Russian Terminator Tank Support vehicle.

[Peter Cairns]

Opinions please people.

It looks like an attempt to produce an AA vehicle that can keep up with armour formations, but which is better armed and armoured than the old quad 23mm ZSU's.

Peter.

[flamingknives]

Actually, that looks like the BTR-T, or the BMP-4, or whatever it is called. Twin autocannon, and four Kornets. The lack of radar and the presence of MGs in the side sponsons indicat that it's an infantry vehicle - something intended for direct contact under 400m at least.

There's already a higher capability SP AAA vehicle in the Russian army - it has a similar turret like the Gepard.

[gibsonm]

I suspect you are referring to the “Tunguska M1”:

Tunguska

[ January 13, 2008, 12:00 PM: Message edited by: gibsonm ]

[flamingknives]

Tunguska, yes, that was it.

MTLB chassis, I think.

[Marwek77 aka Red Reporter]

I can confirm, first picture is BTR-T, answer to all problems teached in Afghanistan and Chechnya. On basis of T-72 they mounted autocannon and 4 Kornet rockets like already written. Main role is to give units superior firesuport and protect tanks also.

[flamingknives]

Marwek77, are the autocannon 23mm or 30mm?

Using the 30mm 2A42 would make sense, but I seem to recall reading that they were 23mm weapons.

[gibsonm]

Odd,

All the stuff I’ve seen on the BPM-4 / BTR-T talks about it using a T-55 hull and a BTR-80 turret.

The hull in the first picture isn’t a T-55 (unless they have added a roadwheel station and eliminated the gap between the first and second roadwheels) and the turret looks far more substantive than that of a BTR-80.

[Peter Cairns]

From a search for BMP/BTR-T this is what I get.

That's not the same vehicle. Also can't a Kornet allegedly target slow flying aircraft and helicopters.

Peter.

[gibsonm]

Peter,

That’s my understanding too as to what the BMP-4 / BTR-T looks like (note T-55 hull and BTR-80 turret).

Given that its meant to be an APC / MICV I’m not sure where the Infantry would fit in the top vehicle.

['Card]

I wonder why the Russians hired the surviving members of Lynrd Skynrd to ride around in the thing?

[YankeeDog]

What an odd vehicle. Never seen anything like it.

You usually only see multi-barrel autocannon mounts for AAA applications; taking down aircraft is all about getting one good hit, so volume of fire is where it's at. The multi-tube missiles also make sense for AA use; the capability to get multiple missiles up in the air quickly can be important for AA.

Generally speaking, for a surface-to-surface DF role, you'd rather have a single, large caliber gun, rather than two smaller guns. The high profile of the turret (=bigger target) is also, generally speaking, a liability for ground combat.

But the hull is more suited to ground combat. The MG sponsons especially are reminiscent of 1930s-era Soviet designs.

Only hypothesis I can come up with is that the turret is built primarily for AA use, but the vehicle is intended to have a secondary, ground support role. Pure SWAG on my part, tho. Be curious if any of those with more knowledge and experience have more specific info.

Regards,

YD

[dima]

This vehicle is called BMPT (Boyevaya Mashina Podderzhki Tankov = Armored Tank Support Vehicle). Code name "Obyekt 199".

Its main role is infantry and tank support, not the air defenses. The notable feature is ability to elevate cannons high enough to attack enemy in tall buildings in urban settings. Grozny in 1995 comes to mind...

Armament:

- Pair of 2A42 cannons (same as BMP-2).

- 4 ATGMs (AT-6A "Shturm" or AT-9 "Ataka-T). There were plans to arm it with "Kornet" but no more.

- Pair of AG-17 grenade launchers

- 7.62mm PKTM

Chasis from T-72.

Crew of 5: Commander, gunner, two side gunners and driver.

Here is an article in russian http://btvt.narod.ru/3/bmpt.htm

And more pictures

http://btvt.narod.ru/5/bmpt/bmpt.htm

[YankeeDog]

Huh. Interesting. Track version of a Helicopter Gunship, basically.

Certainly a lot of firepower, but I wonder if it's really worth fielding such a specialized vehicle, vs. using the same resources to field more MBTs. . .

I guess if Russia gets bogged down in another Grozny, it will prove its worth.

Better to not get bogged down in the urban fight to start with. But perhaps in some situations, it can't be avoided. . .

Cheers

YD

[dima]

Originally posted by YankeeDog:

Huh. Interesting. Track version of a Helicopter Gunship, basically.

Certainly a lot of firepower, but I wonder if it's really worth fielding such a specialized vehicle, vs. using the same resources to field more MBTs. . .

I guess if Russia gets bogged down in another Grozny, it will prove its worth.

Better to not get bogged down in the urban fight to start with. But perhaps in some situations, it can't be avoided. . .

Cheers

YD

Actually it is still a prototype and no decision has been made whether to put it in mass production for the Russian army. For 2008 only 2 vehicles are ordered. Exactly for the reasons you give. To support tanks you are better off with another tank or infantry on BMP-3 or BTR-80 to protect against RPG's.

[Oddball_E8]

yeah, but the coolness factor is through the roof man!

gooooo russia! (always my favourite nation when it comes to military hardware)

[Peter Cairns]

Well fair enough it's anti ground not anti air. I picked up on the reference to the old ZSU, and assumed it was a replacement for AA not ground support.

It makes sense in terms of ground suppression as in the past the Soviets would use BMP's to suppress infantry in the attack, but the problem there was that the BMP-1 like the ZSU had very light armour.

I actually think this would be a good thing to have along with tanks if you came up against a Stryker unit. The ATGM's would take out a Stryker easily enough as would the 30mm at closer range.

But I suspect twin 30mm's would be ideal to keep a javelin teams heads down.

Peter.

[YankeeDog]

Originally posted by Peter Cairns:

...

But I suspect twin 30mm's would be ideal to keep a javelin teams heads down.

Peter.

If the vehicle crew somehow manages to spot the Javelin team before the Javelin team spots them. The vehicle has a much higher profile than your typical APC or MBT, so it's going to have a harder time finding terrain folds to hide behind.

Overall, with man-portable ATGMs like the Javelin and others now boasting a 2+km range, soft launch from almost any bit of cover, top attack, and fire-and-forget, my money is on the IAT team. There's just no way, even with all those guns, that this vehicle could lay down supressive fire on even a respectable percentage of the possible hiding places for an IAT team within 2km. And once they see the missile launch and get a general idea of where the IAT team is (or was), it's too late. . .

IMHO, better off having another APC to bring more infantry to the fight, than this behemoth.

Now, a similar vehicle, with MBT-level armor, but less armament (maybe only 1 23mm, a single ATGM tube, etc.), AND the ability to carry an infantry team, might be worth considering. But we've debated the concept of the "Heavy APC" here before. . . it has its strengths, but also its drawbacks. AFAIK, the only thing out there right now that comes close to the concept is the Merkava, but as has been pointed out before, the IDF faces a rather unique tactical situation that makes the Merkava especially suited to their needs; I'm not sure such a vehicle would be the best use of resources for a nation like Russia or the USA.

Cheers,

YD

P.S. -- What that vehicle is ideal for is suppressing likely or known positions of unguided, short range IAT teams, such as RPG-7, etc. With all those weapons, it can probably hose down a broad forward arc out to, say, 500m, pretty effectively. This probably says something about what the Russian military is worried about in the near future; not facing a first-world military with Javelin-like weapons, but rather another Grozny. . .

[ January 14, 2008, 05:56 AM: Message edited by: YankeeDog ]

[LarsS]

What would be the rationale behind the parallell mounted dual-gun setup? As mentioned, why not go with larger calibre or higher rate of fire? I could understand it if the guns had their individual turret mountings so that they could engage separate targets. Maybe it's about keeping one gun going if the other gets damaged?

[YankeeDog]

Originally posted by LarsS:

What would be the rationale behind the parallell mounted dual-gun setup? As mentioned, why not go with larger calibre or higher rate of fire? I could understand it if the guns had their individual turret mountings so that they could engage separate targets. Maybe it's about keeping one gun going if the other gets damaged?

I suspect it's more just that the 30mm twin-mount was what they had immediately handy, that fit well into the available space of the turret design.

Given other aspects of the design, such as the fact that it's a relatively straightforward modification of an existing chassis, I suspect it was designed with the goal creating something relatively cheaply and quickly out of existing components. At least, were I designing such a vehicle from the ground up, I would certainly prefer, say, a single 50mm autocannon over twin 30mms. More boom & better penetration, esp. at range. You've got MGs for indiscriminate hosing.

Cheers,

YD

[dima]

Originally posted by LarsS:

What would be the rationale behind the parallell mounted dual-gun setup? As mentioned, why not go with larger calibre or higher rate of fire? I could understand it if the guns had their individual turret mountings so that they could engage separate targets. Maybe it's about keeping one gun going if the other gets damaged?

Well, adding larger caliber gun would, in essence turn it into a tank. 2A42 is 30 years old, tried and tested. Putting a pair of them in essence doubles the ROF without having to design new gun.

ZSU-23-4 was used successfully in Chechnya in ground role and troops loved it. And that thing is only 23mm.

[dima]

Originally posted by YankeeDog:

I suspect it's more just that the 30mm twin-mount was what they had immediately handy, that fit well into the available space of the turret design.

Given other aspects of the design, such as the fact that it's a relatively straightforward modification of an existing chassis, I suspect it was designed with the goal creating something relatively cheaply and quickly out of existing components. At least, were I designing such a vehicle from the ground up, I would certainly prefer, say, a single 50mm autocannon over twin 30mms. More boom & better penetration, esp. at range. You've got MGs for indiscriminate hosing.

Cheers,

YD

YD, I agree.

That's just the thing, this BMPT is not designed from scratch. It reuses pretty much every component: chassis, weapons. And that's probably a good thing.

The concept of such vehicle is still to be proven, there are good reasons against this concept. BMPT project actually started in the late 80's. The fact that it is still not deployed probably indicates that army doesn't really consider it very useful for what it's worth.

[MikeyD]

It looks very pretty, but i wonder if anyone's going to buy it. Russia's been designing alot of vehicles on spec lately.

I'm thinking of BMP-3 especially. That's been a great export success for them, but last I heard Russia itself hadn't even purchased 200 vehicles. Sent most of what they had into Mongolia. Greece may actually have three times the BMP-3 fleet as Russia! Last report they were buying 415 vehicles at $4 million each.

[dima]

Originally posted by MikeyD:

It looks very pretty, but i wonder if anyone's going to buy it. Russia's been designing alot of vehicles on spec lately.

I'm thinking of BMP-3 especially. That's been a great export success for them, but last I heard Russia itself hadn't even purchased 200 vehicles. Sent most of what they had into Mongolia. Greece may actually have three times the BMP-3 fleet as Russia! Last report they were buying 415 vehicles at $4 million each.

Actually it was announced recently that russian army itself just ordered over 100 BMD-4 and BMP-3's.

[luderbamsen]

I suppose this vehicle is another example of Russian/Soviet weapons designers not being afraid to take a few chances and think outside the box.

In an urban/close range environment, with enemy infantry running all over the place, rapid fire 30mm HE might be more useful than slow fire 125mm HE, and the mini-turrets would definately fit that role as well. I'm not entirely sure what the missiles are good for, unless of course the enemy has armour as well. Could they carry FAE or bunker-busting warheads or sumfink?

[MikeyD]

BMP looked like a very efficient design to me... until I came across this YouTube video of troops *trying* to exit the vehicle from the rear. Open up the entire back and clamber over the engine compartment!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2H_XAnX-ZNU&feature=related