Uralvagonzavod BMPT-72 Terminator 2

I think that pic is of the Terminator 1. The Terminator 2 lost the grenade launchers.

http://defense-update.com/20130927_bmpt72-unveiled-at-rae-2013.html
 
Hmm... I can see removing the hull positions - that makes a lot of sense - but I'm also not seeing any secondary armament on the turret (grenade launcher or machine gun).

I also wonder how hard it would be to outfit this design with anti-aircraft target acquisition equipment (unless its already there?)
 
The original Terminator (with the hull gunners and AGLs) used a purpose-built hull. In contrast, the Terminator 2 is essentially an upgrade of existing T-72 hulls by adding armor and replacing the turret. From the link Firefly 2 posted:
Unlike the first generation BMPT that was produced as a new vehicles, rolling off the T-72 production line, BMPT72 is converted from the T-72 platforms that are withdrawn from service,thus offering a cost effective solution for military forces that are already operating over 20,000 T-72 platforms.
Click to expand...

As for antiaircraft fire, this should be a secondary or even tertiary function, like the BMP-2. In this case, target acquisition would be through the existing sights.
 
Well ... if every vehicle can deny access to aircraft within 3 km it gets very prickly - lots of approaches become dangerous (even in conditions that prohibit manpads) and it forces aircraft in to medium/long range same belts... The rpm of the 2a42 is a bit low (combined 1600 max). I wonder about dedicated radars for targeting incoming brimstones...
 
Aren't we asking a lot of a system designed to fulfill an entirely different mission? Yes, under the right conditions it will be able to engage slow flying aircraft and helicopters, but only if they get past defending aircraft and a whole slew of dedicated air defense systems. Leave the Brimstone killing to the Tor and the Pantsir and let the BMPT do its real job.
 
Published on Jun 1, 2014

At KADEX 2014, the International Exhibition of weapons systems and Military equipment in Astana (Kazakhstan), Russian Defense Company Uralvagonzavod unveils its new fire support armoured fighting vehicle BMPT-72 nicknamed Terminator 2. As the first production of BMP-T, the BMPT-72 is based on the chassis of the Russian-made main battle tank T-72. Read more about the BMPT-72 at this link http://www.armyrecognition.com/index....

http://youtu.be/Qk_k9kFbYRs
 
a real test on Russian school of thoughts on "infantry killing machine-supporting vehicle". The Western thougths has always been dismounted infantry and at some extent IFV backup. e.g the CV-90.

Russians practicing the same with BMP family but seems to find them still lacking. Thus BMPT was born.
 
Yah. Experience gained recently seems be that the BMP family and dismounted infantry generally just don’t have enough armour or firepower to effectively support tanks, especially in an urban setting.
 
I increasingly like the concept of vehicles like the BMPT to support the MBTs, I just wonder what represents the better primary armament for them? Two autocannons like the 30mm 2A42s on it? Or a larger caliber perhaps like 57mm or even 76mm? Even if you stay with the smaller caliber does having two versus one 30mm really count for anything in this vehicle's role?
 
Colonial-Marine said:
I increasingly like the concept of vehicles like the BMPT to support the MBTs, I just wonder what represents the better primary armament for them? Two autocannons like the 30mm 2A42s on it? Or a larger caliber perhaps like 57mm or even 76mm? Even if you stay with the smaller caliber does having two versus one 30mm really count for anything in this vehicle's role?
Click to expand...
Arguably that's what the infantry and IFVs can do
 
Colonial-Marine said:
Even if you stay with the smaller caliber does having two versus one 30mm really count for anything in this vehicle's role?
Click to expand...

The purpose is to limit barrel heating. Usually the amount of suppression available becomes limited by barrel heat build up (rather than just available ammunition). With two barrels it is possible to shoot one at a time, allowing the other one more time to cool.

As for the 57mm... it seems ammunition capacity become limiting pretty quickly.

I do wonder if a low velocity larger calibre gun (i.e. 76mm) might do better - but I believe the general consensus about that approach can be seen in that attitude taken to the BMP-1 compared to the upgraded versions (and even the fact that a 23mm aircraft gunpod was mounted to the roof of a BMP-1 indicates that high velocity guns are more useful). Of course the BMP-3 has both a 30mm and a 100mm low pressure gun.

Back to your original question - I wonder about the balance between two AGS-30 (in the original BMP-T) vs. one AGS-57. Rate of fire and coverage would be better with multiple AGS-30, but the AGS-57 would have terminal effects that are much more useful against light fortifications.
 
I think the terminator might lead to a dangerous notion of needing less troop support. That would be a major blunder to fall into. That said what makes this different from any old IFV is the ammunition load and armor package. It can sit and fire for much longer in potentially more dangerous situations. At least imo
 
Lifted from Wikipedia:
The history of the BMPT's development can be traced back to the Soviet–Afghan War. Combat experience during the lengthy war revealed that infantry fighting vehicles (IFVs) like the BMP-1 and BMP-2 cannot fully deal with infantry, despite the BMP-2's high gun elevation. Although main battle tanks (MBTs) possessed a high amount of firepower, the limited elevation and depression angles of the main gun made them easy targets in mountainous and urban terrain.

The need for such a vehicle became even more evident during the First Chechen War. When using conventional armor during urban engagements, Russian forces suffered heavy losses in manpower and equipment, including the destruction of an entire mechanized brigade during the First Battle of Grozny. While these losses cannot be entirely blamed on technology, it became clear that a dedicated anti-personnel fighting vehicle would provide valuable assistance in an urban environment. Self-propelled anti-aircraft guns were used as a temporary solution in Chechnya. However, these vehicles were not well-armored and did not possess the obstacle-clearing capabilities of an MBT.
Click to expand...
en.wikipedia.org

BMPT Terminator - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
 
TMA1 said:
I think the terminator might lead to a dangerous notion of needing less troop support. That would be a major blunder to fall into. That said what makes this different from any old IFV is the ammunition load and armor package. It can sit and fire for much longer in potentially more dangerous situations. At least imo
Click to expand...

Better optics too.
 
Colonial-Marine said:
I increasingly like the concept of vehicles like the BMPT to support the MBTs, I just wonder what represents the better primary armament for them? Two autocannons like the 30mm 2A42s on it? Or a larger caliber perhaps like 57mm or even 76mm? Even if you stay with the smaller caliber does having two versus one 30mm really count for anything in this vehicle's role?
Click to expand...
Per wiki: "One of the guns fires armor-piercing rounds while the other fires anti-personnel rounds."
 
The Terminator may have some formidable anti personnel weapons but unlike say a Scimitar/Sabre with 30mm Rarden its a pretty big target.
For armies with well trained infantry it could be very useful to work with them and tank units. It becomes just another tank but increases the range of weapons for the team.
 
GTX said:
Colonial-Marine said:
I increasingly like the concept of vehicles like the BMPT to support the MBTs, I just wonder what represents the better primary armament for them? Two autocannons like the 30mm 2A42s on it? Or a larger caliber perhaps like 57mm or even 76mm? Even if you stay with the smaller caliber does having two versus one 30mm really count for anything in this vehicle's role?
Click to expand...
Arguably that's what the infantry and IFVs can do
Click to expand...

BMPT is mostly an attempt by the Russians (and Soviets before them) to address the fact that their IFVs lack the protection of tanks against artillery fire, heavy machine guns, and other nasty and very common threats. In Afghan a lot of vehicles were lost by KPVs and PTRDs firing from rooftops and since the BMP is essentially shrinkwrapped around the crew and components it would mean something important is dead, whether it's the gunner, the commander, a rifleman, the engine, etc.

I recall the US Army developed new roof armor and a commander's hatch for the M2A3 Bradley using titanium, perhaps after watching Chechnya, or maybe for simple weight reduction as the vehicle got very heavy and even a 100 HP improvement wasn't adequate.

BMP-1 (and -2) is very poorly armored relative to a T-72, both against machine guns and against shrapnel, and the Soviets had a lot of them and weren't likely to replace them any time soon with the -3 or whatever would have come after that. This makes it impossible for infantry and IFVs to keep up with the tanks all the time. It combines the mobility and armor protection of the tank with the armament and anti-infantry firepower of the IFV.

The American solution was to slap about half a dozen additional tons of armor protection (the steel plates) on the already well-protected Bradley, and simply eat the power loss, while the British designed the MCV-80 to just take Burlington applique and be immune to basically everything.

These are arguably better but completely impractical to adapt for the tens of thousands of BMP-1/-2 in Soviet depots, since that was the first thing the Red Army tried by slapping K-1 armor on the BMP-2 and additional armor plates on the BMP-1D, which gave it protection comparable to M2 Bradley, albeit with an engine of half the power. Neither of which were completely successful, since unlike the M2 and Warrior said engine simply couldn't be uprated another hundred horsepower or so, and this is why the BMP-3 has a new engine instead of a 400 HP UTD-20 or 500 HP UTD-23 or something. Well that, and the fact that ERA made BMP-1's hull cracks open like an egg with K1, but that could probably be fixed the same way M2 fixed it: by mounting the K1 on the assault armor panels, had the BMP-1/-2 had the powertrain to take it, of course.
 
Last edited:
Following up on the earlier thoughts (question about calibres). Apparently the AGS-57 is being used as part of the Epokha complex. The increase in velocity is significant (300 m/s vs. 185 m/s for the AGS-30) and combined with the projectile weight to 3.1kg this approximately triples the range (6 km in indirect firing mode).

What I find interesting is that a discarding sabot round has been developed for this grenade launcher apparently... allowing it to be used at close ranges against light armour (note: at 300 m/s the penetration would be much less than the ~1000 m/s S-60 derived 57mm gun).

Some of the trade-offs are pretty clear though. The larger size means it is replacing the 30mm autocannon (rather than augmenting it), with the decision to develop a miniaturised version of the Kornet to provide a more precise way to hit point targets (such as smaller armoured vehicles):
 
A little more info on AGS-57 for folks not familiar with it (I wasn't).

forum.cartridgecollectors.org

Russian 57 x 93mmRB AGS-57, Described By Some As A Hybrid Between Grenade Launcher And Cannon

Adding to the info provided by Alex, above. http://otvaga2004.mybb.ru/viewtopic.php?id=904&p=6#p484320 AGS-57 or LShO 57 (Light assault gun) Firing range 6 km Cassette 5 shells, semi-automatic. Area of destruction by fragments. 1200 sq. M. The projectile weight is 3.1 kg. Weight 240 kg.
forum.cartridgecollectors.org forum.cartridgecollectors.org
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom