BMPT “Terminator" Tank Support Vehicle Overview

The BMPT or BMPT-72 "Terminator" is a post-Cold war armored fighting vehicle (AFV), designed and manufactured by the Russian company Uralvagonzavod. This vehicle was designed for supporting tanks and other AFVs in urban areas. The BMPT is unofficially named the "Terminator" by the manufacturers. It is heavily armed and armored to survive in urban combat. This AFV is armed with four 9M120 Ataka missile launchers, two 30 mm 2A42 autocannons, two AG-17D grenade launchers, and one coaxial 7.62 mm PKTM machine gun.
The BMPT is built on the chassis of the T-72 main battle tank which is used in large numbers by the Russian Army and has been manufactured under license by many other countries. The BMPT was designed based on combat experience gained during the Soviet war in Afghanistan and the First Chechen War. Multiple prototypes of a tank support combat vehicle were created prior to the design of the current BMPT. The Object 199 "Ramka" was the prototype later to be known as the modern BMPT with the official producer being Uralvagonzavod. A small number were delivered to the Russian Ground Forces for evaluation beginning in 2005. As of late 2013, the only operator of the BMPT was Kazakhstan. Russia appears to have foregone procurement of the BMPT in favor of the T-15 IFV based on the Armata Universal Combat Platform to fill the role.
The history of the BMPT's development can be traced back to the Soviet war in Afghanistan. Combat experience during the lengthy war revealed that infantry fighting vehicles (IFVs) like the BMP-1 and BMP-2 cannot fully cope with infantry despite the latter having a high gun elevation. Although main battle tanks (MBTs) possessed a high amount of firepower, the limited elevation and depression of the main gun made them easy targets in mountainous and urban terrain. In the 1980s, the Chelyabinsk Tractor Plant began designing prototypes for the new concept, early prototypes being Object 781, Object 782 and Object 787. It was evident that a new vehicle concept was needed. The main requirements for this new machine was that it possessed large firepower, a high angle of gun fire, and the protection equivalent to that of an MBT. An additional requirement that was meant to supplement the latter was enhanced protection from close range hand-held RPGs.
There have been several different prototype designs of a tank support fighting vehicle. For instance, the Object 193A and the Object 745. A mock-up of the Object 199 was shown for the first time in public during the summer of 2000. This vehicle was slightly different from the current design, being armed with only a single 2A42 30 mm gun and with four 9M133 Kornet missiles located on one side of the turret. The production model of the BMPT was introduced in 2002 which featured the twin 30 mm autocannons, the two independent 30 mm automatic grenade launchers, and the four Ataka missile launchers.
Hope you enjoy!!
💥 💣 Check out our partnership clothing brand! Attire For Effect💣 💥 www.attireforeffect.com 📸 Also follow them on Instagram: #attire_for_effect
💰 Want to support my channel? Check out my Patreon Donation page! www.patreon.com/user?u=3081754
💰PayPal: paypal.me/Matsimus?locale.x=e...
Matt’s DREAM: www.gofundme.com/f/matt039s-c...
👕 Check out my Merch: teespring.com/stores/matsimus...
📬Wanna send me something? My PO Box: Matthew James 210A - 12A Street N Suite No. 135 Lethbridge Alberta Canada T1H2J
📸 My instagram: Matt_matsimus
🎮 Twitch: / matsimus_9033
👋DISCORD: / discord
📘 Facebook: profile.php?...
🐦Twitter: / matsimusgaming

[@mclovinU2night]

Still waiting on an anti terminator platform called the "John Connor"

[@codfusilli5879]

The terminator is no match vs the PREDATOR! 😁 Coming soon!

[@chuckgriffith4539]

The John Connor is Saint Javalin...

[@inso80]

There will not be a need for such a platform.

[@mclovinU2night]

@@inso80 well for the memes there might

[@revolverswitch]

But that's misogynistic, it will be called the "Sarah Conner"

[@pilotmanpaul]

The BMP-T is basically "You can never have enough Daka Daka" in an armored vehicle's form.

[@haowoon8213]

How fitting.

[@davidty2006]

i thought the true "you can never have enough Daka daka" was the M2 medium?

[@Schaddedanzer]

Basically a BMP-T does the job of mechanised infantry in urban fights. Due to the reactive armor on their MBT, it needs something that will be unharmed by a trigger reactive splash. Thats why most western countries does not use reactive armor very much, to much friendly fire killed soldiers to clean of the road in a urban fight situation

[@haowoon8213]

@@davidty2006 In case you did not know, "orc" is now a term used to describe russian soldiers. And if you know WH40K, you know how this ties in with the main comment. Correct me if I am wrong.

[@davidty2006]

@@haowoon8213 i have heard of this....

[@Cnupoc]

first BMPT was built on T-90 chasis, BMPT 2 is built on chasis of T-72. The idea is that you can use an old reserve T-72 chasis and just change the turret and replace a few electronics. Instead of building new T-90 chasis altogether for the vehicle. Modularity is a major pivotal point in Russian designs after year 2000.

[@merryprankster2367]

Don't forget the T-90 was originally a upgraded T-72 with the T-80U fire control system, upgraded engine, and named the T-72BU. The vehicle was renamed T-90 after Chechnya. I have both T-90s and T-72A/B/B obr.1989g/BA sitting in my collection of 1/72 scale armor and the only way to easily identify a T-90 or T-90A from a late T-72 is the dazzler bozes on either side of the T-90's main gun. The T-90M definitely has a much different look with it's new turret.

[@user-jq1mb6on5o]

​@@merryprankster2367 вы ещё в детсом садике, или уже в начальной школе?

[@merryprankster2367]

@@user-jq1mb6on5o We tend to speak English in the USA, not Russian.

[@user-jq1mb6on5o]

@@merryprankster2367 учи русский язык.

[@rastislavstanik]

the major pivotal point in all ruSS design is that it is shit

[@SergeiSugaroverdoseShuykov]

BMPT wasn't designed based on military request, it was initiative from Uralvagonzavod constructors, they still don't fit into Russian military tactics to be widely adopted, that's why there's not so much of them actually built

[@orcan377]

300 pieces were built for Algeria

[@Thekilleroftanks]

i think you meant to say, russia cant build that many because they dont have the cash nor resources to build more. should i point out the T-14.

[@123456qwful]

@@Thekilleroftanks if terminator is effective who know they could just jeri rig the remaining t 72 they have into somthing similar or a mad max style look thing and deploy it , whether it effective or not it up to a guess,

[@m_zbrv3967]

@@Thekilleroftanks terminator construction is basically using t72 chassis and put btr cannon plus some atgm.. not the same level of cash as armata

[@slimrummy4616]

There expensive and untested in combat 'untill now'. The Russian federation has 300 if it proves successful I imagine this number will go up.

[@youcantata]

I love the idea of BMP armored vehicle with ATGM's, anti-air MANPADS, autocannons and grenade machinegun than traditional 125 mm smooth bore gun. It is not just tank protector or guard. IMHO, it is better armored weapon to fight mechanized platoon than main battle tank, as well as urban warfare and infantry support. My suggestion is it should be accompanied by reconnaissance UAV drone for beyond-visual-range battle on land.

[@smokeshow7691]

being able to monitor the sky with the limited vision and the role of anti air/ground would be pretty overwhelming. i think it would be hard to be an effective anti air platform.

[@youcantata]

@@smokeshow7691 Not best anti-air gun without expensive radar. But can be effective with affordable optical surveillance means like short range infrared IRST for SHORAD (range 3 km) It will be suitable for anti drone role.

[@swaghauler8334]

@@youcantata Low-flying Helos would be my first guess.

[@TwixSvK]

It could be decent aaa with automatic tracking and proximity fuse atgm

[@drrocketman7794]

The West needs something like this, based on the Abrams

[@jeffreyprezalar220]

Bmpt terminator 2 does not have the grenade launchers,Bmpt 1 does. The terminator 2 also has armor around the ataka missiles.

[@duckman12569]

I wonder what the GL performs vs dual cannons for dealing with reinforced concrete positions. Penetration vs AoE in an urban envt

[@igor_pavlovich]

Also crew is only 3

[@swordsman1137]

Well, technically there is only one BMPT, they just try to find the right config. But yeah, the updated design don't have hull grenade launcher

[@mortenlund1418]

It sounds reasonable. The grenade launchers was a mistake. Less armour / weak spots and could only engage in the direction the tank was turned! Further - 2 men for operations, space that could be filled with protective armour or other usefullness.

[@GarioTheRock]

@@swordsman1137 BMPT II exists and there were 12 in a convoy in Ukraine.

[@jordanmckellar6737]

Seen plenty of videos of Russians rolling up BTRs to street corners, and engaging buildings in mariupol. So it’s not hard to see it’s usefulness in other similar environments.

[@angryscotsman93]

I mean, is there ever a situation where an extra autocannon ISN'T a good idea?

[@ArchOfficial]

BMP-T was deployed to Mariupol? Are you 100% sure? Source?

[@WellBattle6]

@@ArchOfficial He said BTR, not BMP-T

[@ArchOfficial]

@@WellBattle6 Oh, yeah, I somehow read it as "rolling up to street corners in BTRs and engaging buildings in Mariupol (with BMP-T)". As in "them" being BMP-Ts.

[@t-90atank35]

Until it tries to reverse

[@jeffyoung1349]

Glad to hear you again, great review on a relative armored vehicle, keep them going, thanks for your time to bring this to us all

[@aewhatever]

That thing looks total badass

[@aarone1981]

Incredible AFV, I keep saying US should build something comparable, and I get ripped for admiring a piece of Russian machinery, lol...

[@edi9892]

It reminds me of Neo walking through the metal detector in a trenchcoat...

[@StefanBlagojevic]

@@edi9892 LMAO 😂

[@richard_the_lion_farted]

I am an ex TOW Operator. With an ATGM system like the TOW, it allows engagement at extended ranges. Those ranges require a steady platform as the missile takes its 25+ second flight. This thing upon hearing or seeing the signature of a TOW being fired can chime in to lay down suppressive/killing power within that flight time. Unlike a tank that has to have a direct fire solution and the right round. This thing belches a staccato stream of unholy destruction to create misery on all those unfortunate to be down range. I am glad the Ruskies don't have a lot of these.

[@Littlelurch85]

Man that intro with the slow mo and the music was perfect. I can just hear somebody saying Hi there I'm here to ruin your day. Love it.

[@anthonybenash3457]

It can also carry 4 external washing machines

[@bremnersghost948]

Washing Machines are better Protection than Russian ERA

[@gregs7562]

Only 4? Thats very poor.

[@keegan773]

And a toilet.

[@tingleblade4274]

and several containers of nutella

[@thomashastings5694]

Awesome good job on this one sir!!!

[@chillguy1001]

Why say that? He gave a bunch of wrong info in this video, it was very badly made. He didn’t even show clips of the tank he was talking about, he showed clips of the bmpt 1

[@lobstereleven4610]

SO GLAD I found you again man. For some reason it said I wasn't subscribed and I def did not unsub. I didn't see any content in a long while and was curious what happened. Oh well, glad to be back on the sub train brother.

[@Revivethefallen]

Thanks for another great video Matt!

[@Argosh]

It's an answer to a question no one was asking. Brilliant.

[@ernestpaul2484]

And now that this has been fielded in Ukraine, the "improvise, adapt and overcome" adjustments of ATGM teams TTP commences. These will be one of the high value targets due to the fact, as you say, it is a primary spray and pray weapon.

[@swaghauler8334]

You have to love how the Ukrainians "aim off" on their ATGMs until the missile is mostly to the target. This means the warning receivers go off only SECONDS before impact... giving you just enough warning to say "OH SHIT!"

[@GBR9794]

@@swaghauler8334 true, but you kind have to consider not many ru tank have aps on them, most of them are quite old and still uses passive ones like era.

[@Dazzxp]

@@GBR9794 It's funny really as Russia was the inventor of the APS (Drozd back in the 70's), just unmounted infantry don't like them cause while effective against ATGM's they are also prone to collateral damage lol. You think it wouldn't bother them really cause most of the tanks you see being engaged don't have infantry support anyway...

[@ross82]

The fact most of the foreign “fighters” have ran for their lives back home to their mummy’s might suggest Ukrainian forces are getting what they deserve. Silly facts.

[@ernestpaul2484]

@@GBR9794 However in regard to the ERA, you will notice on MANY of the still photographs and in some video, that the "blocks of ERA" are hanging off the vehicles empty of the explosive compound (as in having never been filled) or cardboard was stuffed in there from the munitions factory). Government corruption and greed at its best.

[@guyb7995]

How fitting it is training by shooting at civilian busses.

[@wasimshaikh1665]

I wanted to know more about it. Glad it's coming from u. Great timing as well.

[@maksphoto78]

Yesss, I've been waiting for your review of the Terminator.

[@TheUmbralPresence]

BMPT-2 (aka BMPT-72) is different from the original BMPT by being based on T-72 chassis, as opposed to T-90 in the original BMPT, and by the absence of two AGS grenade launchers. So those we se on pictures and videos having those grenade launchers are original BMPTs.

[@mbtenjoyer9487]

And armor to the missiles

[@kell7195]

Its being used now in Sieverodonetsk and recently Lyman, reportedly doing well, those cities were taken rather quickly.

[@projectnemesi5950]

Trying convincing any of these people of reality. Even the pro-ukrainian battle maps show Russia winning and taking territory. Hundreds of surrender videos on tgram. Ukrainian officers arguing with each other and saying they don't have enough support. But all that wont convince them. Even the MSM is acknowledging ukraines losses. Again, it still wont convince them. They've turned into literal NPC's were every reasonable source is saying Russia is winning, but they still can not shake their brainwashing.

[@mangalores-x_x]

Lyman was taken relatively "quickly" being an Ukrainian stronghold on the wrong side of the river for months. To claim that concerning Sieverodonetsk is also ridiculous, that city was repeatedly declared conquered weeks ago and the very opposite. What those BMP-T had anything to do with anything is however pure guesswork.

[@projectnemesi5950]

@@mangalores-x_x You are just an NPC dude. How much territory does russia need tot take before you admit they are winning?

[@marrs1013]

@@projectnemesi5950 All of it. But then how will they govern? Either way, they just created an enemy on their own border. I don't think the Ukranians will forget this soon.

[@Attaxalotl]

@@projectnemesi5950 Russia cannot win this, but they can lose for as long as they like. Their gains in the Donbas don't mean much compared to their losses everywhere else. They've pushed Russia back to Kherson; and some retaliatory missile strikes on Odessa have hit... a pair of grain silos and a Romanian Diesel Tanker. If this keeps up at this rate; Russia will be at the gates of Sloviansk not too long after Ukraine has a roadblock on the far side of the Kerchson Strait Bridge.

[@somethintoviewwithyou2876]

Omg, I cannot believe this was first in 2016!!! Wow I’ve been watching you for years!!!!!

[@The_PaleHorseman]

You're back like a boss.

[@trevortaylor5501]

In combat approved they show that they got rid of the grenade launchers and two positions in the tank. They armored the anti tank weapons as well for shrapnel hit reasons from artillery. They field tested it in syria. I watched them a week ago in ukraine, a column of like 12 of them moving to the front. Perfect environment for this particular weapon platform.

[@Joe_Friday]

Why did they remove the grenade launchers? I remember reading about this.

[@exo068]

@@Joe_Friday they found out it’s unnecessary because they aren’t really that effective in terms of movement and they are a weak spot. In the version without them it’s covered with ERA.

[@swaghauler8334]

@@exo068 I'm guessing the launcher's RANGE was an issue too. They should have just used the weight and space for extra 30mm ammo.

[@exo068]

@@swaghauler8334 they are in a wired position you can probably add more ammo but it would be more of a second magazine that requires manual reloading.

[@swaghauler8334]

@@exo068 Removing the two gunners would allow a LOT of internal space for rerouting the 30mm ammo. Most IFVs wrap their belted ammo around the inside of their turrets. The M1's 1100 round mag for her 7.62mm is equally convoluted in the way it feeds around, over, and under stuff in the crew compartment.

[@slimrummy4616]

I can tell you, I would not want to be an infantry man fighting against this thing.

[@jonathanwebb8307]

why not, its just as vulnerable to NLAWS and Javelins as a T90. It can only shoot in one direction at a time, if engaged by dispered ATGMs it will not last long on the modern battlefield ... thats assuming the artillery doesnt take it out before it even arrives on the battlefield

[@slimrummy4616]

@@jonathanwebb8307 I think your mistaken, yes it's not invincible. But it's not as easy as you make it sound, the only chance you have is if the crew make a mistake and pot there vehicle in a bad spot and you lay down an effective ambush, but these things don't travel alone there used in groups, and if they find your position or you fail to destroy it your dun

[@larrymoran_THE_CODGER]

June 11, 2022 - Good to see another one of your informative videos Matt. I hope all is well, but it must be if you had time and the inclination to make this video.👍👍Stay well Mate!😊

[@pbr-streetgang]

Thanks for the vid sir.👍🏼👍🏼

[@Tarik360]

If there ever was a modern company of heroes equivalent... This would be the "say goodbye to all your max veterancy infantry" vehicle.

[@ph6560]

Great and instructive video as always! OT: Was just wondering if and when there'll be follow-up video on CV90. Felt the latest CV90 video could be like part 1 of 3, as there's so much more to cover with all different CV90 variants. I'd also be curious to hear Matsimus opinion on the CV90 120mm variant as this configuration is interesting and unique (to my knowledge).

[@DEATH-THE-GOAT]

VariantsEdit Estonia has purchased 79 CV90s from Norway and the Netherlands DomesticEdit The following versions were developed by Hägglund/Bofors in cooperation with FOA and FMV for Försvarsmakten as part of the Stridsfordon 90 (Strf 90)-family.[19] Sweden originally planned for a mix of CV9040 and CV9025, tests of the 25 mm turret being carried out on an Ikv 91 chassis, but finally decided on the 40 mm version, due to the much higher versatility of the larger calibre.[20] Stridsfordon (Strf) 9040 (SB1A3): The original model carries eight soldiers and is equipped with a 40 mm Bofors autocannon. From November 1997, the gun was gyro-stabilized.[19] Versions are referred to by the letters A, B or C depending on upgrades. All from A onwards remain in service. Strf 9040 : Original production version with no gun stabilization and Lyran mortar. Incremental improvements were made during production; all have been upgraded to Strf9040A standard. Strf 9040A: Strf 9040 upgraded with extensive chassis modifications and external gun stabilisation on turret front. It has more storage and better emergency exits, and the seats in the troop compartment were reduced to seven. Strf 9040B: 9040A updated with improvements to armament (new fire control software, electric firing pin, fully stabilized gun with internal stabilisation and reserve sight with video camera for the gunner), improved suspension for better accuracy and crew comfort while moving, new instrumentation and new seatbelts. Strf 9040B1: Strf9040B modified for international peacekeeping missions. It has a 3P ammunition programmer, climate control and anti-spall liner.[21] Strf 9040C: Upgraded version for crew training and international operations. As per 9040B1 with additional all-round armour, laser filtering in all periscopes and tropical grade air conditioning. Due to the bulk and weight of the modifications, only six soldiers can be carried.[19] CV9040 AAV Luftvärnskanonvagn (lvkv) 9040: Anti-air vehicle, fitted with PS-95 radar from Thomson CSF Harfang (now Thales Group) and a high elevation 40 mm autocannon capable of using programmable ammunition. It is connected to the national air defence net LuLIS. Three have been upgraded to C-standard.[22] There is also a demonstrator, designated Lvkv 90-TD, fitted with infrared video targeting and a fully stabilized gun for firing on the move.[23] Granatkastarpansarbandvagn (Grkpbv) 90: (Tracked Armoured Mortar Vehicle), producer name Mjölner: A CV 90 fitted with two 120 mm mortars. The 40 CV90 hulls for this project had already been purchased by 2003 and were originally intended to be equipped with the Patria Advanced Mortar System. For economic reasons, Genomförandegruppen recommended against it and the AMOS order was cancelled with the vehicles put in storage until BAE Systems AB received a contract in December 2016 to install Mjölner 120 mm mortars on the 40 CV90s to increase the indirect fire capability of mechanized battalions.[24] The first units were scheduled to be delivered in January 2019 and all 40 vehicles will be delivered by 2020.[19] Stridsledningspansarbandvagn (Stripbv) 90 (Forward Command Vehicle): Used by the battalion and brigade commander for command and control. Two were upgraded to C-standard, but have been decommissioned as of 2011.[22] Eldledningspansarbandvagn (Epbv) 90 (Forward Observation Vehicle): For directing artillery and mortar fire, a more advanced IR sensor was fitted; eight have been upgraded to C-standard.[22] Bärgningsbandvagn (Bgbv) 90, (Armoured Recovery Vehicle): Two 9-tonne winches provide a maximum capacity of 72 tonnes through 4-way pulleys. Three have been upgraded to C-standard,[22] and at least one has been used in Afghanistan. The command, forward observation and armoured recovery vehicles are armed only with a machine gun. The following versions were not taken into Swedish army service. Störpansarbandvagn (Störpbv) 90 (Electronic Warfare Vehicle): A 9040A had its turret replaced with a fixed housing containing retractable mast and a LEMUR weapons station. Planned in 2002, a single unit was produced before serial production was cancelled for economic reasons and as of 2013 the project is still on hold.[19] Strf 90120 / CV90120-T: Light tank demonstrator armed with CTG 120/L50 (Compact Tank Gun) developed by RUAG. The gun is 120mm smoothbore, calibre length 50, with a rate of fire of 12-14 rds/minute. 12 rounds are kept ready in the turret bustle, with a further 33 stowed in the hull rear.[25] Stridsfordon 9040/56: Prototype version of the CV 9040 equipped with the Bofors RB56 anti-tank missile. Issues with the sight alignment were unsolved and no units ordered.[19] Export versionsEdit The export versions of CV90 is delivered with the combat proven BAE Systems Hägglunds E-series turrets with armament ranging from 30-120mm. The vast majority of the 600 turrets delivered are fitted with 30mm or 35mm guns. Finnish CV9030FIN CV90120-T prototype, from which PL-01 mockup was developed CV9030 Export version with a 30 mm Bushmaster II autocannon. Adopted by Norway, Switzerland and Finland. Within BAE Systems Hägglunds, the original version of the Norwegian CV9030N is known as the CV90 MK I. The Finnish CV9030FIN and Swiss CV9030CH vehicles are known as the CV90 MK II.[26] The CV90 MK II is also available as CV9030 COM - Command & Control Vehicle. The recently upgraded CV9030N infantry fighting, command & control and reconnaissance vehicles for Norway are known as CV90 MkIIIb, and this is the most advanced variant currently in service.[27] CV9035 Armed with a Bushmaster III 35/50 cannon. Adopted by the Netherlands as CV9035NL and Denmark as CV9035DK. Within BAE Systems Hägglunds, CV9035 is known as the CV90 MK III.[26] CV90105 Light tank equipped with 105 mm rifled tank gun/turret. Designed by Hägglunds (BAE Systems) and GIAT (Nexter). A newer version features the Cockerill XC-8 turret.[28] CV90120-T Light tank equipped with a tank turret equipped with a smoothbore 120 mm gun. (RUAG 120 mm Compact Tank Gun) CV90 CZ Export variant designed in collaboration with VOP CZ marketed to the Czech Republic, manned turret variant.[29] CV90 CZr Export variant designed in collaboration with VOP CZ marketed to the Czech Republic featuring a Kongsberg MCT-30 unmanned, remote controlled turret, a slightly raised hull and periscope system.[29][30] Armadillo Armoured personnel carrier version built on a modular CV90 Mk III chassis. The CV90 Armadillo can be modified to become a personnel carrier, an ambulance, a command and control centre, a recovery vehicle and many other non-turreted variants at low cost due up to 80% commonality among variants.[31] Currently, only the APC version has been built, with five delivered to Denmark for trials.[32] CV90RWS STING Combat engineering variant built on CV90 Mk I chassis. This vehicle can be outfitted with either a mine plow or a mine roller, and it also has a robotic arm. 28 have been ordered by the Norwegian Army.[33][34] CV90RWS Multi BK Mortar carrier variant built on a CV90 Mk I chassis. This vehicle is armed with a VingPos Mortar Weapon System outfitted with an 81mm L16A2 mortar. 24 have been ordered by the Norwegian Army.[33][35] CV90 MkIV BAE-developed upgraded variant revealed in January 2018, marketed to the Czech Republic as well as existing customers as an upgrade package. Features include a Scania engine with up to 1000 horsepower, Perkins X300 transmission, and an increased payload of 2 tonnes. The system also includes BAE's iFighting computer system, which claims to enhance situational awareness, aid decision making, improve ergonomics, and enable autonomous support and remote operation.[36][37] CV9035NL MLU On 13 January 2021, the Defence Materiel Organisation (DMO) of the Netherlands Armed Forces signed a contract with BAE Systems Hägglunds for a mid-life update of 128 CV90s of the Royal Netherlands Army, with an option for 19 further vehicles. The MLU project features a wide range of modernisations and improvements. The turret has been completely redesigned and will feature a new main gun installation, a mast-mounted 500mm extendable electro-optical sensor, Elbit Systems’ Iron Fist LD (Light Decoupled) active protection system, FN MAG general-purpose machine gun in an external pod and a twin missile launcher for Spike LRII anti-tank guided missiles. Furthermore, the CV90s will be equipped with rubber tracks, upgraded cooling, various cyber-security improvements and updated command and control infrastructure. Construction of the new turrets will be conducted by Dutch firm Van Halteren Defence.[38]

[@DEATH-THE-GOAT]

Guess where I got that info from

[@ph6560]

@@DEATH-THE-GOAT Brilliant summary and great job!

[@klockwerked1673]

So happy for more of your content matt. Your a great creator! Fuck the noise 😤

[@TheRAFlemingsMr]

Great insight and comments, Thank you

[@jumpferjoy1st]

An interesting video but surprised you didn't mention.... 1) These were designed away from the Russian military and it was not a military specification request. But then the T72 was designed without a military request due to the problems and expense of the T64. 2) They built ten pre-production test models. With different hulls, engines, transmissions, optics, communications, ERA, all with the aim of finding the best specification. So 100% NOT for front line use. 3) Of the ten built, one was disabled beyond repair or destroyed during testing, leaving only nine left. 4) They were designed specifically for urban fighting. A key element of urban fighting is optical capability. If you can see the risk first, you can either fire first or escape the enemy fire. After rigorous testing by the Russian military, because most are built on T72 hulls and all the crew are in the hull, it was found to be as blind as a regular T72. So the Russian military themselves canned it in 2010. Away from combat, when travelling, it was found to be safer for the commander to sit on top of the turret and guide the driver. 5) After 2010, the only thing the remaining nine BMPT Terminators have done is get wheeled out for the Victory parades each year......until now. 6) Really not sure what they expect from the Terminators. They were initially sent towards Severodonetsk, but as soon as the Russian forces entered the city the Terminators were moved from the potential urban combat they were designed for. They were repositioned around to Poposna, which is a countryside and small village environment. Certainly not what the Terminators were designed for, but they may be able to fill a role there. It really does surprise me the hype that just nine AFVs have got from the media. If there were ninety or nine hundred, I could understand, but nine will not even scratch the surface.

[@Lonewolfmike]

Well if that is all they have then they have a big bullseye on them and I am guessing that they will have more than a few ATGMs with their names on them looking for them.

[@liesdamnlies3372]

Sounds like their entire presence was for psyops. We saw them moving on trains toward Ukraine a month or two ago.

[@swordsman1137]

Well its new concept. So they need to testing it out before mass produce it. You don't want to spend alot of resource on something that turned out to be useless. Also afaik, they always on Popasna region and not Severodonetsk. I could be not crossing some info though. Anyway, there are few pict of it already use the ATGM, and they using it in combat alongside some tanks on a hill. So my guess is they on phase of testing it on how good it is on tank support vehicle, instead urban combat focused tank. But who knows

[@carlosgarzon8900]

those 9 are the old BMPT 1's there is no indication of how many bmpt 2's and 3 Russia does have. in fact, no one knows how many vehicles and machines Russia really has.

[@TrangleC]

The "commander needs to stick his head out for situational awareness, even in combat"-thing is a lesson the Germans learned in WW2 and talk about extensively. You'll have trouble finding a interview with or a memoir by a Wehrmacht tanker veteran where he doesn't stress that point. It is weird that it took the Russians till 2010 to figure that out too. That is also why many NATO militaries hesitate to use auto loaders on their tanks. Having that 4th set of eyes and hands on board is definitely useful. There are two competing philosophies when it comes to tank/MBT usage. One sees the tank as a modern "war beast" and the crew as living equipment that beast needs to function. The other sees the tank crew as a unit of soldiers and the tank as a tool that unit uses to do its mission. Just a weapon you sit in instead of carrying it on your back. The point being, that second philosophy is all about the soldiers, their eyes and their brains. They are not just there to drive and shoot the guns. Like infantry men they are supposed to do clever stuff to stay alive and outsmart the enemy. The Russians clearly follow the first philosophy and they bet on it for the future, as the design of the Armata suggests, because the commander has even less ability to look around and maintain situational awareness in that thing. I think in Ukraine we see that philosophy fail now. The Terminator is another technocratic attempt to solve a problem a overly technocratic approach to tactics and warfare has created. It is the same as the Littoral Combat Ships for the US Navy. Extensive war games showed that the concept of the US carrier group is highly vulnerable to swarm attacks and instead of changing tactics and doctrine, the admirals and politicians decided to build a new kind of ship to solve the problem and hope that band aid solution would allow them to just keep on going the way they are used to.

[@stanislavt6376]

This Terminator is built mainly to support tanks! Not like IFV. But war changes the rules!

[@MGZetta]

I see a lot of turrets and chassis designs being built separately. Personally, I like the idea of modular freedom and being able to convert your firepower fast for your needs.

[@shawnbouvier1]

beautiful journalism matt!!!

[@KT-ki6gz]

Seems like a much more effective vehicle in an urban environment than a tank with it's massive turret with slow turning speed and reloading delay

[@jonathanwebb8307]

Armoured vehicles have no place in urban fighting. Its a lesson which is relearnt in every war. BMPT is just as vulnerable to ATGMs and modern RPGs as any other armour. Its a waste of Resources and only useful for domestic Russian propoganda.

[@PlacidDragon]

One additional point i dont believe you mentioned, after the experiences the Russians got in Syria (which we have seen again in clips from Mariupol, etc), they wanted this vehicle as for when it comes to urban fighting, a regular MBT cannot elevate its weapons high enough to engage targets on the second or third floor of a building (ATGM teams seemingly love hanging out up there and essentially firing down on the tank where its armor is weakest). So the "Terminator" i believe has a 50 degree elevation on its cannons to combat this specific issue.

[@erikitter6773]

That is only a problem for MBTs. You don't solve that by wasting another maximum cost hull to put next to it with weapons that don't have the problem but either put a remote weapon station on top of the MBT or put a cost efficient budy next to it, like an IFV that has the same capabilities but also brings the way more important dismounted troops. This is a mix of engineers' and marketing's solution -- and more to the plant's lack of orders than to the soldiers' needs.

[@Panocek]

@@erikitter6773 Russians during Grozny tried to mitigate that by mixing tanks with BMPs and SPAAs, both having high elevation capability, though their light armor proved to be a concern. I guess thats how idea for BMPT was born, to mix tank relative survivability with dakka. Obviously, there's question whether "BMP survivability in urban environment" would be such concern if Russians fielded primarily BMP-3s with ERA kits, instead older BMP-2 or 3 without ERA. Especially as 100mm cannon in BMP-3 can be convincing argument in cities

[@grandayatollah5655]

@@Panocek they should've slapped those 4S24 ERA onto all the BMPs and BMDs lol

[@karlbrundage7472]

A single trooper in a fighting hole with a Javelin or an N-LOS is the bane of this vehicle.

[@Frenchfrys17]

Hence the advanced and wide field of view optics designed to spot infantry in concealed positions first from miles away.

[@pennydunwell7005]

Gave you a thumbs up just for the tunes my man

[@johnparrish9215]

What this vehicle needs (for urban combat) is for some of the crew to be wearing the same kind of helmet that a F35 pilot enjoys, of course this requires the vehicle to have all the outside sensors and cameras installed. This would give the crew the ability to look up/down/all around to find the enemy. Getting rid of one of the grenade launchers and replacing that gunner with a drone operator would be helpful.

[@mil3k]

I've heard that Israelis are working on such system for their Mercavas.

[@davidpalmer4184]

Hi John, I imagine that cost would be a factor. The sensor packages and the helmets would cost much more than the "tank" Secondly, Russia can't get computer chips powerful enough to build a dishwasher at the moment let alone something to match what is in the F35.

[@johnparrish9215]

@@davidpalmer4184 You know, that brings up something that has pissed me off for decades. If you have a system that would be useful on a lot of different vehicles then why not order a standard package that can be retrofited to 80 percent of those vehicles. It would drive the cost way down and make your warfighters much more effective. Just make sure you offer bidding to everyone that can produce it, in this case Dell or HP and not Lockheed. You want it produced not delayed.

[@cakapcakep241]

@@davidpalmer4184 The chinese can supply the computer chips and the sensor module. They have the tech and pretty much monopolize the global REM(rare earth metal) trade which is needed to build the chips and sensor module.

[@justrandomguy5010]

Russia is too poor for that, they use old binocular sight

[@theangrychicken5026]

Very well done for not involving politics in to it, dont know about other people but i come to this channel to watch reviews on military vehicles and not to hear or read about another flaming hatred to either side.

[@majungasaurusaaaa]

Unfortunately, you can always count on the comment section to provide the flames. After all, on going death and destruction has a way of making already nasty internet interactions even nastier.

[@Revivethefallen]

A Dalak with a 30mm grenade launcher. Fantastic Matt!

[@ProfessorPottsy]

Just noticed that I was unsubscribed for some reason so I resubscribed. I’m 110% certain I had subscribed to this channel already in the past after watching a similar video of yours just like this. This isn’t the only time I’ve noticed this happen to me either, and I’ve had control of this account since I made it.

[@venomgeekmedia9886]

In terms of judging its effectiveness it depends weather you measure it on the basis of "how much infantry did you kill" vs "how many Javelin teams decided not to risk poking their head up"

[@TheTryingDutchman]

They should replace 15-20% of their mbt's with these Terminators on a battlegroup level. Definitely a force multiplier against enemy infantry formations, who are (as we know) one of the biggest threats.

[@thesaddestdude3575]

Well, they would be effective in the battles that they are currently fighting where its mostly tanks vs infantry, however swapping 20% would probably cause some trouble. We have to remember there is an even newer version of this the T14 variant which is probably gonna be what they are aiming for. But without APS nothing will survive long nowdays.

[@4dbullshitpatroll6]

Could drop new terminator turrets in mbts. Plug and play

[@JekaZMD]

The'll need to replace destroyed mbts anyway might go for some variety.

[@xAlexTobiasxB]

That wouldn't change anything. It can not see what other standard tnaks can't see either (all modern tanks have a thermal optic today). It doesn't have any special kind of super-vision that other tanks don't have either. Although the commanders' own indepdenet sight is indeed an improvement for most Russian tnaks, which don't even have that. But it's still difficult spotting enemy infantry hiding in bushes and buildings, let alone identifying to which side they belonging... And since it doesn't have any APS it is still just as vulnerable to missile attack as any other Russian tanks. So we will probably see the first destroyed Terminators very soon.

[@Zach_Bloomquist]

Its been a while Matt. This thing is super cool. I want one.

[@merryprankster2367]

Don't forget that the T-90 is basically a T-72 with T-80U fire control system. The vehicle was even originally named the T-72BU until the Grozny 'Charlie Foxtrot" led the Russians to rename the vehicle as the T-72 got a bad reputation in Desert Storm, Chechnya, and Iraqi Freedom so the "New" T-90 was born!

[@cnlbenmc]

I still like the M1AGDS concept better; as its both a ATGM carrier and mobile SAM with the same ADATS Missile and all of its sensitive sensor components can be stored under armor.

[@swaghauler8334]

Canada was the only one to adopt ADATS, right?

[@aidan11162]

@@swaghauler8334 yep. When it was developed and ready to enter service the cold was ending so there wasn’t any need for it

[@jarink1]

Totally different mission.

[@danysainz-gootenberg7809]

Adats has basically no armor

[@hadesdogs4366]

Whilst I honestly don’t mind the thing it is a nice bit of kit where if say someone’s on top of a building shooting down at you, it’s nice to be sure that A the target is dead And B that you’re safe behind some thick armor, granted it lacks many atgm systems like the trophy and other forms of hard defenses which are ideal at dealing with anti tank missiles

[@highcapa6847]

Probably in the future soft kill aps is going to be installed.

[@faeezf]

The terminator 2 motto is “I’ll be back”

[@MrSibercat]

That was refreshing, a video with out politics.

[@mirandela777]

Some things you didn't mention: 1 - The Terminator can load thermobaric missiles instead of AT ones - such things are deadly against infantry and very effective against soft skin armor. 2 - looking at footage from urban fights in Donbass, where you have several snipers in high buildings backed by teams of ATGM teams, I think this vehicle has a very good place in modern warfare in urban conditions ; The russians struggled with Ukr teams who pin down infantry with sniper fire ( they place themselves in civilian buildings ...) and they use intensely ATGMs to pop any BMP who try to counter the sniper fire. This machine can perform much better in such conditions, so the tanks can be left free to fight the heavy armor without the risk of "eating" a missile on flank. I will not like to be in the shoes of a ATGM team if such beast target me... Invulnerable at small arms fire, the Terminator can saturate a determinate sector with mortar / auto-cannon fire, and simply grind down hidden teams of ATGM.s in buildings. And a thermobaric missile can "clean" a whole floor of enemies from distance.

[@salamjorani2666]

هذة الدبابة تحولت إلى مدرعة مشاغلة مشاة واشتباك خفيفة لكنها ضعيفة جداً

[@mytech6779]

Near the same vulnerability to ATGM as any tank.

[@ArchOfficial]

What's the problem with placing troops in civilian buildings with no civilians in them when being attacked in your own country? The Russians shell every kind of building anyway, so I don't see why being in a military bunker vs being in an apartment is any different tactically, apart from making sure to evacuate any civilians which was done 2 months ago from Sievierodonetsk where most of those videos come from.

[@ArchOfficial]

@Indigo Rodent Russian positions in civilian buildings that were evacuated months ago, so no problem here either in terms of ROE. It was a little bit of a problem early in the war when Russia was using civilian structures as positions and pooling people into the basement so that it's not a "legitimate target" and Ukrainian artillery could only strike in the yards. Ironically while crying about "azov using human shields".

[@mirandela777]

@@mytech6779 - you are badly wrong, is a lot harder to struck than a tank: much better visibility, a lot more weapons, and - just a detail : did you ever saw that huge cloud of dust and smoke the tank gun barrel made after a shot - and how the crew is practically "blind" after a shot ? Also, are you aware a tank cannot target / see targets in high vertical angles ?

[@avnrulz8587]

"It's what it does, it's all it does!"

[@swaghauler8334]

"And it absolutely WILL NOT STOP... EVER, until you are DEAD!" Great movie!

[@barriewright2857]

Thank you.

[@robandcheryls]

Great video brother. 🇨🇦

[@mikejo8194]

Designers: how much fire power should we give this tank BMPT: *Yes*

[@smokeshow7691]

one thing id like to add is that the grenade launchers can be used as make shift motars.

[@pistolsniper6281]

No shit

[@rkadi6540]

Can it shoot smoke round? That would be useful too

[@johnparrish9215]

Thanks!

[@johnparrish9215]

The next beer is on me, Cheers.

[@gregs7562]

Nice. Brimstone's just gonna love saying hello to you 😉

[@userjlj]

if this is added in WT with the 5 crew, twin 30mm autocannons., ATGM's and GL's.. it's gonna be sick!!!

[@Archer89201]

Ukrainian soldiers have rated the auto cannon equipped BTR-82s and BMP-2s as their greatest nemesis in urban warfare, they seem to have little trouble with tanks. So BMPT with double the firepower and better armor compared to BTR/BMP might be what the Russians need now.

[@eduwino151]

minus adequate infantry in a battlefield full of antitank missiles like Ukraine those are just missile magnets everyone will prioritze taking you out

[@UnknownUser-pf9rk]

Did you mean "what the Russians need TO DONATE now"?

[@stolek6908]

@@UnknownUser-pf9rk Nowdays mostly NATO donate both sides , so yeaa

[@User-dc6sm]

A bmp in a urban fight is frightening, it's bullets can pierce houses and it can always see you when you can't see it

[@disposabull]

There was an interviewed I watched with a US special forces saying he much preferred having a 7.62mm minigun in an urban environment to a larger calibre gun on a vehicle. His reasoning was you can carry a lot more ammo, you can move the turret more quickly and elevate the gun to a higher angle so when you come under fire from "that building over there" you can quickly dump a huge volume of rounds at it knowing that a lot of the rounds are going through the windows and ricocheting off the concrete walls. The inside of the building turns into a blender of bullet and concrete fragments.

[@WellWisdom.]

Thanks.

[@BAGALUTT]

awsome video, would appreciate a better mic quality tho. keep it up!

[@tn_bluestem]

This would be a devastatingly effective system if used with adequate logistical support and proper tactics. Fortunately for the free world, it has neither going for it at present.

[@johnm7267]

Are you an expert? The free world? Are you talking about America, where 50 million people are without healthcare, where 60 % of the people have no money in spite of working, where thousands are living on the streets, where there have been 240 mass shootings this year, with the highest drug problem in the world, with a brutal corrupt police force and judiciary, with both political parties corrupt, I could go on. Oh you have free speech, but be careful what you say as a lot of people have died at the hands of America for saying what America doesn’t like.

[@tn_bluestem]

@@johnm7267 ok

[@xAlexTobiasxB]

It would be effective if it had some APS to protect against missile attack. Without it's just as vulnerable as any other Russian tank so we will see the first destroyed "Terminators" very soon.

[@NKVD_Enjoyer]

@@tn_bluestem mad ukra is not free

[@CobraRedstone]

"free world"? what decade are you living in?

[@kellscorner1130]

The new weak point on combat vehicles is quickly becoming the fancy optics. I can see a return to anti tank rifles for the purpose of destroying those optics to “blind” the main guns or anti missile systems before a second strike by said missiles.

[@ralpjosephjavelosa7451]

That if they can accurately shot at it

[@captaindak5119]

@@ralpjosephjavelosa7451 ...before the tank spots and shoots them

[@angryscotsman93]

I don't think that those optics are really all that durable, you could probably knock them out with some accurate bursts from a GPMG. Yet another reason why infantry support for tanks is so important.

[@rajaydon1893]

that's assuming the thermals don't see you first

[@BoleDaPole]

Couldn't you just shoot some sort of acid grenade or paint grenade to mess up the optics?

[@mt1885]

Awesome tank - sure they will build more.

[@jonathanwebb8307]

Why is it awsome, it has no defence against ATGMs or artillery and will be destroyed just as quickly as any MBT.

[@gabbot141]

@@jonathanwebb8307 An Abrams or Leopard could also be destroyed by ATGMs or Artillery and they are still cool, so I don't see your point

[@danmorgan3685]

The Syrian Army developed tactics for using armor in an urban environment. A pair of tanks would would move forward with a BMP following. The 30mm gun and coax MG on the BMP could be elevated higher than the tank's gun and could hit higher up a building. With the BMP providing cover the T-72s could blast the lower levels with the 125mm guns. I think the Russians learned from this and built a dedicated vehicle that could fill the same role as those BMPs but do it a lot better.

[@stevemiller7433]

Excellent for Destroying school buses, Hospitals, Kindergartens, Running civilians and Soccer Mom's minivans.

[@tgsgardenmaintenance4627]

Just like every other combat vehicle in history, it will depend on it's employment that it's effectiveness will be judged! Still wouldn't want to be on the wrong end of it though!

[@EdyAlbertoMSGT3]

Based.

[@andypaine7489]

I LIKE IT!

[@SagaraUrz]

Every 3 seconds of this tank firing equals the price of buying a T-72

[@mecadragoon]

looks dope

[@bodstrup]

Well .. A Stugna-p - with the launcher just above line of sight - and the (thermal detectable) crew behind cover - will unlikely be detected and reduce the vehicle to a wreck. Spray and pray looks impressive, but a distraction from a bit of fireworks in a forrest edge will possibly make it expend its ammunition to no avail. Technology is currently on the side of the well hidden defender.

[@grandayatollah5655]

Stugna can't penetrate most of BMPT

[@Yung_pindakaas]

@@grandayatollah5655 stugna P can most definitely go through a T72 hull even with k5 on top. This is a modern tandem ATGM which deals with most hard targets fairly easily. We've seen these wreck T72B3s and T80BVMs which means they can also wreck a BMPT

[@davidty2006]

@@grandayatollah5655 Hmmm i really doubt armour as a concept now. Even then the ATGM can just hit the turret or track that are both unarmoured and will disable the vehicle.

[@grandayatollah5655]

@@davidty2006 tracks have Relikt + 4S24 sideskirt

[@grandayatollah5655]

@@Yung_pindakaas BMPT doesn't have Kontakt-5, it has Relikt (which alone can stop tandem shaped warheads)

[@mackjsm7105]

it does look badass

[@inso80]

Probably its best property.

[@2000ds650]

What an awesome display of firepower. They should add some loitering munitions to the list to make it even better.

[@pillscottvt6628]

Lots of explosive in a small box,, soon?

[@karasz236]

Like the "female" tank concept in WW1. "Male" tank has the large main gun as we all know and the "female" tank has no main gun with machineguns to engage infantry instead. 🤔

[@rkadi6540]

Back to square one i guess?

[@hippoace]

well this will be very useful and OP in the BF game. 50cal does good dmg but not enough splash. a tank cannon does alot of splash but low rof you have to place your shot for the best effect. 20-30mm autocannon is the happy medium, you get decent splash dmg and good rof, great for suppressing infantry and everything smaller than a MBT.

[@YoRHaUnit2Babe]

it looks very cool to me

[@keegan773]

So what happens when Terminator meets Javelin, NLAW and the rest of the similar weapons. I think it will meet the same fate 💀

[@msvergara]

Does it work against tractors 🚜 ?

[@davidty2006]

Tractor always wins.

[@johnsteiner3417]

The grenade launchers are not coaxial with the 30mm guns. They're on their own left and right mounts on the chassis. It's the 7.62 mm machine gun that's atop and between the two 30 mm guns.

[@jasonkeating9958]

The upcoming 57mm flak model would be in the pack as well if it was fielded also being involved in ground attack in a secondary support role

[@imrekalman9044]

2S38?

[@TerryTurner]

Hide John Connor!😁😂🤣

[@acemax1124]

When there's a javelin coming after a armored vehicle it's open season 🚀 protection I don't think so 💥

[@MS-wz9jm]

Javelin has shown to be a bit overated in the current conflict. When it works its good, but it doesnt always work. Even western users of the system have complained about not being able to get a lock on tanks. Lots of complaints about it failing and also not being practical due to being way too heavy and bulky for a portable system. The best weapon AT Ukraine has so far in the conflict is Stugna-P.

[@davidty2006]

@@MS-wz9jm Hmmm Stugna P is just set it up and go hide behined a hill or something. Since its remote operated thus not risking the gunner. Making it ideal for ambushes.

[@MS-wz9jm]

@@davidty2006 Yep. In terms of man portable weapons the Panzerfaust 3 and AT-4 have worked well. No failures and not too heavy or bulky to carry around.

[@crow7505]

It's an interesting vehicle and concept. One thing is for sure it would be pretty fucking scary trying to get close enough to one to kill it with LAT it's definitely a suppression weapon and a demoralizing one at that.

[@garynew9637]

What's not to like, it shoots, it's scores.

[@garner2267]

It's like something out of Warhammer 40k haha

[@sylvainvanduyl6143]

BMPT-72? Serious... It is the BMPT-2 what the Russians use. The BMPT-72 is a export conversion kit for countries who like to 'BMPT' their T-72's. So, there there is no place for the two 30mm Grenade Launchers left and right of the driver... Realy bad research here... Just like Red Effect did a year ago... So... So not confuse the BMPT-2 with the BMPT-72. They are different.

[@EdyAlbertoMSGT3]

If i have to choose between beliving some random commenter, or Matsimus AND RedEffect, i think my choice is obvious. What is next, you belive that the Armata's engine is the same as in the Tiger P, or that the modern T-72's engine comes directly from WW2?

[@bobhudson2799]

Thx for not going political.

[@swordsman1137]

You should cover Algeria T-62 "Terminator". Its T-62 hull with BMP-2 Berezhok turrer. So its kinda cheaper BMPT.

[@jedslather]

It has proven to be pretty effective in the war.

[@disposablehero4911]

A T72 chasis with a 5 man crew. 🧐🤔 Matt: Radar guided Air Defense system. Me: So the Shilka 2. 👍

[@flitsertheo]

The T-72 is built for a 3 man crew + the autoloader. The Terminator has no autoloader though has an unmanned turret if I'm not mistaken. It's going to be cramped in there for 5 people.

[@jaymo2024]

Think about all it’s 5 different weapons shooting at the same time by 5 different people picking different targets simultaneously

[@AO-ow6tt]

The only thing probably missing for this AFV is a Close-in Weapon System against incoming missiles.

[@prfwrx2497]

What I find sus is that 1: there's only 9 of these pieces ready to rock and roll, and 2: the inexplicable propensity for Russian forces commanders to deploy AFVs as if they're invincible fighting vehicles... To predictable and tragic result for the crew.

[@awesom6588]

btr82's are readily available and can be called upon at a moments notice, terminators are kind of rare and would require a special request in advance to deploy. the biggest problem with the terminator is their lack of ubiquity, if they had hundreds of these they would make a huge impact on the battlefield, as of now they are only deployed to really hotzones at special request. for any weapon to make an impact it has to be readily available. its not a wunderwaffe, but it is great.

[@ReDFootY]

To be able to judge this vehicle we need info on the optics or atleast video of which degree of situational awareness you have inside. The field of view of the optics looks very limited and can it look up?

[@uroskostic8570]

In movies terminator, not only humanoid terminators are present, but also tracked terminators , flying, and motorcycle terminators. This could also go under that category. Only difference is, in movies terminators are being controlled by AI.

[@4dbullshitpatroll6]

8:10 Can detect when it's being lased and return fire. Potent.