Russia-Ukraine War 2022

Since pretty much all NATO countries are increasing their defence spending significantly (finally), I think this war has shown that:

Artillery in most NATO countries has been sadly neglected despite some excellent equipment and methods. It's crazy that Finland is the artillery powerhouse in Western Europe. Of course being next to Russia is the reason for investing heavily in artillery but it's sad that most NATO countries have given up on artillery. I think it's time to once again invest more into it and buy new equipment. I'd also invest a lot into GMLRS and PrSM missiles as those are real artillery force multipliers due to their reach, firepower and accuracy.

Invest even more into developing next-gen UAVs and loitering munitions. This is nothing new but I'd increase the efforts to develop more capable systems along with swarming capabilities.

Invest more into countermeasures (sensors, EW and weapons) to those UAVs and loitering munitions. Denying enemy from getting recon from UAVs and reducing the effectiveness of their loitering muntions will be crucial for own operations.

Invest even more into 5th gen fighter capability. Best 4th gen Russian aircraft are getting shot down regularly with systems from 1980s and 1970s in Ukraine. I think that for example Germany should really buy at least 100 F-35s more than they are planning to do. I'd also replace current AWACS with more modern systems (like E-7) to combat against cruise missiles and UAVs etc.

I think many countries should also improve their ground based air defences. Most countries have decent equipment but in small quantities. These systems are needed to counter threats like ballistic missiles, large caliber rocket artillery, all kinds of UAVs, cruise missiles and naturally enemy aircraft and helicopters too. Even having air superiority is no guarantee that these systems are unable to work effectively, although naturally it helps a lot.

BMPT was design based on Afghanistan and Chechenia so they probalbe knew what they are doing.

REALLY?? Haven't you been following the events in Ukraine?? You really, really believe the Russians know or ever knew what they're doing??

No it mean army don't know what is doing or don't give a **** until now because now heads are rooling.

UVZ finished BMPT project started in USSR based on Afghanistan war as solution for poor tank support but Russian army thought they don't need it because it cost a lot and it is tank without big gun, nor it can carry troops.

Btw army liked a lot BMP-3 nonsense, because it is cheap, have big gun and carry troops. Thin can armor, weak big gun, packed with 100mm ammo inside crew compartment, awful entering and exiting, nothing of this wasn't problem because paper it is ideal so no one would ask them why you bought it.

On other hand someone can ask them why bought tank which isn't tank when you have huge number of tanks.

I think BMPT Terminator idea is really the high elevation of the autocannons while offering MBT-like protection.

Protection on BMPT could be noticeable better then MBT, first no carousel autoloader inside crew compartment and secondly it weight same as upgraded T-72 for example but don't have turret so they probable beef up chassis probable side got fatter armor.

T-15 would be ideal but its serial production didn't even started and with loss of many MBTs in Ukraine I doubt T-15 would be important, T-14 is what will need more.

Maybe they could start converting older MBTs in BMPT for example. Having lot of old MBT which are easy prey for modern AT weapons is nonsense.

But this is Russian army so...

To find and target one tank in such a large area, the UAV opeartors must have very good eyes.

Rubizhne

The drones rely on HUMINT from the boots.

Protection on BMPT could be noticeable better then MBT, first no carousel autoloader inside crew compartment and secondly it weight same as upgraded T-72 for example but don't have turret so they probable beef up chassis probable side got fatter armor.

Well, I don't think that the BMPT is better protected/armored and less vulnerable than a (well designed) MBT. Incurring the risk of repeating myself the carousel autoloader found on Russian tanks and how it is placed is a bad design, period! Again this is one of the reasons why western tanks like the M1 Abrams, Leopard 2 and Challenger 2 are better and less vulnerable than Russian tanks.
Apart from the "carousel autoloader", I would even say that the turret adds a layer of armour that the BMPT simply don't have. For example if a top-down missile like the Javelin hits the tanks there's less "layers" of armour in a BMPT (there's only the hull) while with a tank there's the turret which can be much more heavily armored but with much less weight if one pretends to up-armour the hull at to the same level as the turret (since there's more area in the hull to protect than in the turret). And then of course with top-down missile attack against a MBT it usually needs to penetrate the turret first in order to reach the hull. Hence why I think that the T-14 style of concept may be something interesting and even perhaps the future of MBTs.

Bottom line: while the BMPT should explode in much smaller fireball than Russian MBT's, I don't think that BMPT's and the crew inside them is necessarily better protected than inside MBTs due to the reason I mentioned above. And in case I'm mistaken regarding this then this only due to following reason:
- 125mm ammunition explodes more powerfully than 30mm ammunition and of course the 30mm ammo is stored in the remote weapons station/turret.
But and otherwise the weapon that destroys a MBT will also destroy the BMPT with no problem.

T-15 would be ideal but its serial production didn't even started and with loss of many MBTs in Ukraine I doubt T-15 would be important, T-14 is what will need more.

Yeah, I tend to agree with the above.
And this if the Russians will ever be able to mass produce the T-14.

I think BMPT Terminator idea is really the high elevation of the autocannons while offering MBT-like protection.

Sure. But you can also achieve this with an MBT:

Yes, I know that's a .50 cal machine gun but it still gives the "overhead/over-watch" protection/suppression needed to protect the tank against infantry. And nothing should prevent the possibility of developing a RWS on top of a MBT that could carry something like a 25mm autocannon.

Moreover and another thing where I think that the BMPT fails is that while it shares similar levels of protection and it also shares the same limitations as the MBTs. For example, it's just as easy to achieve a BMPT mobility kill as it is to achieve the same mobility kill with MBTs. For instance all it needs is to hit the tracks with something cheap as a RPG or a land mine and BOOM, the BMPT will stop just like a MBT would. Of course one can argue that this way the crew will survive and that such damage is easily repaired and that would be true. However the BMPT/MBT would still be stopped for a considerable long time.

As such, I think that a wheeled up-armored IFV would be a much more effective and protective companion to the MBT than something like the BMPT. For example if someone tries a mobility kill like mentioned above (RPG or land mine) this would blow up a tire that's for sure but also for sure, the IFV would still retain its mobility (even if not at 100%). Being up-armoured still guarantees a good degree of protections and survivability. Stryker and LAV 6.0 are a few examples of this but there are others. And of course such IFV's can also carry troops/soldiers. Actually the LAV 6.0 was the result of lessons learned by Canada during the Afghanistan War which stipulated the need of a better armored/protected wheeled IFV in order to keep up with the MBT's (Leopard 2's).

Or if there's a desire for such vehicle but being tracked (instead of wheeled) due to for example mobility issues in very bad terrain then I think something like the CV-90 or Bradley would again be better than something like the BMPT. The Bradley in particular seem to have been quite successful in such roles while providing a good survivability for the crew. And of course vehicles like the CV-90 or Bradley can also carry troops/soldiers.

Finally and while we're talking about vehicles which could protect tanks and which ones would be better, I think we're forgetting the most important:
- Probably the best asset to protect tanks is not another vehicle but instead some other different platform namely and for example the infantry itself. There's probably nothing better to detect hidden and ambushing AT teams than a squad or even a platoon of infantry. And then there are other assets which IMO are far more useful than something like a BMPT such as drones, Air Support or timely Artillery Support (resuming: Combined Arms!).

Don't know how compartmentalized BMPT-72 is, but there are two crew hatches on the turret. It may not be as well protected/survivable as you think.

To find and target one tank in such a large area, the UAV opeartors must have very good eyes.

Yes, they are.
And it could be that they are using this "simulator" to train their eyeing skills:

I thought BMPT is just T-72 hull with RCWS but it isn't:

Source: armyrecognition.com

It have that hull superstructure and weight is close to 50tons so it do have lot of armor.

This shows possible armor layout of BMPT:

Source: revistaejercitos.com/

If it is right have quite thick superstructure armor and it is logical if you look weight. Only weak spots on roof is driver hatch and superstructure hatches but you can't build practical vehicle without those.

But most important thing it isnt packed with 125mm powder charges. In fact they removed grenade launchers which consider dangerous because of not that safe ammo, and also required two additional crew members. Russia I don't think got BMPT-1 which have those.

Quite interesting vehicle, and big error Russia didn't get them more.

First 2S4 Tyulpan loss. 240mm mortar rounds detonated spectacularly.

2S4 Tyulpan

Edit: Yes, BMPT-72 has another deck. But, remember the side of the T-72 hull can be breached by BTR-4. And one RPG hit in the back of the turret could render it useless.

BMPT-72

First 2S4 Tyulpan loss. 240mm mortar rounds detonated spectacularly.

Edit:

Yes, BMPT-72 has another deck. But, remember the side of the T-72 hull can be breached by BTR-4. And one RPG hit in the back of the turret could render it useless.

Well one RPG can make any tank useless so I don't see point of that argument. Same can be said about 30mm round, it can too damage any tank quite well.

Whole point BMPT is lot more safer to crew then any other armor of that war.

Well one RPG can make any tank useless so I don't see point of that argument. Same can be said about 30mm round, it can too damage any tank quite well.

Whole point BMPT is lot more safer to crew then any other armor of that war.

Saw the T-80 video above? The snorkel was shot off, it survived and shot back. The BMPT turret would not survive this. MBT isn't supposed to fight close quarters combat in the streets, but BMPT is. If its hull can be penetrated like T-72, what's the point? 30mm ammo will be safer? Hey, plenty of BMP-2/3 tossed turret too.

BMPT-72. Just another target for ATGWs. Next to useless the way the Russians will employ them. Doesn't really matter what armor types the Russians introduce to the battlefield. They're just mobile metal coffins.

Recent vidoes show two large bases. One occupied an industrial complex, the other agricultural. Seems they are barely within the reach of artillery. Not enough burning and destruction.

bases

Edit: Lucky shot. Did someone forget to close the hatches? Once there is fire out out of the main gun, it is done for.

grenade drops on tank