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

[seahawk]

7 minutes ago, Olof Larsson said:

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.

Not the BMP-T but I think we will see auto canon versions of MBT chassis in the future.

[Mighty_Zuk]

6 hours 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. 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.

You just described a SPAAG.

6 hours ago, bojan said:

???

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?

Ironically, Russia did. The T-14 was converted to the T-15. But I personally would abstain from calling it a front engine tank.

6 hours ago, bojan said:

Anyone actually fielded HIFV anywhere?

Yes. Israel, soon Australia and Hungary, and others are interested in the idea as well. Russia planned but scrapped. Europeans may standardize on an HIFV soon with the KF41 and AS21 gaining more popularity than their lighter counterparts.

7 hours ago, KV7 said:

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.

For a western country, it's quite simple to add this capability to any IFV. For Russia, a dedicated vehicle is still required.

 

The BMPT, aside from what's already been mentioned, its concept is born from the same reality of technological and industrial inferiority (which increased over time) that shaped Soviet doctrine and technical conception. 

Russia was much more open to creating dedicated vehicles/solutions than the west, which preferred to add capabilities to something that exists.

Suggestions to make a dedicated SPAAG, FSV, or any mix of 5 or 6 spearheading kinetic vehicles, is a nice way of crippling logistics. 

If the average AFV already carries a powerful set of radars, is it really necessary to make a dedicated, unique SPAAG just to carry the same armament as an IFV, but with different radars?

If an IFV already carries all the relevant armament for an urban fight, is it really necessary to make another one that just doesn't transport infantry? 

The reason why some armed forces replicate a capability, e.g. the MPF replicating the Abrams' firepower on a lighter package, is usually to create monetary savings, or to gain a core capability that was not there at all.

The BMPT, as well as proposed evolutions here, do none of that.

Even Russia, which created this abomination, preferred the T-15. Not an SPAAG. Not a mini-tank. Just a good old IFV with armor that isn't a sheet of aluminium.

[bojan]

KF41 and AS21 don't have anywhere even close to MBT level of armor.  

20 hours ago, Wobbly Head said:

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

Not really, actually pretty specialized "infantry destroyer".

Quote

 

Russia was much more open to creating dedicated vehicles/solutions than the west, which preferred to add capabilities to something that exists.

Bull. You are again confusing company demonstrators like Panther and Abrams-X with army requirements that are nowhere near it. Weapons companies deciding doctrinal issues is a tail wagging a dog, and very, very bad thing.

And hanging everything on the same vehicle is not w/o own problems, what you fail to understand despite actual tankers pointing it to you - there is only so much 3-4 men crew can do and there is think called sensory overload.

Edited February 8, 2023 by bojan

[Stefan Kotsch]

18 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

The T-14 was converted to the T-15.

The idea behind the two models is actually that there is a common chassis. The "Armata" Universal Combat Platform. And from that the modifications are developed.

 

[Mighty_Zuk]

2 hours ago, bojan said:

KF41 and AS21 don't have anywhere even close to MBT level of armor.

True, but with a high GVW, they can adopt substantial protection.

With their available growth potential, they can quite well fend off autocannon fire, RPGs, mines, some ATGMs, and some artillery fragments. They may not be able to take an APFSDS from a high caliber gun, but honestly neither will the Russian BMPT. 

And considering that the HAPC/HIFV label is thrown on more vehicles than just the Namer, I understand the consensus is that it means something other than strictly MBT-levels of protection, which in itself is a very vague definition.

2 hours ago, bojan said:

Bull. You are again confusing company demonstrators like Panther and Abrams-X with army requirements that are nowhere near it. Weapons companies deciding doctrinal issues is a tail wagging a dog, and very, very bad thing.

Think you replied with the wrong quote.

2 hours ago, bojan said:

And hanging everything on the same vehicle is not w/o own problems, what you fail to understand despite actual tankers pointing it to you - there is only so much 3-4 men crew can do and there is think called sensory overload.

And when did any actual tanker here tell me 5 crewmen are necessary to avoid such overload? 

Avoiding sensory overload with additional crewmen is fine as long as you give them the actual sensors or ability to reduce load from others. But in the BMPT they don't do that. The AGL gunners have no sensors of their own, and just sit buttoned down the entire time contributing absolutely nothing. 

They get no surround camera systems, no radar, not even acoustic sensors. But you don't need 2 guys to look dead ahead when the driver does it marvelously for them. 

If Russia believes 3 men are enough to man an MBT, they should be plenty enough for the BMPT, unless they're willing to admit Russia should have designed its MBTs always with 5 crewmen in mind.

[Stefan Kotsch]

First loss is reported. Was the BMPT wasted as a MBT replacement? 

 

 

[Mighty_Zuk]

1 hour ago, Stefan Kotsch said:

First loss is reported. Was the BMPT wasted as a MBT replacement? 

 

 

AGL hatches not open? Could they have been driving without the AGL operators? Or were they unable to escape? Interesting.

[Harkonnen]

[Mighty_Zuk]

4 hours ago, Harkonnen said:

Was abandoned even before it was hit, so a write-off. 

 

[Harkonnen]

BMPT hull ARMOR 

[bojan]

Do you know what is in 19mm thick "matrix"/матрица?

POV/ПОВ is anti-radiation lining?

Edited May 4, 2023 by bojan

[Harkonnen]

it is metal ribs, yes it is anti radiation as well as damper

[Mighty_Zuk]

13 hours ago, Harkonnen said:

BMPT hull ARMOR 

Why does it not surprise me it uses 50's technology in the 2020's?

[Harkonnen]

It is 1970-s technology

[bojan]

And more less everyone uses it in tank armor.

[KV7]

What is the reasoning behind this sort of array, rather than using the existing glacis with some sort of applique and ERA ? 

Also, is it intended that the plates move ? The first 60mm plate seems to be anchored only at the bottom, whereas the opposite is the case for the inner plate, which also supports the middle one. But I would think such heavy plates would not move appreciably during the actual penetration by APFSDS and almost not at all by HEAT. 

[Wiedzmin]

2 hours ago, KV7 said:

using the existing glacis

It use existing upper front array from t90, only difference is addon 60mm plate for lower front plate 

 

Aside from the fact that someone forgot to write 50mm on scheme...

 

 

[KV7]

16 minutes ago, Wiedzmin said:

It use existing upper front array from t90, only difference is addon 60mm plate for lower front plate 

Aside from the fact that someone forgot to write 50mm on scheme...

So it is exclusively made from late model T-72 with the post 1989 layout ? 

I.e.  60-5-3-19-3-5-60-10-50 

I thought at least some were made from earlier T-72 B or similar. 

Edited May 5, 2023 by KV7

[Harkonnen]

4 hours ago, KV7 said:

What is the reasoning behind this sort of array, rather than using the existing glacis with some sort of applique and ERA ? 

Also, is it intended that the plates move ? The first 60mm plate seems to be anchored only at the bottom, whereas the opposite is the case for the inner plate, which also supports the middle one. But I would think such heavy plates would not move appreciably during the actual penetration by APFSDS and almost not at all by HEAT. 

Just a good array for what is available and if it not possible to adjust hull design- steel is a best protection, not enough space for arrays of plates lower plate ha some sort of dumpers, not shown on the picture

[Harkonnen]

1 hour ago, KV7 said:

So it is exclusively made from late model T-72 with the post 1989 layout ? 

I.e.  60-5-3-19-3-5-60-10-50 

I thought at least some were made from earlier T-72 B or similar. 

They are new produced vehicles, not T-72B remake. 

[KV7]

10 hours ago, Harkonnen said:

Just a good array for what is available and if it not possible to adjust hull design- steel is a best protection, not enough space for arrays of plates lower plate ha some sort of dumpers, not shown on the picture

So it constrained by a need for high TE? But this I do not understand, as there does not seem to be much space limit on thickening the glacis - if it was thicker it will then just project forward a little more than otherwise. Of course it cannot be too heavy without putting too much weight over the first road wheels, but that suggests trading TE for ME is desirable. 

[Mighty_Zuk]

On 5/5/2023 at 2:13 PM, bojan said:

And more less everyone uses it in tank armor.

Hardly. This excessive focus on steel and neglect of composites in understandable from a logistical PoV - space constraints, using rebuilt MBT hulls, keeping conversion times lower etc, but in the end it just doesn't cut it when it comes to even Ukraine's older and less capable ATGMs, and most of the APFSDS it's going to use in the areas where Russia is likely to deploy BMPTs. 

And if the armor is not effective, it's probably best to downsize it to at least give driver a better view and reduce some of the weight. First 60mm plate for example could be removed. Would go a long way in helping the driver identify one of the many AT mines Russian tanks seem to run over. Better yet, just scrape off some of the LFP and install a cheap magnometer.

Edited May 7, 2023 by Mighty_Zuk

[Harkonnen]

10 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Hardly. This excessive focus on steel and neglect of composites in understandable from a logistical PoV - space constraints, using rebuilt MBT hulls, keeping conversion times lower etc, but in the end it just doesn't cut it when it comes to even Ukraine's older and less capable ATGMs, and most of the APFSDS it's going to use in the areas where Russia is likely to deploy BMPTs. 

And if the armor is not effective, it's probably best to downsize it to at least give driver a better view and reduce some of the weight. First 60mm plate for example could be removed. Would go a long time in helping the driver identify one of the many AT mines Russian tanks seem to run over. Better yet, just scrape off some of the LFP and install a cheap magnometer.

have to dissapoint you if you post means that it is not good protection.

Edited May 6, 2023 by Harkonnen

[Manic Moran]

"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."

I'm not sure that's a correct statement. A HIFV doesn't strike me as being a Tank Support Vehicle. Bartles and Grau have released a second recent BMPT article in Armor Magazine (Winter 2022/23) which looks at Russian conclusions on the vehicle with the experience of a year in Ukraine. Apparently there is some debate towards re-categorising it as a "Fire Support Combat Vehicle", but "TSV" is still the designation. The other major take-away is that the Russians are finding it to be a valuable asset which should be fielded in greater numbers which brings to question the earlier statement of "Worst combat vehicle in 50 years"

[Mighty_Zuk]

1 hour ago, Manic Moran said:

I'm not sure that's a correct statement. A HIFV doesn't strike me as being a Tank Support Vehicle

Have you considered that the purpose of a "TSV" is in itself not clear or redundant?

Okay so the Russians introduced that concept recently. But do they actually need it? Is it really necessary from a force-structure PoV? Or a technical one? 

1 hour ago, Manic Moran said:

Bartles and Grau have released a second recent BMPT article in Armor Magazine (Winter 2022/23) which looks at Russian conclusions on the vehicle with the experience of a year in Ukraine. Apparently there is some debate towards re-categorising it as a "Fire Support Combat Vehicle", but "TSV" is still the designation. The other major take-away is that the Russians are finding it to be a valuable asset which should be fielded in greater numbers which brings to question the earlier statement of "Worst combat vehicle in 50 years"

None in the west, or actually in any armed force I am somewhat familiar with, has a concept even similar to that. 

Russia's maneuvering force is battalion sized. In that battalion, there are core combat elements like tanks and infantry, as well as support elements like artillery, AA, and sappers.

This illustrates a BTG structure. I don't know how authentic this is, but it conveys the general point. Look at the combat elements. There are 3 infantry companies per tank company. Of them, 2 are mechanized and 1 motorized.

It really doesn't matter how you look at it: Whether a BTG should fight like a combined arms unit with maximized interoperability and communication, or it should be used as cheap fodder. It is evident that under no circumstance, would such a force be effective as a tank-centric force. A tank should not be fighting without his infantry, artillery, and air cover. If he does, it's as good as dead. Similarly, infantry should strive to utilize their tanks efficiently at all times.

So the TSV is actually the infantry and their own organic support assets (IFV, ATGMs, MANPADS, mortars etc). Sometimes protection isn't necessary. Sometimes it is. And when it is, the massive gap between the T-72/80 and BMP-1/2/3 is just too much. What would throw a T-72's track or blow off a few ERA panels, would fry a BMP-3. For its time, the BMP-3 may have been mostly justified, but Russia messed up big time when it stopped working on replacing it.

The BTR and BMD are even less protected, so they're a no go. So what's the last resort? Convert an MBT. Not to an HIFV/HAPC like the Achzarit or Namer or even the Russian BMO-T, but to the horrid BMPT. Because the vehicle needs protection, sure, but the infantry can just walk, I guess. Or ride on top of the BMPT in which case they'll just die in the first few seconds of an engagement.

So if a tank goes in without infantry, but with a vehicle that has the same tunnel vision and no BMS, that's a recipe for disaster. That tank, and its escort, are just not going to make it.

Today it's all about all domain warfare, communication, and networking. Tanks and infantry working together and relying on each other for survival has been a norm for about a century now. If Russia can't even handle that, then that's another drop in the ocean of reasons why they're currently losing in Ukraine.