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

[Harkonnen]

58 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

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.

It is not possible to install on T-72 hull as it is 400 mm higher. Original "true" BMPT had redesigned hull.

[Mighty_Zuk]

Does not matter what was originally. The BMPT should have been made in a not fully-assed way.

Ironically, Russia has sold off all its much more capable variants to Algeria.

Edited February 6, 2023 by Mighty_Zuk

[bojan]

How is T-62 hull and BMP-2M turret "more capable"? It lacks armor and vulnerable to all the same things BMP is.

Edited February 6, 2023 by bojan

[Stefan Kotsch]

1 hour ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Does not matter what was originally. The BMPT should have been made in a not fully-assed way.

Ironically, Russia has sold off all its much more capable variants to Algeria.

BTW. This is a development of the Algerians. BMPT for poor people.

Edited February 6, 2023 by Stefan Kotsch

[Mighty_Zuk]

1 hour ago, Stefan Kotsch said:

BTW. This is a development of the Algerians. BMPT for poor people.

I know. It's not wise to take every word so literally.

3 hours ago, bojan said:

How is T-62 hull and BMP-2M turret "more capable"? It lacks armor and vulnerable to all the same things BMP is.

Such obsolete equipment is hardly capable. However, compared to the BMPT used by Russia, it at least does away with some serious design deficiencies. 

First, it removes 2 crewmembers that are otherwise unused. Bow gunners are a relic of WW2.

Second, they introduced dual feed technology to the Berezhok turret, which for Russia's BMPT was not adopted.

Third, they kept much of the logistics of the base tank the same, which cannot be overstated.

[bojan]

9 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Such obsolete equipment is hardly capable. However, compared to the BMPT used by Russia, it at least does away with some serious design deficiencies. 

First, it removes 2 crewmembers that are otherwise unused. Bow gunners are a relic of WW2.

Bow gunners are relic, but additional "eyes" are not. And while those are far from optimal aspect of BMPT they are hardly useless.

Quote

Second, they introduced dual feed technology to the Berezhok turret, which for Russia's BMPT was not adopted.

BMP-2/3 and every other vehicle in Russian use has dual feed for 30mm, so choice to go with 2 cannons at BMPT had to do with something else.

Quote

Third, they kept much of the logistics of the base tank the same, which cannot be overstated.

Newsflesh - BMPT hull is based on either T-72 or T-90, which are a common tanks in the Russian army. So what is your point?

That Algerian junk has no armor and no real advantage over BMP with the same turret, since base armor on T-62 hull is heavily obsolete today.

[KV7]

The T-62 hull at least gives much better protection against shell fragments and autocannons. 

Regarding eyes, the more sensible way to make use of another crew is to have two gunners, with the second operating a RWS with 360 degree field of fire.

[bojan]

Ofc, as noted I agree with Harkonnen that probably worst version of BMPT was selected, but I disagree with "The BMPT is probably the #1 worst AFV of the last 50 or so years.".

Edited February 6, 2023 by bojan

[Mighty_Zuk]

6 hours ago, bojan said:

Bow gunners are relic, but additional "eyes" are not. And while those are far from optimal aspect of BMPT they are hardly useless

Then give them the ability to see!

To have additional eyes, one must actually provide them with a proper field of view.

At the moment, they have very narrow, forward looking optics, and no ability to open hatches during combat (inserting themselves in line of fire).

This is a rather cynical use of soldiers.

6 hours ago, bojan said:

BMP-2/3 and every other vehicle in Russian use has dual feed for 30mm, so choice to go with 2 cannons at BMPT had to do with something else.

I'm aware there may not be an official explanation. But if you have any speculation, I'm all ears.

6 hours ago, bojan said:

Newsflesh - BMPT hull is based on either T-72 or T-90, which are a common tanks in the Russian army. So what is your point?

Talking about training logistics. They're AFVs accompanying tanks in a tank unit, utilizing a tank unit's training infrastructure. Going from 3 to 5 in an AFV is no easy task. Especially if we count in other things like supplies, accommodations, etc.

Or are they trained like IFV crews? Even less suitable, by far.

6 hours ago, bojan said:

That Algerian junk has no armor and no real advantage over BMP with the same turret, since base armor on T-62 hull is heavily obsolete today.

Anything but a select few weapons - they'll handle just the same.

No shortage of T-72/80/90 tanks abandoned after non-catastrophic damage.

[seahawk]

BMP-T is a good idea. I think we will see other nations fielding similar vehicles in the future. MBT hull for good protection and probably an unmanned turret with auto-canon, ATGMs and maybe even SAMs. This is the perfect escort vehicle for your MBTs and the thing you need to handle infantry and drones.

[Stefan Kotsch]

1 hour ago, seahawk said:

BMP-T is a good idea. I think we will see other nations fielding similar vehicles in the future.

A good 20 years have passed. But nobody really took up the idea (except Algeria).

(BMPT, not BMP-T)

[seahawk]

This was before the drone war in Ukraine.

[KV7]

The case for some heavily armoured support vehicle increases appreciably if it also has a useful AA capability vs light UAV.

Arguably Russia has a good BMPT like design, in the form of the T-15 with Baikal turret.  The open question regarding that design is if it makes sense carrying dismounts, rather than carrying more ammunition or reducing internal volume and improving protection.

What would seemingly make sense is a project to modernise older vehicles towards this sort of layout.
 

[Rick]

In urban warfare, is this thing trying to make up for lack of infantry?

[Daan]

What meaningful AA / anti-drone capability does the BMPT possess other than point and shoot? How does it even detect drones other than scanning the skies with the MK1 eyeball? That does not sound like a very successful proposition against the vast number of small, low-noise observation UAVs or similar drones dropping munitions on your troops or carrying out suicide attacks. As shown by the prolific footage coming from the Ukraine, even unbuttoned infantry with rifle scopes and binoculars seems to have great difficulty even noticing overhead drones on many occasions.

[Mighty_Zuk]

17 hours ago, bojan said:

Ofc, as noted I agree with Harkonnen that probably worst version of BMPT was selected, but I disagree with "The BMPT is probably the #1 worst AFV of the last 50 or so years.".

Then you and I principally agree, just not on the extent of the flaws.

2 hours ago, seahawk said:

This was before the drone war in Ukraine.

Drones are a non-factor here.

On the battlefield, there must be at least 1 type of dedicated vehicle to close air defense, and smaller, limited tools on every armored vehicle.

4 hours ago, seahawk said:

BMP-T is a good idea. I think we will see other nations fielding similar vehicles in the future. MBT hull for good protection and probably an unmanned turret with auto-canon, ATGMs and maybe even SAMs. This is the perfect escort vehicle for your MBTs and the thing you need to handle infantry and drones.

This concept is called HAPC/HIFV in the west. Some in Russia understood the foolishness of the T-72 based BMPT and proposed an HIFV in the form of T-15. However, that did not come to fruition.

The current BMPT are a very long series of compromises, thus very far from what Russia might consider an ideal machine.

This is the result of factors like never designing any IFV to have good protection, or tanks to be modular enough to be converted to carry infantry.

Doesn't prevent them from advertising it to the public.

32 minutes ago, Daan said:

What meaningful AA / anti-drone capability does the BMPT possess other than point and shoot? How does it even detect drones other than scanning the skies with the MK1 eyeball? That does not sound like a very successful proposition against the vast number of small, low-noise observation UAVs or similar drones dropping munitions on your troops or carrying out suicide attacks. As shown by the prolific footage coming from the Ukraine, even unbuttoned infantry with rifle scopes and binoculars seems to have great difficulty even noticing overhead drones on many occasions.

True. The current BMPT variants in service anywhere, have no AA capability whatsoever, except for a limited capability to engage low flying helicopters with an ATGM.

The bare minimum would be programmable munitions, which are absent, and the 2A42 is also not suitable for AA tasks due to its low accuracy.

[KV7]

58 minutes ago, Daan said:

What meaningful AA / anti-drone capability does the BMPT possess other than point and shoot? How does it even detect drones other than scanning the skies with the MK1 eyeball? That does not sound like a very successful proposition against the vast number of small, low-noise observation UAVs or similar drones dropping munitions on your troops or carrying out suicide attacks. As shown by the prolific footage coming from the Ukraine, even unbuttoned infantry with rifle scopes and binoculars seems to have great difficulty even noticing overhead drones on many occasions.

I doesn't have one, but there are many ways to get it if you no longer mount a large calibre main gun, and so have space for other weapons systems.

Target identification is certainly a big issue. You probably need some sort of semi automated search system - either a radar or some EO (IRST) like system. That isn't cheap (yet) though.

The issue here is that if you have this capability, are you willing to use the same vehicle as e.g. some urban assault vehicle. It's only feasible if the cost is appreciable less than high end SPAAG. Technologically that seems achievable now or in the near future. Already we see several lower cost solutions using only an EO system.

https://alert5.com/2023/01/12/operator-station-of-cheonho-spaag/

https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/videx-2022-vietnam-upgrades-zsu-23-4m-anti-aircraft-guns-with-missiles-electro-optics







 

Edited February 7, 2023 by KV7

[seahawk]

15 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Then you and I principally agree, just not on the extent of the flaws.

Drones are a non-factor here.

On the battlefield, there must be at least 1 type of dedicated vehicle to close air defense, and smaller, limited tools on every armored vehicle.

This concept is called HAPC/HIFV in the west. Some in Russia understood the foolishness of the T-72 based BMPT and proposed an HIFV in the form of T-15. However, that did not come to fruition.

The current BMPT are a very long series of compromises, thus very far from what Russia might consider an ideal machine.

This is the result of factors like never designing any IFV to have good protection, or tanks to be modular enough to be converted to carry infantry.

Doesn't prevent them from advertising it to the public.

True. The current BMPT variants in service anywhere, have no AA capability whatsoever, except for a limited capability to engage low flying helicopters with an ATGM.

The bare minimum would be programmable munitions, which are absent, and the 2A42 is also not suitable for AA tasks due to its low accuracy.

I think the infantry carrying capability will be dropped and it will become a vehicle with drone defence as a first mission and fire support against infantry as a secondary task. Probably a auto canon with AHEAD munition, some light SAMs and a few ATGMs for self protection. It would have a small radar, ideally conformal antennas that can be covered when attacked by artillery.

[bojan]

1 hour ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

......or tanks to be modular enough to be converted to carry infantry...

???

Out of 3 tanks converted to carry infantry one was Soviet (T-55), one British (Centurion) and one Israeli (Merkava).

Yes, it involved heavy conversions of T-55 (less so of the Cent, but Cent conversions did not have any kind of normal exit), but who else designed engine forward tank that could be "easily" (not really) converted to carry infantry other than Israel?

Quote

This concept is called HAPC/HIFV in the west...

Anyone actually fielded HIFV anywhere?

Edited February 7, 2023 by bojan

[bojan]

48 minutes ago, seahawk said:

I think the infantry carrying capability will be dropped and it will become a vehicle with drone defence as a first mission and fire support against infantry as a secondary task.

Anti-drone vehicle does not need heavy armor.

 

2 hours ago, Rick said:

In urban warfare, is this thing trying to make up for lack of infantry?

BMPT is a fusion of different requirements, including:

- heavy escort vehicle based on Afghanistan experience

- MBT substitute in specific situations (need for high elevation fire in order to hit higher floors/mountain sides etc)

- MBT following vehicle with IFV like armament and heavy protection.

[seahawk]

Just now, bojan said:

Anti-drone vehicle does not need heavy armor.

 

 

If it wants to move with the MBTs, it does. Killing things like Lanclet or Harpy means the system can not stay back.

[Quang]

4 hours ago, KV7 said:

I doesn't have one, but there are many ways to get it if you no longer mount a large calibre main gun, and so have space for other weapons systems.

Target identification is certainly a big issue. You probably need some sort of semi automated search system - either a radar or some EO (IRST) like system. That isn't cheap (yet) though.

The issue here is that if you have this capability, are you willing to use the same vehicle as e.g. some urban assault vehicle. It's only feasible if the cost is appreciable less than high end SPAAG. Technologically that seems achievable now or in the near future. Already we see several lower cost solutions using only an EO system.

https://alert5.com/2023/01/12/operator-station-of-cheonho-spaag/

https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/videx-2022-vietnam-upgrades-zsu-23-4m-anti-aircraft-guns-with-missiles-electro-optics







 

How about slapping the M-SHORAD turret and radar onto an appropriate chassis? You'd get a 30mm gun, Stingers and radar guided Hellfire for air defense or antiarmor, plus a 7.62mm machine gun.

[Wobbly Head]

3 hours ago, bojan said:

Anti-drone vehicle does not need heavy armor.

 

BMPT is a fusion of different requirements, including:

- heavy escort vehicle based on Afghanistan experience

- MBT substitute in specific situations (need for high elevation fire in order to hit higher floors/mountain sides etc)

- MBT following vehicle with IFV like armament and heavy protection.

 Sounds like a jack off all trades master of none type vehicle. 

[Olof Larsson]

8 hours ago, seahawk said:

This was before the drone war in Ukraine.

That should the BMPT do versus drones? Get destroyed? It doesn't have the sensors, accuracy or suitable munition to handle drones.

Equiping all tanks with a 30x113 or bigger autocannon (RWS or semi coax as in independent elevation) and suitable sensors and/or targeting data link to get aerial target data from SHORAD, on the other hand. Drones might be a suitable tertiary use for a RWS after the primary and secondary use of engaging soft ground targets and light armour.

Edited February 7, 2023 by Olof Larsson

[Renegade334]

Speaking of turning MBTs into (H)IFVs, the UAE and Belgium (Sabiex, now OIP) once tried converting an OF-40's hull into an infantry carrier vehicle and topping it with a BMP-3 turret. The end result was a front-engined HIFV that was even heavier than its parent the OF-40, but it never went past its 2010 trials, as the UAE settled for French vehicles, including the Leclerc, instead.

And Norinco once floated, at IDEX 2019, the idea of matin a ZBD-04A's turret to a VT4 hull. Nothing came of it, either, IIRC.

Edited February 7, 2023 by Renegade334