vehicle BMPT Terminator : Highly Lethal Tank Support Combat Vehicle, What Makes it so Powerful?

[sidom]

https://youtu.be/fOXTbKaX3Qs

 

Edited February 3, 2023 by sidom

[bojan]

Why do you think it is "highly lethal"?

Firepower is at the IFV level - 30mm + AGL + ATGM.

[Pale Rider]

Waste of working mbt chassis...

[bojan]

Why? In order to protect it at MBT level it needs to use MBT chassis.

That is least iffy part of it. 

[Harkonnen]

6 hours ago, bojan said:

Why do you think it is "highly lethal"?

Firepower is at the IFV level - 30mm + AGL + ATGM.

But it has protection above any T-series tank, so how strange the design is it is indeed a success. BMP with AGL, ATGM etc can not use its weapon potential due to its low protection.  

 

[bojan]

I agree with that, vehicle that is supposed to operate at frontline needs MBT level armor.

I just think that other prototype, with BMP-3 like armament suite (IIRC Obj.782?) would have been better at a role, as it had all that and also 100mm with pretty good HE round. Currently BMPT's armament is pretty weak vs fortifications and buildings, barring use of ATGM.

[Harkonnen]

3 minutes ago, bojan said:

I agree with that, vehicle that is supposed to operate at frontline needs MBT level armor.

I just think that other prototype, with BMP-3 like armament suite (IIRC Obj.782?) would have been better at a role, as it had all that and also 100mm with pretty good HE round. Currently BMPT's armament is pretty weak vs fortifications and buildings, barring use of ATGM.

All prototypes mede not by Ural design UKBTM were better. Nowdays BMPT is just mutilated version of soviet design, still it is better than nothing. I compared 4 variants of BMPT before http://btvt.info/4ourarticles/bmpt_future/bmpt_future.htm 

[alejandro_]

Quote

What Makes it so Powerful?

If you read some Russian articles it is considered rather underpowered, as 2×30mm configuration is not optimal. UVZ was supposed to install a single 57 mm one. There is also the question of hacing 2 crew members with AGS-17 grenade launchers. Perhaps BMPT-72, which uses an existing chassis is more optimal.

[Sardaukar]

2 hours ago, Harkonnen said:

But it has protection above any T-series tank, so how strange the design is it is indeed a success. BMP with AGL, ATGM etc can not use its weapon potential due to its low protection.  

 

Welcome back, long time, no see.

[Rick]

On using a M.B.T. chassis for other purposes, I've always thought that an M.B.T. would make a good A.P.C. Maybe even as the hull for an I.F.V.

[KV7]

 

'33 mm autocannons ?' ??

[Ssnake]

Gives you 10% extra power.

Or maybe 33 autocannons of millimeter-caliber. 😜

[Sardaukar]

2 hours ago, Rick said:

On using a M.B.T. chassis for other purposes, I've always thought that an M.B.T. would make a good A.P.C. Maybe even as the hull for an I.F.V.

IDF was one of the forerunners, Achzarit, Namer etc.

[Stefan Kotsch]

If you can throw taxpayer money out the window with your hands, then a vehicle like the BMPT might not be a bad decision. But it has already been said. Sheer firepower is not the criterion at all. Firepower isn't much greater than an IFV. But the strong armor allows closer proximity to the enemy.

In fact, infantry on IFV always act together with MBT and supported by artillery, CAS, etc.. In this respect, the BMPT is dispensable. And, the BMPT is actually an urban territory capture vehicle.

Ok, if you can throw taxpayer money out the window with your hands, then ... My opinion about it.

.

Edited February 4, 2023 by Stefan Kotsch

[bojan]

IMO, BMPT like vehicle should not be seen as a IFV substitute, but as a tank substitute in certain situations, especially when combination of armor and high elevation of main armament is needed (which tanks are not capable of) , or when automatic cannon is more effective than standard tank gun. But armament in that case should be like Object 782, with HE capable gun + automatic cannon, else it can not do all of those things effectively.

[Pavel Novak]

16 minutes ago, Stefan Kotsch said:

If you can throw taxpayer money out the window with your hands, then a vehicle like the BMPT might not be a bad decision. But it has already been said. Sheer firepower is not the criterion at all. Firepower isn't much greater than an IFV. But the strong armor allows closer proximity to the enemy.

In fact, infantry on IFV always act together with MBT and supported by artillery, CAS, etc.. In this respect, the BMPT is dispensable. And, the BMPT is actually an urban territory capture vehicle.

Ok, if you can throw taxpayer money out the window with your hands, then ... My opinion about it.

.

I think this is more complicated and depends on expected enemy and terrain.

For example my infantry view on the utility of BMP-1 firepower on cs - west german area of operations in 1970s and 1980s is that it is far worse than OT-64A. The 73mm gun with just HEAT round and Sagger ATGM would be of very little use on border with very forested and hilly areas while 14.5mm had quite a lot of punch to use in this terrain.

And similarly I am looking to BMPT. I like the idea of autocannon firepower on tank level protected vehicle. It is adding firepower which tank doesn't have while it can operate like tank (BMP-2 cannot). And such vehicle would be big bonus on bavarian border and definitely worth the cost. So again it depends on who you fight and where.

Though what I don't like is how current BMPT are designed. That has lot of space for improvement.

[Wiedzmin]

2 hours ago, bojan said:

BMPT like vehicle

BMPT it's more likely vehicle for our army only, when infantry historically never do anything, and you forced to use tanks "as infantry" so....basically vehicle to fulfill lack on any tactics

Edited February 4, 2023 by Wiedzmin

[bojan]

I don't see it as an infantry substitute in my theoretical employment*. I see it as a specialist vehicle able to support infantry at the frontline, especially in the rugged terrain that needs high elevation angles than MBTs allow.

*Maybe Russian army does, but a fact that someone is pounding nails with microscope does not make microscope a good hammer. 

  

2 hours ago, Pavel Novak said:

....while it can operate like tank (BMP-2 cannot)...

I would dare to say that no IFV used today can. Maybe if Puma is ever debugged and outfitted with max armor, or if Israelis finally find $$$ to put 30mm turret on Namer, or... But not until then at least.

Edited February 4, 2023 by bojan

[Harkonnen]

On 2/4/2023 at 12:09 AM, alejandro_ said:

If you read some Russian articles it is considered rather underpowered, as 2×30mm configuration is not optimal. UVZ was supposed to install a single 57 mm one. There is also the question of hacing 2 crew members with AGS-17 grenade launchers. Perhaps BMPT-72, which uses an existing chassis is more optimal.

Actually  not 2×30mm, but only 1 can fire at the same time http://btvt.info/1inservice/tom3_bmpt_weapon.htm "The guns are fired in turn, each gun is supplied with its own type of ammunition from a two-section magazine with a total capacity of 850 shells."

Edited February 5, 2023 by Harkonnen

[KV7]

7 minutes ago, Harkonnen said:

Actually  not 2×30mm, but only 1 can fire at the same time http://btvt.info/1inservice/tom3_bmpt_weapon.htm "The guns are fired in turn, each gun is supplied with its own type of ammunition from a two-section magazine with a total capacity of 850 shells."

This seems to be actually be quite reasonable at least as an expedient and if we assume that 2A42 is chosen. ROF is arguably good enough, and arguably there are some advantages over a single gun and a dual feed system.

The AGLs fit the concept, but ideally should be on the main turret or some RWS type mount. Maybe it would be even better would be to use the new 57mm medium pressure gun instead.

The gold plated way to do it would be to use an armata style layout and then the central compartment is free to hold a lot of ammunition of various sorts,  and then one could for example use something like a 152 mm low to medium pressure and high elevation gun for use against buildings, with a 30mm and 7.62 mm coax.


 

[Mighty_Zuk]

The BMPT is probably the #1 worst AFV of the last 50 or so years. Or at least, anything else would have a rough competition with it.

Some variants were even not quite so bad, but that's also why they were rejected.

The only thing going for it at the moment is that it uses an MBT chassis and thus gets most of its survivability, but it was honestly obsolete even before it was conceived, due to the low survivability of the T-72.

Not to mention, it embodies institutional corruption quite well.

[Harkonnen]

1 hour ago, KV7 said:

This seems to be actually be quite reasonable at least as an expedient and if we assume that 2A42 is chosen. ROF is arguably good enough, and arguably there are some advantages over a single gun and a dual feed system.

The AGLs fit the concept, but ideally should be on the main turret or some RWS type mount. Maybe it would be even better would be to use the new 57mm medium pressure gun instead.

The gold plated way to do it would be to use an armata style layout and then the central compartment is free to hold a lot of ammunition of various sorts,  and then one could for example use something like a 152 mm low to medium pressure and high elevation gun for use against buildings, with a 30mm and 7.62 mm coax.


 

It was possible to install stabilized AGL in turret - https://btvtinfo.blogspot.com/2017/08/blog-post_84.html

And in even in Tagil final design the vehicle degraded comparing to initiall onr https://btvtinfo.blogspot.com/2017/07/1.html 

Very strange nystirious design history.

 

[Harkonnen]

37 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

The BMPT is probably the #1 worst AFV of the last 50 or so years. Or at least, anything else would have a rough competition with it.

Some variants were even not quite so bad, but that's also why they were rejected.

The only thing going for it at the moment is that it uses an MBT chassis and thus gets most of its survivability, but it was honestly obsolete even before it was conceived, due to the low survivability of the T-72.

Not to mention, it embodies institutional corruption quite well.

Maybe someday it's bettle results will be known and "#1 worst AFV" may change to opposit meaning.

[Mighty_Zuk]

48 minutes ago, Harkonnen said:

Maybe someday it's bettle results will be known and "#1 worst AFV" 

If the crews are well trained and have good command, they can make effective use of it. But it doesn't cancel the fact that design-wise, this is the dumbest take on the concept I ever witnessed.

2 cannons - horrible decision.

Using 2A42 on AFVs - even worse.

Adding 2 crewmembers just for maintenance - arguably worst decision.

Lack of oscillation control of cannons - also dumb.

2 AGLs - absolute waste of time and space.

 

A much better, non corrupt version would be a T-72 hull with either the BMP-3 or Berezhok turret, with a 3-crew layout.

[Harkonnen]

Initially BMPT had 7 crewmembers 5 of them capable to dismount, in the Tagil BMPT 2 were removed but two remaining AGL "ballast". Anyway it does not wark as it was planned, but works.