Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

Posted
21 minutes ago, Wiedzmin said:

you understand nothing in anything, do you ? 

At least I know how to maintain a proper debate and be respectful to others.

22 minutes ago, Wiedzmin said:

you provided fantasy, delirium and bias, as always 

Better than nothing.

  • Replies 124
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Posted
24 minutes ago, bojan said:

Vehicle protected vs (at least some) ATGMs and APFSDS frontally and (single charge) RPGs from the sides does not offer better protection to it's crew than IFVs armored at best vs single charge RPGs from the front (and most are not even close to that) and 30mm? 

You asked for one example, and I gave you - Namer. In every parameter, it exceeds the BMPT's protection. ATGMs and APFSDS to the front, RPGs and ATGMs to the sides, top, rear anything. 

If you want I can provide more examples other than just the Namer. But you asked and I delivered. 

26 minutes ago, bojan said:

Goes under most stupid things people wrote here in years.

Is rudeness just another form of deflection now?

Posted (edited)
Quote

In every parameter, it exceeds the BMPT's protection. ATGMs and APFSDS to the front, RPGs and ATGMs to the sides, top, rear anything. 

With little help of Israeli space magic.

Quote

If you want I can provide more examples other than just the Namer

Oh, please do, we need more laugh.

Edited by bojan
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, skylancer3441 said:

Back to Namer

Are they though?

I don't understand the question. Every piece of armor needs to be mounted somehow. I really don't understand what significance the existence or shape of the mounts has, and apparently neither do Wiedzmin or Bojan.

Edited by Mighty_Zuk
Posted

@Manic Moran I forgot to mention, that there is ample evidence of Russia's armed forces' lack of ability to analyze their enemies, Russia's own needs, or learn from combat experience, on every level. Data and experience don't passed to higher echelons and institutionally analyzed, and here is one solid example - Afghanit.

The Afghanit's development is a big unknown. We don't know their considerations, their data, and most importantly the seriousness with which they took this project. 

But in the end, what matter more, is the end result. For what is now approaching 30 years, Soviet tanks have been under severe threat from top attack munitions available not only to aviation, but now their enemies' ground forces. If a hypothetical combat scenario occurred between a Russia unit and a western unit, it would more likely than not be met with at least one type of top attack ATGM. Since then Russia designed numerous APS, but not one of them addressed this issue. Instead, they developed them only to defeat Russia's own munitions. This can likely be explained by the fact contractors were simply asked to meet certain criteria and not to build an actual, functioning, well thought system. They need the money, nothing more. They're told to defeat an ATGM? Grab an army-issued one, don't bother studying foreign designs, and just test with it. It worked? Okay, box checked.

 

Posted (edited)
27 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

But in the end, what matter more, is the end result. For what is now approaching 30 years, Soviet tanks have been under severe threat from top attack munitions available not only to aviation, but now their enemies' ground forces. If a hypothetical combat scenario occurred between a Russia unit and a western unit, it would more likely than not be met with at least one type of top attack ATGM. Since then Russia designed numerous APS, but not one of them addressed this issue. Instead, they developed them only to defeat Russia's own munitions. This can likely be explained by the fact contractors were simply asked to meet certain criteria and not to build an actual, functioning, well thought system. They need the money, nothing more. They're told to defeat an ATGM? Grab an army-issued one, don't bother studying foreign designs, and just test with it. It worked? Okay, box checked.

This is a very good point. It's a really colossal failure. 

It's also constent with Roman's narrative about 'appease the west' in which case the expectation would be to not have to rely on certain capabilities, but rather what is perhaps needed is just 'capability theatre'  for domestic reasons, and as a sort of show of credibility to get a slighly better sort of 'appeasment' based on making confrontation look like a more stupid idea. 

Edited by KV7
Posted (edited)
On 5/11/2023 at 3:13 AM, Mighty_Zuk said:

I don't understand the question. Every piece of armor needs to be mounted somehow. I really don't understand what significance the existence or shape of the mounts has, and apparently neither do Wiedzmin or Bojan.

If this piece of armor has some complicated shape, which allows it to go beyond its mounting points to fill emty space behind it, then yes, it wouldn't matter.

But Namer side armor blocks do not apper to be of such complicated shapes. They are either rectangular or trapezoid. Look at photo in my previous message, and also at this one:

F4UM24L.jpg

Also, what is peeking out on that ^ photo in places where two blocks are not installed yet - is upper inclined part of actual hull + sheet metal bended in the same shape, mounted above it, with mounting points for upper row of armor modules,

it's perfectly visible on photo in my previous message.

Therefore it *is* "armor module just on top",

and any way to full that triangular-prism-shaped empty space behind it would require additional set of mounting points, two sets of triangular prism-shaped modules (of the same kind of armor as external modules) to fill that space - wide and narrow ones, or at least wide ones, (to fit between bended sheet metal with mounting points for external armor blocks) of which there are no photographic evidence, and also some explanation of mounting process which says why those theoretical triangular modules are not installed first (as it would make sense for them to be installed first) and therefore are not present on photo in my previous message, where lowest row of external armor blocks is already installed.

 

Edited by skylancer3441
Posted (edited)
On 5/9/2023 at 7:57 PM, Mighty_Zuk said:

EdGgRtQXkAMGJtf.jpg

On the left we see those brackets Wiedzmin showed. He claims the armor is placed around the wedge edges. But we see that it is partially inside the wedge.

What exactly on that photo looks like "armor-partially-inside-the-wedge"? To be precise, armor-partially-inside-the-internal-triangular-prism-shaped-empty-space-behind-external-armor-blocks? 

Edited by skylancer3441
Posted
14 hours ago, skylancer3441 said:

What exactly on that photo looks like "armor-partially-inside-the-wedge"? To be precise, armor-partially-inside-the-internal-triangular-prism-shaped-empty-space-behind-external-armor-blocks? 

The mounting wedge has a hole of a certain size. The armor itself has a smaller hole, and seems to fill the mounting wedge's hole partially.

14 hours ago, skylancer3441 said:

Therefore it *is* "armor module just on top",

and any way to full that triangular-prism-shaped empty space behind it would require additional set of mounting points, two sets of triangular prism-shaped modules (of the same kind of armor as external modules) to fill that space - wide and narrow ones, or at least wide ones, (to fit between bended sheet metal with mounting points for external armor blocks) of which there are no photographic evidence, and also some explanation of mounting process which says why those theoretical triangular modules are not installed first (as it would make sense for them to be installed first) and therefore are not present on photo in my previous message, where lowest row of external armor blocks is already installed.

For many years people didn't understand the Merkava 4's armor geometry and made assumptions like "this is the only logical thing so it must be true", and ended up being wrong when photos surfaced. I knew the general requirements based on various interviews and press releases that aren't typically available for non-Hebrew speakers, but for many this didn't align with their logic so they dismissed it.

This here seems to be a similar case. I ask to give the benefit of doubt, and again people rush to conclusions.

Posted
9 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

The mounting wedge has a hole of a certain size. The armor itself has a smaller hole, and seems to fill the mounting wedge's hole partially.

at this point your version of Namer's side armor requires drawing/photo collage in Paint or smth, not just words.

Posted
11 minutes ago, skylancer3441 said:

at this point your version of Namer's side armor requires drawing/photo collage in Paint or smth, not just words.

Were you looking at the Namer on the left side, or the far right side as I specified?

Posted (edited)

PyBqYeX.png

Red & orange: external armor modules are supposed to be there

Light green : thin sheet metal. Lowest area with 2 round holes : definitely; middle area with triangular hole : looks like it; upper parallelogram area : looks like it (overall whole thing looks like it's made from 1 single piece, unlike one on the right side of the photo)

Edited by skylancer3441
  • 3 weeks later...
Posted
8 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

The T-62 based variant is far superior to the Russian T-72 based one, and is actually a good solution for Ukraine....

@seahawk, you got young acolyte :D

  • 1 year later...
  • 4 weeks later...
Posted
On 11/3/2024 at 1:39 AM, Mr King said:

Hi Harkonnen, your post is blank for me.

It is BMPT with a wagon, on twitter

Gb-POXh-Was-AA5-3q.jpg

 

Posted
On 11/28/2024 at 2:03 AM, Harkonnen said:

It is BMPT with a wagon, on twitter

Gb-POXh-Was-AA5-3q.jpg

 

If you already made a cheap and simple trailer, might as well have put a larger hatch in the back for faster and safer ingress/egress.

 

Posted (edited)

The doors at the rear are not visible. If they are present. But the project is already very old. Gur Khan wrote about it in January 2016.  I couldn't find a patent for it. No more sketches either.

http://gurkhan.blogspot.com/2016/01/blog-post_15.html

The infanterists would probably be sitting up on the roof again. 🙃

@
If I understand it correctly, the idea wasn't so much about constructing a combat trailer. It is written that it should allow the exchange crew to always be close to the combat vehicle. During marches and other movements. Harkonnen will be able to correct me if necessary. There should even be space for 700 to 800 liters of fuel in the trailer.

Modification:

ncRTm3P.jpg

Edited by Stefan Kotsch
Posted
18 minutes ago, Mr King said:

Not to go too far off topic, but has any afv / trailer combination been successful?

The IDF puts Urdan Backtrail trailers on AFVs.

53303646360_ce2bb0cd3b_b.jpg

This one specifically carries fuel, but it's also used for other purposes like ammunition and general logistics.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...