BMPT "Terminator"

lyle6 wrote:...The 2 extra dudes are necessary - extra eyes and firepower ...

Those grenade launchers have barely 60 degrees firing arc

They should have been installed on the main weapon station if they wanted grenade launchers that bad

And using two extra people for them is beyond idiotic


This whole thing is a bad joke

The whole idea reminds me of stupid multi-turret tanks like the T-35 back in the interwar period.
Three man crew should be enough in this vehicle.

Those grenade launchers have barely 60 degrees firing arc

The army didn't want to pay for remote weapon mounts like mini turrets to give a better FOV.

On one of the earlier BMPT designs it actually had a machine gun in a waist position on either side of the rear of the turret which would allow each weapon to cover the front and back and sides of the vehicle without any overlap in firing range... each position was manned too.



A quick redesign to add optics and improved elevation and traverse, it could even be a remote weapon station that is separated from the crew compartment with ammo in an external covered feed system... even an unmanned turret with a separate 23mm RWS mount on the rear of the turret that can rotate and aim 360 degree independently of the turret it is sitting on with one bow gunner operating that to engage targets 360 degrees independently of the gunner in the turret who can rotate the main turret 360 degrees to engage targets too... the other bow gunner could operate a tethered drone and operate the radar and IR sensors on that drone.

The whole idea reminds me of stupid multi-turret tanks like the T-35 back in the interwar period.
Three man crew should be enough in this vehicle.

Do you think the rear deck machine gun mounts on Marders to be silly?

The multiturret design was flawed because they made the tanks huge and thinly armoured and were not managed well with communication and visibility issues.

With an automated 360 degree thermal imaging view using computer merged views of fixed cameras displaying the ground around the vehicle with the commander able to select and allocate crew to engage targets... what is the problem?

With their APCs the commander is now able to independently engage targets using guided missiles using his own independent sight while the gunner can engage another target... what we are talking about here is adding more gunners to the commanders control so more targets can be engaged at one time because as we know from two man tanks of old a tank works better when a commander is not worrying about firing or loading a gun and is looking for targets and is directing weapon operators and drivers to move and engage targets.

Having five people in a tank based vehicle was actually very normal for the newest decent tanks... German tanks often had commander gunner loader in the turret and driver and hull machine gun operator/radio operator in the hull.

With modern optics and computers it should actually work rather well.

BTW if multi turrets are impossible to manage then ships must be crap... multi turret tanks were crap because they were badly designed and had poor layouts and thin armour and huge unwieldy turrets.

Having a modern low RWS mount for a rifle calibre machine gun and 40mm grenade launcher mounted on the rear engine deck... one on each side with perhaps a 190 or greater field or rotation that are set below the line of the main turret so the main turrets guns turn above them... what is not to like?

And again, they were aiming for more engagement channels - more weapons on one mount wouldn't have helped any.

Exactly... if you put everything on the main turret then it will all be pointing at one target at a time so no need for more than one gunner and it comes down to the commander correctly identifying the most dangerous threat and having the gunner deal with that first.

In comparison with bow gunners you can have to forward targets being engaged at once out to 1.7km, while the main turret is engaging something else... including drones.

Wouldn't it be better to have more BMPTs on the battlefield than having one Terminator fighting 3-4 targets simultaneously?

Broski wrote:Wouldn't it be better to have more BMPTs on the battlefield than having one Terminator fighting 3-4 targets simultaneously?

Yes

The could take those two meat shields on grenade launchers, add extra one and put them in another BMPT

But hey, the year is 1932 and multi turret land ships are the future...

Actually I think it could work. Two. Automated turrets with auto cannons that are sandwiched one on top of the other. The bottom one would have decent negative degree angles to shoot down. Upper turret could have 85 degree shooting angle.

The key would be using powerful batteries with the diesel engine in order to power the two turrets and make them incredibly fast moving. I'm talking under two seconds for full 360 degree rotation. Same focus on speed for movement and aiming of cannons. Develop scary fast autotracking and intuitive, easy controls for the gunner.

This would be a good vehicle to protect tanks in congested environments

Wouldn't it be better to have more BMPTs on the battlefield than having one Terminator fighting 3-4 targets simultaneously?

Normally I would agree, but in this case the targets the BMPT primarily fights are infantry and infantry light positions and drones... things a rifle calibre machine gun or grenade launcher can deal with most of the time.

Israeli tanks are fitted with two or three machine guns to engage infantry targets at close range... this is just doing the same except with individual remote control turrets that allow the user to fire from under armour.

The could take those two meat shields on grenade launchers, add extra one and put them in another BMPT

The two Grenade launcher operators are sitting in the hull under the heaviest armour on the vehicle.... they are hardly meat shields.

In fact they are well protected.

But hey, the year is 1932 and multi turret land ships are the future...

The new US marine helicopter is a Cobra, the new USAF fighter is an F-15...

The reason multi turret tanks failed was poor coordination and control... such things are achievable these days.

Actually I think it could work. Two. Automated turrets with auto cannons that are sandwiched one on top of the other. The bottom one would have decent negative degree angles to shoot down. Upper turret could have 85 degree shooting angle.

The main problem with the T-35 was enormous turrets that were manned and had to take 45mm gun sized weapons even though only two had the anti tank guns while the other two had machine guns and the central gun was a short barrel 76.2mm artillery support type gun.

The BMPT is more like a T-32 with three turrets... one big central 76.2mm short barrel gun to deliver HE rounds to heavy defences like log bunkers and groups of enemy troops, while the two turrets held machine guns to deal with enemy infantry.

If the vehicle itself was a bit bigger like a BMO-T... like this:



The main turret would be up higher... with cut outs above each track you could have low flat external mini turrets containing a PKT machine gun and a Balkan 40mm grenade launcher... both relatively short narrow weapons that could be mounted close together in a turret that could rotate say 220 degrees and elevate from say minus 15 degrees to plus 70 or plus 80 degrees.

The would be below the turret ring of the main turret so they could turn and engage targets in front of and also beside (on their side relatively) the tank... perhaps another turret on the rear to cover the rear area too... or maybe one turret pointing forward and one pointing back... but I think two point forward makes more sense as you will generally be driving towards the threat during an attack and a rear firing defensive gun would not be needed often and the maingun can rotate to cover that anyway and perhaps a commanders panorama sight gun could cover that.

Feast your eyes on this abomination:

Interesting, but what I am thinking is something with a low flat turret with a fixed field of view that therefore does not get in the way of the other turrets... there should be a little overlap... but not a lot...


And more importantly lets not lose sight of the core purpose of the system... overwhelming fire power against some targets, which four independently aimed machine guns really don't achieve.

GarryB wrote:The two Grenade launcher operators are sitting in the hull under the heaviest armour on the vehicle.... they are hardly meat shields....

There is no extra armor on BMPT, it was just one of many supposed features that was advertised by UVZ and then promptly ditched in favor of 2 decades of lobbying MoD to buy this porkbarrel trash

They are nothing more than meat shields stuck there by old obsolete Soviet doctrine of human disposability

GarryB wrote:The new US marine helicopter is a Cobra, the new USAF fighter is an F-15......

Cobra and F-15 as from the 70s and they work

Land ships are from the 30s and they don't work

Also as always, other people's fuckups are no excuse for your own

The new US marine helicopter is a Cobra, the new USAF fighter is an F-15...

The reason multi turret tanks failed was poor coordination and control... such things are achievable these days.

Human gunners are not a hivemind and will never be well coordinated the more they are unless they are a hivemind.

The BMPT crew numbers are a retarded feature that doesnt make sense with increasing automation and advent of UGVs. period.

How about a "loyal BMPT" drone instead thats controlled by nearby tanks or troops?

Budgets are limited, and BMPTs are competing with MBTs and IFVs, both of which severely overlap the BMPT's capabilities while at the same time are much more fleshed out in the roles they play within armored warfare doctrines. What little BMPTs that would enter service would have to offer far more than what extant vehicles could accomplish, and the multiple engagement capability is that one feature that gives them a leg up over the competition.

Removal of the extra engagement channels also makes the BMPT just as vulnerable to the MBTs they are supposed to support. You can't kill what you don't see.

So youve answered the question yourself if the BMPT is useful: you said yourself here that the BMPT is redundant compared to tanks and IFVs.

More people in an AFV != multiple engagement capability. Moreover, multiple engagement against what? Multiple tanks? multiple AK47 wielding goatfarmers? If you have to engage infantry at short range from completely different directions as an AFV your armor tactics are retarded.

There is only 1 turret on the BMPT. why would you put more people to control 1 turret?

Also the fact that people here think hull mounted manned MGs are a good idea shows that they will defend anything that russian defence compnies sell and that they ignore all historical lessons learnt in tank design.

There is no extra armor on BMPT, it was just one of many supposed features that was advertised by UVZ and then promptly ditched in favor of 2 decades of lobbying MoD to buy this porkbarrel trash

The hull front armour is the heaviest armour on that vehicle... that is all I was saying.

They are nothing more than meat shields stuck there by old obsolete Soviet doctrine of human disposability

They are sitting under much heavier armour than they would in any current in service BMP version including uparmoured BMP-3s.

The purpose of this vehicle is to remove exposed troops from the battlefield and put them in an armoured box but allow them to still use their weapons from the protection of armour... so in fact it is the opposite of what you are claiming.

Cobra and F-15 as from the 70s and they work

Their next gen helicopter and fighter aircraft entered service in the 1970s.... almost 50 years old...

The T-34 works... if Russia announced their next gen infantry support tank was a T-34-57 you would go apeshit...

Land ships are from the 30s and they don't work

Yeah... cell phones didn't work then either.... nor GPS navigation devices....

Also as always, other people's fuckups are no excuse for your own

And even then you fail.... they took these machines to Syria and tested them so they are not fuckups.

They might not be deployed to every single formation, but they have potential.

Human gunners are not a hivemind and will never be well coordinated the more they are unless they are a hivemind.

There is no need for using bees.... the commander of current tanks already looks for targets and allocates them to the gunner to engage... with the BMPT it means he can allocate two other targets to be engaged simuntaneously.

No previously if the commander had ordered the gunner to engage a nice juicy target... say a Bradley fighting vehicle at 5km range and then they started taking fire from a building or hedge line 1-2km away... small arms fire or maybe even a TOW missile launcher, then the gunner could continue engaging the Bradley while the commander used his cupola mounted heavy machine gun to fire at the new target.

With the BMPT there might be multiple positions firing at once so the commander could decide which gunner engages which target depending on the range and type of target.. a Javelin team spotted 2km away could be hammered with 30mm HEI rounds, but as the BMPT approaches a built up area you might start getting fire from multiple locations at once... small arms fire and RPGs, so being able to tell one grenade launcher gunner to focus on this and that building and the other one to concentrate his fire on that hedge line while the main gunner takes on any heavier threats or threats further away...

In the case of a MBT the gunners sight is normally fixed in view to about 30-40 degrees so they don't have a great view of the battlefield, but they are engaging the target they were allocated so engaging that target and saying when ready to engage a new target is your job.

Equally the bow gunners have a limited field of fire so really they only have to worry about the things they can see and hit... they are sitting next to the driver, so if there is a target they feel they need to engage just outside their field of fire they can get the driver to turn the vehicle slightly or ask the commander to do so, or just warn the commander of the threat and he can decide.

It just means that there are more eyes looking for targets and threats and the commander has more gunners to allocate target to in combat so more targets can be engaged at one time.

The BMPT crew numbers are a retarded feature that doesnt make sense with increasing automation and advent of UGVs. period.

If automation is so damn amazing why do all western tanks have a gunner in the turret... surely a commander can select targets and press a button to fire a round to kill a target... yet they insist on putting a commander and a gunner and a loader in their turrets making them enormous targets and making the vehicle very heavy...

Why are there no two man MBTs... a commander gunner, with an auto loader and a driver...

Russian tanks have auto trackers too so why do they have a gunner at all?

Pretty obviously, a commanders job is to look for targets and look for threats and allocate targets to the gunner and driving instructions to the driver to ensure the heaviest armour is pointed at all the biggest threats and the gun is pointed at the next target to be engaged.

And now they have to be aware of drones too... so having a gunner engaging ground targets with the main guns but also extra gunners engaging drones or infantry positions actually makes a lot of sense.

How about a "loyal BMPT" drone instead thats controlled by nearby tanks or troops?

If they had a loyal drone able to engage enemy troops and armour and drones on its own there would be no need for nearby troops or nearby tanks... just have all drones.

So youve answered the question yourself if the BMPT is useful: you said yourself here that the BMPT is redundant compared to tanks and IFVs.

Not at all... any air defence system is improved by increasing the number of guidance channels it has because it can engage larger enemy forces at once.... the BMPT is intended to be used in Lieu of BMPs because the threat to infantry in the open is too high so the BMPT is there to provide support to the tanks and the tanks in turn will protect the BMPTs by shooting MBTs and BMPs and other heavy targets.

More people in an AFV != multiple engagement capability.

More people with their own sights and own independent weapons does equal multiple engagement capability... that was its purpose.

Moreover, multiple engagement against what? Multiple tanks? multiple AK47 wielding goatfarmers? If you have to engage infantry at short range from completely different directions as an AFV your armor tactics are retarded.

Enemy infantry are going to use tactics to get close to tanks because that is the safest place for soldiers with enemy tanks. Ask the Iraqi soldiers in Desert Storm.

There is only 1 turret on the BMPT. why would you put more people to control 1 turret?

The two extra crew control 30mm grenade launcher mounted above the tracks in limited traverse mounts.

Also the fact that people here think hull mounted manned MGs are a good idea shows that they will defend anything that russian defence compnies sell and that they ignore all historical lessons learnt in tank design.

The original idea was for small turrets that had much better field of views but they cost too much for the army.

What, those twin 30 mm's suddenly weigh 5 tons each?

115kgs each... so probably less than a 125mm barrel and mechanism.

It essentially has external gun mounts with below hull crew positions so no heavy turret frontal armour required.

And yes, hull mounted MGs are actually a good idea - most tanks have a deadzone immediately in front of the tank where none of the tank's weapons could depress sufficiently low enough to engage targets say in a trench just immediately ahead. It could be an extension of the driver's sight similar to the commander's sight which also got paired with an MG to become a fully fledged remote weapons station.

Modern technology has made a stupid idea into a useful idea.... a two man tank was a bad idea because driving is a full time job but so is loading the main gun and so is firing the main gun and so is commanding the vehicle.

Even with advanced thermal sights with video processing computers that pick hotspots out as potential targets for a commander to look at and make a final decision to hand it off to a gunner.... it makes the commanders job much easier, but it remains difficult on a modern battlefield where there might be friendlies and neutrals as well as enemy combatants.

Having a gunner engage a target while the commander scans for threats or other targets is important because when that T-26 commander is loading the gun and aiming it at the target all manner of enemy could be approaching him from the side or behind.... having two bow gunners looking forward focusing on finding targets and engaging them means the driver can focus on moving from cover to cover as quick as he can and following instructions from the commander with his much better view of the lie of the land in front of them from his position in the turret.

The difference between a T-32 with two machine gun turrets and a 76.2mm central turret is visibility and communication... with modern electronics and modern comms systems the commander could spot a target in his panoramic sight and direct the main gunner to engage, but any other enemy troops positions he spots he could direct each of the machine gun turrets to engage at the same time... and it is not tying up the commander... the vehicle is engaging potentially three different targets at once but the commander is free to look 360 degrees around the vehicle looking for ground threats and aircraft.. their might be a plane lining the vehicle up so the commander might order the crew to hold fire while he gets the driver to reverse back through that fence and into a position that makes the vehicle a difficult target for the aircraft... once the aircraft has flown past the commander can notify air defence to engage while he orders the driver to drive down the fenceline 40m and then drive through again and reacquire their targets and re engage.

Shooting at three different targets at once suppresses more enemy units at once and makes your fellow vehicles safer... if someone pops up with an RPG you can shoot at them but normally they are too fast.... perhaps with your bow gunners and commander getting feed from a drone they might see an RPG gunner behind front cover but not top cover getting ready to step out and fire so you can have your grenade launcher aimed and ready to fire the instance he does... what a surprise for him... but in the mean time they might be firing PK machine gun fire at you to distract you, which your other grenade launcher gunner can neutralise.

Very simply the job of the commander is to allocate targets to a gunner on existing vehicles... having extra gunners makes sense now... but I do agree a proper turret with better field of view would have been much better... and a new Balkan 40mm grenade launcher reaching to 2.5km with a heavier grenade would be much better.

PapaDragon wrote:

lyle6 wrote:...The 2 extra dudes are necessary - extra eyes and firepower ...

Those grenade launchers have barely 60 degrees firing arc

They should have been installed on the main weapon station if they wanted grenade launchers that bad

And using two extra people for them is beyond idiotic


This whole thing is a bad joke

I don't think the concept itself is idiotic, but the implementation leaves much to be desired.

No amount of electronics and cameras can replace an extra pair of eyes covering the sides of your vehicle in an urban warfare zone. It's not even about the grenade launchers

Although actually the grenade launchers are part of it; those corner weapon stations should be given something more substantial. And moved back a bit, with extra cameras on the sides linked to those stations as well. In fact all 5 crew can fit into an armoured capsule in the center and control things remotely, as in the Armata chassis.

limb wrote:How about a "loyal BMPT" drone instead thats controlled by nearby tanks or troops?

They have it, it is called Uran-9. Robot doesn't have crew inside, so heavy armor is not needed. They could made robot control vehicle based on T-15...

The technology and armour on the Armata series vehicles actually makes the BMPT concept a bit redundant... the BMP is already a troop transport designed to fight enemy infantry and enemy BMPs and APCs and to transport troops at the same time. A fairly basic modification to the T-15 to give it an upgrade... hell the 57mm automatic grenade launcher is going to be devastating and the 12 ready to launch guided missiles... you could locate a twin barrel 23mm cannon like the one chin mounted on the current Hind with a tank along the back surface of the turret with room for 5,000 rounds of 23mm cannon ammo (23 x 115mm is similar in sized to 14.5mm HMG ammo so it is rather compact and spewing out at 3,500rpm from the twin barrel gun would make it rather devastating).

The 23mm gun just needs to elevate, it could turn with the turret like the grenade launchers added to BMP-2 upgrades.

Anything that is not effected by 23mm HEI cannon shells should be defeated by either 57mm HE rounds or 57mm APFSDS rounds.

The troop compartment could be half filled with more ammo for the main guns and perhaps two troop positions to control rear vehicle deck mounted remote weapon stations that could be aimed sideways and to the rear.

Their optics systems for the Hinds that stitch together thermal imaging high res video views creating a 360 degree seemless view of the world for max situational awareness around the aircraft/vehicle could also be applied and video processing software could highlight hotspots and moving objects to bring them to the attention of the commander and gunners.

Technology is making this easier.... even a system that shows the commander their 360 degree view of the battlefield could highlight which direction each gunner is looking so everyone is not just looking at the same place, while other spots are ignored.

The technology and armour on the Armata series vehicles actually makes the BMPT concept a bit redundant...

Perhaps they should focus on mounting other, more promising systems on the Armata Chassis instead...

medo wrote:

Mir wrote:@Gary

I agree with most of what you say above except for this >>

The point is that the BMPT is not a BMP... it is a SPAAG for use against light aircraft and also ground threats.

Definitely the other way around - it's a BMP and not a SPAAG. The BMP-T was developed from the experienced gained during the Chechen Wars. They felt the need for an infantry fighting vehicle that can support tanks in heavily build-up areas with much better armour than the BMP's. The BMP-T happens to be able to defend against attacking aircraft and helicopters but was never developed as a SPAAG.

SPAAG's on the other hand proved to be very useful in the ground support role as you've mentioned. The M-42 Duster was literally dusted off from storage as they were considered obsolete, but they proved their worth during the Vietnam War. Same with the Shilkas but all of them had very thin armour.

You are mixing BMP-T with BMPT. Although similar name, they are two different projects. BMP-T was project from the nineties to made BMP to drive infantry squad with tank level of armor and was made from T-55 tank. BMPT was never meant to drive any infantry and it is not BMP. BMPT was developed on experiences from Afghanistan, Balkan wars, Chechnya, etc, that anti-aircraft guns are extreamly effectice against infantry in maountain or urban environment, but AA guns doesn't have enough armor and modern AA guns with radars and electronics are too expensive and in not enough numbers to be used in such ground battles. This was BMPT from the beginning, AA gun with tank level armor for ground battles. Two 2A42 guns are actually legacy of their AA gun combat experiences and now with modern air burst programable ammo they got important place in combat to fight flying treats as well as other ground treats as they are todether with tanks in the first line, while AA guns are more behind. BMPT will now provide protection against drones and high flying ATGMs, like Javelin, Spike, etc.

Sorry Medo rather looks like you got the two all mixed up

The BMP-T is the Terminator and that is the one I was talking about - the tank support vehicle.
The BMP-T you are incorrectly referring to as being developed from the T-55 tank chassis, is actually the BTR-T heavy APC.

Also the BMP-T Terminator's 2A42 guns has been fitted on a variety of combat vehicles like the BMP-2, BMD-2/3 the Mi-28 and even the Bumerang APC, but these guns have never been used on a dedicated AA vehicle. From the Shilka they proceeded directly to the 2A38M guns on the Tunguska. The 2A42's can naturally be used effectively against slow flying air targets but none of the vehicles has any dedicated tracking devices against aerial targets.

GarryB wrote:

Definitely the other way around - it's a BMP and not a SPAAG. The BMP-T was developed from the experienced gained during the Chechen Wars. They felt the need for an infantry fighting vehicle that can support tanks in heavily build-up areas with much better armour than the BMP's. The BMP-T happens to be able to defend against attacking aircraft and helicopters but was never developed as a SPAAG.

I suspect you are confusing what you call a BMP-T... which does not exist... there is BMPT, but no BMP-T.... with the tank based troop transport, but being a machine gun armed troop transport it is called BTR-T and it is a tank based APC or in Russian language BTR.

Many sources refer to the BMP-T Terminator as either the BMPT or the BMP-T - same vehicle. See also my post above. Same with Zircon or Tsirkon - same missile.
https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a34851456/russia-terminator-weapon-tank-support-vehicle/

Many sources refer to the BMP-T Terminator as either the BMPT or the BMP-T - same vehicle.

The makers use the code BMPT because it is not a BMP-T (ie troop transport based on a tank), it is a BMPT (it is an armoured support vehicle designed to support tanks but does not carry troops).

http://roe.ru/eng/catalog/land-forces/armored-combat-vehicles/BMPT/

The BTR-T is essentially the version of the Armata with the Kord HMG turret... it is a troop transport vehicle based on a tank chassis.

A BMPT is not a T-15, a T-15 is a tank based BMP troop transport.

The Russian term BMP means IFV in the west, and the BTR means APC in the west.

The BMPT is not either... it is a fire support vehicle that does not cart troops around the battlefield.

Perhaps they should focus on mounting other, more promising systems on the Armata Chassis instead...

The modular design of the new vehicle families means the turrets and equipment sets will be standardised so there will be a T-14 turret for Kurganets and Boomerang type vehicles to perform the MBT role in those lighter forces, they are working on deciding which turrets to go forward with.

To start with the T-15 had an old model Ephoch turret with a 30mm cannon and Kornet and Bulat missiles, but now it seems it will have a 57mm grenade launcher instead able to fire air burst HE and APFSDS rounds plus missiles.

It makes sense that the BMP in each vehicle family with therefore use the same turret, hense the T-15, B-19, and K what ever it will be will all use the same turret with the same ammo and sensors etc.

Same with Zircon or Tsirkon - same missile.

They are interchangeable because they sound the same.

What they are referring to however is Zirconium which is a type of mineral which many Soviet anti ship missiles are named after, like Granit, and Uran(ium), and Yakhont (jewel), and Onyx (a precious stone).

Also the BMP-T Terminator's 2A42 guns has been fitted on a variety of combat vehicles like the BMP-2, BMD-2/3 the Mi-28 and even the Bumerang APC, but these guns have never been used on a dedicated AA vehicle. From the Shilka they proceeded directly to the 2A38M guns on the Tunguska. The 2A42's can naturally be used effectively against slow flying air targets but none of the vehicles has any dedicated tracking devices against aerial targets.

They chose the 2A42 cannon of the BMP-2 because it is reliable and has a dual feed so you could load two different belts of very different ammo to fire... like APDS and HEI.

With an AA gun like the 2A38M it is a single belt and is intended only for use against aircraft which means it needs a high rate of fire but doesn't need amazing armour penetration performance.

All the rounds used in the 2A38M have about the same shell weight and the same muzzle velocity so even though each round in the belt could be different and loaded in a variety of mixes they will all shoot to the point of aim so some rounds hitting the target will explode and some will punch straight through... aircraft never have super heavy armour so most of the time the HE will do serious damage but for armoured aircraft like attack helicopters or A-10s the armour piercing penetrate and do more damage and have a better chance of bringing the aircraft down.

For the BMPT the primary targets are ground based... most helicopters and CAS aircraft and long range stand off missiles will be shot down by TOR and Pantsir and Tunguska vehicles supporting the unit.

A BMPT on the other hand will want some rounds that penetrate really hard targets like enemy IFVs so APFSDS rounds in one belt makes good sense... just having one belt is fine because one gun firing would be sufficient for the job. The other gun you might want a belt of air burst HE rounds for shooting over front cover at targets hiding behind a wall or vehicle, or to engage a drone in flight. The other belt for both guns would be HEIT rounds so when you are called upon to suppress a target like enemy snipers firing from a building or an ATGM then you can switch both guns to the HEIT and fire both barrels in an overwhelming blast of fire .

If you fired both barrels at once and one was firing APFSDS and the other was firing HEI or air burst HEI then the guns would be at different angles because of the totally different trajectories of the two different rounds.

By having two 2A42 guns you can have four different types of ammo though in this case you have three with lots of two as a standard round in both guns for high rate of fire effect.

I rather suspect that in the future the four Ataka missiles might be replaced with rear hull mounted retractable launchers for Bulat mini missiles.

@ Gary

The makers use the code BMPT because it is not a BMP-T (ie troop transport based on a tank), it is a BMPT (it is an armoured support vehicle designed to support tanks but does not carry troops).

Sorry dude but that's just BS! From the beginning the BMPT was known as the BMP-T in the military press and on the internet. Here is some more evidence that the Terminator was referred to the BMP-T >>

http://warfaretech.blogspot.com/2014/02/bmp-t-terminator.html
https://defense-update.com/20060828_t-72-tank-support.html
https://armyrecognition.com/russia_russian_army_light_armoured_vehicle_uk/bmpt_bmp-t_tank_support_infantry_fighting_combat_armoured_vehicle_technical_data_sheet_information_u.html

and the list goes on...

The BTR-T is NOT the BMP-T no matter how hard you try
AND by the way the BMPT is NOT a SPAAG!


OMG you are a contradiction in terms!

I posted "Same with Zircon or Tsirkon - same missile." and you responded "They are interchangeable because they sound the same."

How about BMPT and BMP-T? Shouldn't they be "interchangeable because they sound the same"!?

For the BMPT the primary targets are ground based... most helicopters and CAS aircraft and long range stand off missiles will be shot down by TOR and Pantsir and Tunguska vehicles supporting the unit.

I thought you said it's a SPAAG?!

First unit of ‘Terminator’ combat vehicles enters service with Urals Armored Division

https://tass.com/defense/1369109

Sorry dude but that's just BS! From the beginning the BMPT was known as the BMP-T in the military press and on the internet. Here is some more evidence that the Terminator was referred to the BMP-T >>

Western websites?

I gave you the link to the Russian export company that sells them to export customers...

The BTR-T is NOT the BMP-T no matter how hard you try

I have never said it was... BTR-T means Troop transport vehicle - tank based.

BMPT means an armoured vehicle designed to support tanks.

BMP-T would mean BMP or IFV based on a tank.

BTR-T is not a BMP based on a tank because it has BTR armament... HMG or cannon, but not heavy weapons like the T-15 will have.

BMP-T would be a T-15, which is a BMP based on a tank that carries troops.

BMPT is based on a tank but carries no troops and is not a troop transport.

A T-15 carries troops that can be deployed near the target to use their weapons to attack targets that can't be attacked while mounted... clearing trenches or buildings for instance.

AND by the way the BMPT is NOT a SPAAG!

They have specifically mentioned that the BMPT will have an anti drone role, but it will not replace the Tunguska or Pantsir or TOR systems or the new 57mm gun armed 2S38 air defence vehicle.

I posted "Same with Zircon or Tsirkon - same missile." and you responded "They are interchangeable because they sound the same."

It is the same word pronounced and spelt differently... or are you saying it has two different names that mean completely different things?

How about BMPT and BMP-T? Shouldn't they be "interchangeable because they sound the same"!?

No, because the meaning is different... BMPT means a vehicle that supports tanks but does not imply a troop transport capacity. BMP-T suggests a heavy BMP based on a tank... ie a heavily armed troop transport vehicle... which as you can see is different.

But I can understand how journalists get confused.

I thought you said it's a SPAAG?!

No. I said the vehicles the BMPT is replacing are SPAAG adapted to a ground support role.

In Afghanistan and Chechnia where there was no enemy air power Shilkas and Tunguskas had their electronics removed and extra belted ammo added and they were used in a direct fire ground support role for which they were devastating... but also very fragile because they were never designed to have the frontal armour to operate on the front lines.

The BMPT is an attempt to create a vehicle with the fire power of a SPAAG but the armour of a tank.

It is intended to engage ground targets like troops and infantry and ATGM teams and RPG operators as well as other threats including drones which might be too small or flying too low for air defence vehicles can't reach them easily. BMPs will likely also engage drones as I think any vehicle with a cannon and thermals that sees an enemy drone is likely to engage it these days.

You can't send tanks onto the battlefield without infantry support but when the enemy is well armed with anti armour weapons then BMPs and BTRs are not going to last very long so the BMPT is a vehicle to support tanks when troops in the open are not viable... their job is not to engage enemy tanks, but to engage enemy troops trying to engage your tanks and also to apply serious fire power to enemy strong positions (together with 125mm shells from the tanks and 120mm rounds and 152mm rounds from artillery support.

I said "I thought you said it's a SPAAG?!"
Your reply>>

No. I said the vehicles the BMPT is replacing are SPAAG adapted to a ground support role.

Your post 570 >>

The point is that the BMPT is not a BMP... it is a SPAAG for use against light aircraft and also ground threats.

Once again you are seriously contradicting yourself!

It is the same word pronounced and spelt differently... or are you saying it has two different names that mean completely different things?

The above is exactly what you are implying with the BMPT and the BMP-T. You are the one implying that they are two different things but they are not and any person with a some intelligence would know its the same thing. When I mentioned Zircon and Tsirkon you are the one that said "They are interchangeable because they sound the same." Trying to twist it around is really not very intelligent - it's actualy quite stupid!

They have specifically mentioned that the BMPT will have an anti drone role, but it will not replace the Tunguska or Pantsir or TOR systems or the new 57mm gun armed 2S38 air defence vehicle.

I don't dispute that it will be able to kill drones but I have not seen that "they have specifically mentioned that the BMPT will have an anti drone role" presuming "They" are Rosboronexport?