 panoramic view, much like modern ultra-wide screen monitors. Only instead of the physical monitors you might want to use VR headsets, to save space.

Thirdly, the firepower should be represented not only by a remote-controlled grenade launcher turret (which we can leave in their present positions, just minus the physical crew), but also say Kord 12.7mm remote towers further back on the sides. Perhaps with a couple of thermobaric missiles attached to each.
If needed, the height of the main turret can always be increased, to avoid obstruction.

This will essentially give you the mobile bunker for tank support in urban warfare that I think the designers were going for.

PapaDragon wrote:
Forget I said anything

Those retards are actually stuffing 5 people inside

No wonder MoD is taking forever to purchase these things

Folks on SB.com are right, UVZ is forcing this on the military but they are avoiding it any chance they have

This 5 men fiasco is definitive proof

It's called trialing and testing. There's nothing retarded about it, as it's just an exercise, not a real war. The MoD will draw its own conclusions.

The problem I have is only with how it's implemented in practice. The bow gunners are at the front corners of the vehicle, making them vulnerable.

But in an T-72 vehicle the crew in the hull are behind the main hull armour and by the look of it that is heavier than the turret armour which is not there because the vehicle essentially has the turret crew below the hull line so the turret is essentially an external weapon mount with the guns and missiles poking out and the turret crew behind the front hull armour.

I have the same issue with the bow gunners in the sense that the limited angles for their guns and optics limit the range of targets they can engage most of the time.

They are also a little under armed, a grenade launcher might not be ideal to deal with far-off threats in time, or positions on the upper floors of buildings.

The problem I see for the grenade launcher gunners is that they will likely only have a load of 300-400 grenades which is not a lot. Of course whether 30mm or 40mm grenade launchers such rounds would be vastly more effective at ranges of 2-2.5km than rifle calibre machine gun fire or even HMG calibres simply because explosive rounds spread fragments around the impact point whereas bullets either hit or miss.

I'd rather advocate the Armata approach here. The vehicle should be redesigned in such a way so that the bow gunners are sufficiently inside the vehicle and protected, maybe like the infantry complement of a T-15 would be for instance. Or alternatively base the vehicle on the T-14 chassis and expand the crew capsule so that it fits 5; 3 on the front row, and the 2 bow-gunners back to back facing the sides sitting behind the front row.

One of the early model BMPTs had waist gunner positions just behind the turret on the sides of the vehicles which would be interesting.

A low flat unmanned turret with a rifle calibre machine gun and a 40mm grenade launcher which are both relatively compact slim weapons would be useful yet compact enough to use in a low flat turret with decent traverse and elevation.



Even having the gun mounts bulge out a bit to improve firing angles could improve field of regard.

It should be kept in mind that the main failing of old tanks with lots of independent turrets was communication and coordination.... but with modern optics and comms and computerised optical systems a modern tank commander is going to spot lots of targets needing to be engaged and he can direct the driver to angle the vehicle to allow the two waist gunners to engage many of the targets while the main gunner concentrates on threats to the vehicle.

Low flat external gun mounts would be an interesting addition to the turrets we have seen so far... fitting a couple on vehicles could allow multiple threats to be engaged at one time managed by a commander with 360 degree views directing gunners to engage targets... the commander could punch in the angle direction and give range to the gunner to locate the target to be engaged... the gunner then attacks the target while the commander continues to look for targets and threats for other gunners to deal with.

Only instead of the physical monitors you might want to use VR headsets, to save space.

Useful for aircraft as well as land vehicles...

Kord 12.7mm remote towers further back on the sides. Perhaps with a couple of thermobaric missiles attached to each.

A 57mm or 80mm rocket pod perhaps...

If needed, the height of the main turret can always be increased, to avoid obstruction.

A raised turret would allow mini flat turrets to be placed around it front and rear giving good coverage and good fields of fire, but being unmanned you could minimise the added weight penalty such turrets create. For a vehicle like T-15 the rear troop compartment could include gunners at consoles as well as extra ammo... so three positions in front of the turret for driver gunner commander and four more gunners at consoles in the rear plus ammo in the place where the other four troops would normally be seated.

It's called trialing and testing. There's nothing retarded about it, as it's just an exercise, not a real war. The MoD will draw its own conclusions.

Multi turreted tanks failed, but the technology simply wasn't available and indeed the tank training and tactics had not matured to the point where it could be properly tested.

These new low profile gun turrets don't need huge optics a small optics mount to see where the gun is pointing is all that is really needed... the commanders optics need to be bigger and more capable to find targets but from the commanders optics you can determine angle and distance to the target so the gun mounted optics just need to look at a particular angle and at a specified range and should be able to pick up the target relatively quickly.

A bit like a commander in the field with a group of riflemen... he uses his binoculars to find targets and orders individual soldiers to look for targets on a specific bearing or reference at an approximate distance to engage.

The intention of the BMPT is to be used in situations where infantry is not practical or they are too vulnerable to be used outside of their vehicles.

Troops that remain inside their troop carriers are useless and vulnerable.

In some situations a BMPT would be a substitute for a tank where the enemy has no heavy armour so more vehicles with heavy BMP like armament make more sense.

For combat at very very close range like in urban areas, well you probably wouldn't commit armour to such situations... just too vulnerable... it would make more sense send in specialist troops with heavy body armour and exoskeletons and specialist equipment and essentially blow your way in using artillery and air power and direct fire from ground vehicles...

lyle6 wrote:As much as your BMPT is bristling with firepower it would still be limited to operating alongside the streets. It can't go within the buildings where the enemy would hide to be more or less safe from outside fire. You want something like assault pioneers to go in, secure each block building by building, room by room and direct the accompanying armor's fires at discovered enemy hardpoints or use explosives and flamethrowers to reduce the enemy positions from the inside. These troops would have to be rather heavily protected given the myriad of threats they would expose themselves in, ranging from small arms fire, to grenades, IEDs, incendiaries even close in HMG fire. That level of protection would pretty much mean the troops would have to be transported into battle however, and since you're packing a squad of troops directly at the enemy's doorstep why not make the transport highly protected as well?

The routine is basically for the tank to shell out the first floor, then the infantry moves in and clears the first floor while the tank shells the second floor, then they both move a floor up each, and so on and so on.

A tank is an optional but useful tool for building clearing. A BMPT can help in much the same way.

But nevertheless the main role of a BMPT is tank support, not infantry support, so let's not get sidetracked. If it keeps the tanks clear of surprise ambushes and threats outside their fields of fire, then it has succeeded. Regardless of whether there are still any enemy infantry huddling up in the confines of buildings or other cover.

It's there to make sure that anyone thinking of ambushing a tank column by taking advantage of surprise angles, obtuse angles, high elevation, low elevation, concealment, entrenchment - faces a deadly proposition.
And let's also not forget that while tanks are employed as infantry fire support weapons, and in urban warfare; they are also designed for breakthrough in manuever warfare, such as we've seen recently in the Donbass 2014. In such scenarios, having infantry sweep an area or moving in step with the tank is not always realistic; even in the best case scenario it would take any infantry accompanying the column on IFVs some time to deploy, regroup and engage; and there's nothing to prevent the enemy being ready with HMGs and grenade launchers for them either.