Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

Terminator

Discussion in 'Post-World War 2 Armour' started by jeaguer, Dec 29, 2007.

  1. jeaguer

    jeaguer New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2006
    Messages:
    929
    Likes Received:
    4
    Location:
    Sydney Australia
    via TanksinWW2
    .

    Russians have a soft spot for Arnie Schwarzenegger :D
    They also are pretty creative in weapons design

    from " novosti "

    http://en.rian.ru/russia/20071228/94527278.html

    The Uralvagonzavod Plant, based in Nizhny Tagil in the Sverdlovsk region,
    has long been developing a concept for a unique combat vehicle (Russian acronym BMPT)
    to provide fire support and protection for tanks on the battlefield

    based on a T-72 tank chassis.
    unmanned turret with a crew of 5 inside the hull.

    Armament

    two 30mm 2A42 automatic cannons
    two AGS-17D 30mm grenade launchers
    Kornet ATGM system (4 launchers)
    one 7.62mm machine gun
    modular additional weapons
    passive and reactive armour.

    http://btvt.narod.ru/5/bmpt/bmpt.htm
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbGDNLV6 ... 06/10/ural

    a Portuguese site mention the terminator to have been designed for city fighting after analysis of the Chechen war , Novosty mention tank protection ?
    For what my opinion is worth , the machine could make life difficult for helicopters gunships

    it seems there only was running prototypes since the manufacturer mention starting the production , an upgrade to the T-90 chassis is mentioned
    modular weapons probably means , different turrets for different jobs , an interesting possibility , slapping on any of several turrets to fit the vehicle to the job .


    .
     
  2. TISO

    TISO New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2005
    Messages:
    1,231
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    A wierd blue planet
    via TanksinWW2
    As far as i could undestand from you toube link it is ment to support MBT's against infantry, RPG gunners, attack helicopters in combat. As infantry (with their BMP's, BTR's and BMD's) is behind the tanks in real combat situation this wehicle is giving immediate support to the tanks.
     
  3. jeaguer

    jeaguer New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2006
    Messages:
    929
    Likes Received:
    4
    Location:
    Sydney Australia
    via TanksinWW2
    .

    Yep ,then................ why have main battle tanks

    .
     
  4. Ricky

    Ricky New Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    11,708
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Luton, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    In case your enemy does
    To provide heavy armoured and mobile firepower
     
  5. jeaguer

    jeaguer New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2006
    Messages:
    929
    Likes Received:
    4
    Location:
    Sydney Australia
    via TanksinWW2
    .

    O.K that's a good reason , :grin:
    since most people live in cities , it's a sad probability that there will be more urban fighting ,

    .
     
  6. Robinson phpbb3

    Robinson phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2005
    Messages:
    82
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Adelaide, Australia
    via TanksinWW2
    Its an interesting concept and the Russians are always practical. Ithink from experiences fighting non Tank equiped foes that the Russians have come up with this concept.

    Its funny though, my friend and I who when were at school would design tanks and the lieks for our mythical armies and well, he had one called the 'Terminator Mk 2000' which sounded modern in 1994, that actually was armed similary. However instead of 30mm cannons, he had 7.62mm Mini Guns.

    Kym
     
  7. sinissa

    sinissa New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2006
    Messages:
    570
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    Is it same cannon used in Tunguska?
     
  8. jeaguer

    jeaguer New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2006
    Messages:
    929
    Likes Received:
    4
    Location:
    Sydney Australia
    via TanksinWW2
    .

    I'm not sure about the tunguska , it's the same gun as the BMP-2 back in 1981
    here is a link on the gun

    http://www.tulamash.ru/en/prod_2a42.htm

    What I don't get is , tracked or wheeled armored fighting vehicle ,capable of carrying a squad of 7 , 8 soldiers have been developed by everybody , since the sixties
    What would be the advantage now to have such a vehicle , unless the extra thickness of the skin is the point , some kind of urban assault tank ?

    .
     
  9. sinissa

    sinissa New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2006
    Messages:
    570
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    Yes i checked myself,good reliable gun,simple allso.
    Future of warfare is asimetric warfare. Large forces oposite to smaller guerilla forces. THat AFV got great rate of fire for infantry,good penetrations in urban area,AT missiles to oposite to otther AFV grenade launcher for infantry allso. Look to me that this thing can spill more firepower then some conventional AFV.
     
  10. jeaguer

    jeaguer New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2006
    Messages:
    929
    Likes Received:
    4
    Location:
    Sydney Australia
    via TanksinWW2
    .


    Asymetric warfare work to the advantage of the weaker side ,
    people are cheap, Hight tech weapons make a longish war ruinous to the rich country , if asymmetrical warfare happen , it better be over Quickly
    if not ,
    then some suitable cheapo local goons are better used :smok:


    .
     
  11. TISO

    TISO New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2005
    Messages:
    1,231
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    A wierd blue planet
    via TanksinWW2
    Russians relearned the lessons of Afganistan 13 years ago. In urban warfare MBT can only serve as artillery support weapon and is a big target.

    131. "Maikop" mechanised brigade paid dearly for this lesson. On 31 of december they recived order to push into the center of Grozny. They fought for 60 hours without backup and lost all armour and around 75% of personell. However they did complete their orders.
    Hard learned lesson:
    Battle of Grozny or 60 hours of "Maikopskoy brigadi":
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kH7UP2mONUs&feature=related

    Battle of Grozny:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k85yhpA0giQ
     
  12. smeghead phpbb3

    smeghead phpbb3 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2006
    Messages:
    1,269
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Melbourne, Orst-Ray-Lia
    via TanksinWW2
    That depends on how well you train them and how long for :smok:

    Training and equipping one lowly soldier can be quite expensive when you take into account all the pairs of boots he wears out and all the man-hours it takes for his corporals to whip him into shape. Hundreds of thousands of dollars go into one man and yet it only takes a 50c bullet and a split second to kill him.

    The strategic solution would seem to be not to waste too much time training soldiers!
     
  13. jeaguer

    jeaguer New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2006
    Messages:
    929
    Likes Received:
    4
    Location:
    Sydney Australia
    via TanksinWW2
    .

    When I said cheap local goons , It's exactly what I mean ,
    no wages ,uniforms ,training , supplies or chain of command ,
    free entreprise in it's purest form .......piracy
    a bonus per head and no questions asked or in the Afghanistan case , the pashtun villages given over to the uzbeks or Azarats,
    the land and the women to be kept for their prize ,the rest to be disposed off , while a minimum air cover make sure the cleansing business remain undisturbed ,
    in brief the pashtun practices served back to them , you would see them grovel pretty quickly for your benevolent protection :wink:


    .
     

Share This Page