What Happened to Russia's BMP-Terminator in Ukraine?

[@Taskandpurpose]

Play Enlisted for FREE on PC, Xbox Series X|S and PS5: playen.link/taskandpurpose Follow the link to download the game and get your exclusive bonus now. See you in battle!

[@ansonellis443]

Do a video on georgia lazika

[@Uncle_Smallett]

Hrrm, i dont know for now, what you tell in video, but Terminator is BMPT, which is completely other class than BMP. Boevaya Mashina Pehoty is Battle Vehicle of Infantry, if directly translate words and keep their order. Boyevaya Mashina Podderzhki Tankov is Battle Vehicle for Support Tanks. So, BMPT "Terminator", not BMP-T, and definitely not BMP Terminator. Its role to support tanks in assault with ATGMs and autocannons, providing AA and antiinfantry defense by heavy armored vehicle. How it used actually... knowing RF army - as all some chief officer want to use it, regardless can BMPT do it or not.

[@themichaelangelou9785]

Correction: Timestamp: 4:13 - Bizzare needs to be correct to Bizarre. Retired Army Medic turned undiscovered writer here, I saw Task & Purpose is looking for freelance writers, are you guys looking for writers or credentials? Asking for a battle-buddy...

[@jumpingoutofairplanesmentality]

Someone needs to make a robot only phalanx on treds with flexible missile tech, I imagine not having a crew would increase ammo a lot, 10 to 20 missiles per, you can fit that many NLAWS and or stingers 1000 plus anti air and ground rounds, though wheeled is prolly better, it's like a grounded A10, imagine that, feeling the brrrrt vibrare through your vehicle after the rounds, that's brutal

[@werewolverine4906]

What, Russia should've utilized with the Terminator a armored vehicle; that, has 12.7mm machine guns, possibly there version of a minigun to counter the artillery.

[@ivanstepanovic1327]

In Afghanistan, the Soviets started using ZSU-23/4 to protect its convoys in mountainous regions. Now, ZSU is an anti-aircraft gun, but it also means it can elevate its guns very high and hit targets other vehicles couldn't. And it does have 4x23mm guns, so the volume of fire is outstanding. However, it was not well armored (had only a steel plate, 10mm thick). Thus the idea for a vehicle like this... Auto cannons with high elevation, but also some armor... Now, they have too few of them and since those vehicles aren't your standard kind of vehicles, there is a massive confusion about how to use them. Seems like they are learning the hard way... Again...

[@Zack_Wester]

@@Argosh offerd to leard the hard way and forgeting the lesson the day after. I mean by the sound of it the Terminator is the 3rd time they found themself whit a leason learned and starting to work on a solution that then never goes anywhere.

[@ergomedasa1362]

@@Zack_Wester At this point they would probably be better off just slapping some steelplates on to some of the tunguskas that is if they have any left.

[@vos2693]

@@Argosh nah, Russians certainly have done their homework. Best way to win any war in Russia is to leave Russia, because whatever happens - it will get only worse in Russia. And just look at the borders today, the queues here are full of brilliant military strategists.

[@iDEATH]

It might be an odd choice, but I've always thought that if I could personally own any one armoured vehicle ever made it'd a ZSU-23/4 Shilka. I just think they look so cool, and when those four cannons let loose...makes me giggle like an idiot every time I've seen video of it. Plus, they were my nemesis back in the days of "Gunship" video game franchise.

[@Atrahasis7]

@@iDEATH Me too but a Gepard instead, because its scary accurate and can pump tremendous amount of lead.

[@bobobo2224]

The Terminator is NOT comparable to 2 anti tank soldiers, let alone 2 bmp's and a rifle platoon. The reason infantry are dangerous are that they can attack from many different positions at the same time. A Terminator is like Rambo standing alone. A Terminator is like a rifle platoon standing together in one spot. It gives enemy a single large target rather than many small ones.

[@rumo893]

I could see massing them in small urban areas as useful, if they even ever were enough. Clearing street after street with infantry support. 10 would not be enough, maybe for a single street.

[@obsidianjane4413]

@Awesome August Gaming Good thing for Ukraine they didn't.

[@iDEATH]

I have that same criticism. No matter how much firepower you put on one vehicle it's still *one* vehicle and thus can only be in one place at a time. Two BMPs and an infantry platoon is so much more flexible. The only advantage the Terminator has is it's less manpower reliant, but is that really an issue for Russia?

[@skepticalmagos_101]

@@iDEATH Yup...thats why they are drafting taxi drivers to teachers, giving them a gun and shipping them to the frontlines with a week of training.

[@seanj4119]

@@iDEATH Yes it is. Decades of alternating between economic stagnation and societal collapse cratered their birth rates and they're now running out of people, especially draftable young men.

[@victorious9578]

I watched the interview of the chief constructor of the BMPT. In short, what he said can be summed up as: "We took the specifications of the Ministry of Defence and made the exact opposite." The Army requested a highly protected vehicle that can support tanks during the attack and in urban warfare, but the engineers thought it would be better to give it "a long hand and a sharp sight", because Heinz Guderian wrote that a tank should engage the attacking enemy from an ambush (true for the Wehrmacht in 1944 but irrelevant for what the Russian Army actually wanted). So they installed for instance the 2A42 30-mm cannons instead of the lighter and more modern 2A72 version, because the 2A42 is more accurate and can thus fire at longer ranges. Then they added the Ataka-ATGMs which were completely unprotected because the vehicle was not intended for use in combat at close range, and also some very cool but expensive sights for this stuff. Early versions came with the 40-mm AGS-17 grenade launchers but they were removed, because the engineers decided that the vehicle should operate at long ranges. As the chief constructor puts it himself: "They wanted a sledgehammer - we built them a microscope." And he was really proud saying it. Except for the part that the military clearly ordered a heavy armored sledgehammer, not some high tech long range sniper wunderwaffe. Maybe that is why this vehicle which was first shown in 2000 has not been accepted into the Army for so long and is in service only in very small numbers now. Not only they don't have the tactics to use it - it's not what they wanted in the first place!

[@vladcraioveanu233]

Oh, all these modifications I thought it would make it a better FSCV! Thank you for this highly informed comment!

[@theonewhoknocks9928]

Russian engineers smh 🤦‍♂️

[@Eliastion]

"They wanted a sledgehammer - we built them a microscope." Damn, I'd be REALLY pissed if I ordered a sledgehammer and got a microscope instead. Might be hard to, idk, drive railroad spikes with a goddamned microscope...

[@trololoev]

it has AGS-17 actually, your comments are wrong.

[@romankovalev7894]

As I understand it, you are looking for something bad and what can you get to? Is it bad that the car is armored or is it accurate? As for the quantity, they make enough of them and the factories work around the clock. It's just that Russia does not have the same military budget as the United States, but 15 times less. We have upgraded nuclear missiles, researched and produced hypersonics, new frigates, nuclear submarines, and a bunch of other things. On one's own. As for experience, we have experience with such systems. Tunguska was used not only for aircraft. Shilka performed well in Afghanistan. And the Terminator has Ags. Regarding the fact that the engineers did not do what they asked 🤦🏻‍♂️ how do you even imagine it? 🤡 This is nonsense. There is a technical task - everything is indicated there.

[@Reaperman4711]

I will say that they've made a fairly threatening looking vehicle there. The rockets give it a bit of a Robocop ED-209 vibe.

[@John-mf6ky]

Doesn't mean much when a javelin sends it to the scrapyard lol.

[@Reticulosis]

Yea… but they still got blowed up good 😂. russia propaganda 7/10 actual product-7/10

[@andyduhamel1925]

Another Russian wet dream!!!

[@testnametestsurname1032]

@@Reticulosis Vehicles like Terminator or Т-64-55 exist ONLY because glorious Soviet engineering did not manage to fit their original huge, round and unbalanced turrets to relatively small tank bases. An actual use revealed poor precision, hence lighter calibers needed to be retrofitted.

[@johnathanmcdoe]

Thought the same. Put some chrome on it and you've got something straight from a late 80s - early 90s action movie.

[@alaingabriel1710]

Take a look at the Canadian Skink from 1943. It was originally designed as an anti-aircraft armored vehicle (20 mm quad mount in an armored speedy turret) but the Luftwaffe became much less of a menace in the last year of the war so the Skink was obsolete before it was put into mass production. But they sent the three prototypes to Europe anyway and they found out that the Skink was great for very quickly "cleaning" German infantry positions entrenched in villages and towns. There's a great article on it in Wikipedia.

[@Axterix13]

The US had something similar, with its M16, a quad 50 cal halftrack, that was meant for AA... And like the Skink, M16s were used to good effect against German infantry. A unit of them was part of the defense of Bastogne during the Battle of the Bulge, for example.

[@watchthe1369]

Like the quad 50 was repurposed.

[@johannjohann6523]

It seems quite often anti aircraft guns modify well and are terribly destructive against soldiers, and an army. The Tiger tank is another good example. Though what really surprised me, was that Canada had made an effective piece of military eqpt at all in WW II. lol

[@cavalryscout]

@@Axterix13 The French at Dien Bien Phu used the trailer mounted version of the quad fifty called the M-45 with great effect against the Viet Minh and also in the indirect fire mode as well. Impressive beaten zones were observed when they were used.

[@FreeFallingAir]

Thanks I will

[@grim6980]

There were two recent videos of terminators one comming in and supporting infantry positions and another of it assaulting a part of a city. The firepower they can laydown is impressive.

[@williamyoung9401]

What happens when it jams?

[@Legend-lc9bv]

@@williamyoung9401 it has 2 30mm cannon if one jam the other is working lol

[@braincell4536]

they look more like IFVs than tank support really. And again uring the beginning of their use is shit as well. The terminator was for urban combat but we see them deployed in open fields waddafak

[@axiondarion4899]

@@Legend-lc9bv and 2 30mm grenade launchers and strela atgms. And they are still operative in Ukraine.

[@zeroxerper6785]

@@axiondarion4899 Instead of the strella (it shoots in the air) - ATGM 9M120-1 of the "Ataka" type (UR 9M120-1F, 9M120-1F-1) with a laser guidance system (four UR per turret launcher)

[@dmitriik.1524]

Omg, I think it’s the first time Chris pronounced a name of a Ukrainian city correctly! 😂

[@Taskandpurpose]

It took me literal hours of recording then re recording to get it right

[@JoshuaC923]

@@Taskandpurpose good work Chris 👍🏻👍🏻

[@CptSpears007]

Even a broken clock is right twice a day

[@toolbaggers]

@@CptSpears007 88:88 😐

[@ІванКоваль-й5ж]

@@CptSpears007 disagree. Pronunciation was really CLOSE, so, we should respect his efforts.

[@artnull13]

“The whole Genisys of the terminator program” - I see what you did there Cappy 😂

[@ChaosBarnaby]

Genesis

[@DoomStarRequiem]

@@ChaosBarnaby he was referring to the movie terminator genesys.

[@juliuscaesar5001]

As we speak the Russians are using it in luhansk region making good advances ,and the terminator showed good capability in Forrest area's, I saw many videos of it in action

[@maksimfedoryak]

I saw one wide with terminator in forest area too, but it was last ride in his life🌝

[@Зеленский-о3р]

​@@maksimfedoryak hohol, go nahui)

[@acidrain5614]

@@maksimfedoryak Pizdish je, hohlyandia

[@mathewhrestak2215]

Yes there's also footage showing its effectiveness.. but what do you expect from a channel completely biased towards the USA do you honest beleive he was going to say anything positive LOL his going to follow the narrative that Russia and their equipment is rubbish and Ukrainians are superheroes any western weaponry are superior regardless of what we are actually seeing

[@juliuscaesar5001]

@@maksimfedoryak well it is a terminator, but no one said it can't be terminated 😁

[@bloodgulchpatrick]

It's not BMP "Terminator", it's BMPT "Terminator". BMP stands for "Combat Vehicle for Infantry" (Infantry Fighting Vehicle), while BMPT stands for "Combat Vehice for Supporting Tanks", so T in the name is for Tanks, not "Terminator", which is a nickname.

[@fiftycal1]

In one famous incident in The Russian Invasion of Afghanistan - a heavily armed and armored Hind Helicopter was brought down by rock throwing Mujahideen. Unable to climb to the level where The Freedom Fighters were - they were brought down by main rotor damage.

[@true_xander]

All these western propagandists just don't care.

[@true_xander]

@@fiftycal1 lol there was no such things as 'Russian invasion to Afghanistan', learn the history please. USSR was called by legitimate Afghani government to help with western-financed invasion of rebels.

[@TheSchultinator]

​@@true_xander Was that before, or after the Soviets killed the leader of Afghanistan and installed their own puppet?

[@fictionindianspaceprogram-222]

​@@fiftycal1source?

[@donovanburkhard]

It would probably kick ass with an American doctrine of fighting and tactics. I’ve seen so many videos of Russian armor brigades not looking like a team at all.

[@nigaballs9603]

I'd say that's what would happen with most of Russian and Soviet systems. It's not that they are bad, but it's their users and the tactics and strategies that they use (human waves 💀). The terminator would be an insanely effective urban combat vehicle in the the hands of a competent military.

[@aquadox5514]

@@nigaballs9603 Doesn't stop half the comments here talking shit about it. (not pro RU but dammit can we look at machines without political bias)

[@igor_pavlovich]

Probably against another 1st world military, but not against some 3rd world barbarians with Aks and RPGs, just like everything else american.

[@nigaballs9603]

@@igor_pavlovich 1st world militaries like that of the US use force to spread their satanic and pedophilic secular liberal ideology. I know for a fact that every sandal warrior who kills American filth makes the world a better place kys.

[@Nixeen]

It seems like the US version would basically be the body of an M1 Abrams, with a Bradley turret, including its anti-tank missiles.

[@josephfranzen9196]

+100 points for the Mammoth tank reference

[@pertinaxt]

No man, you are not the only man who remember Mammoth tanks :D keep it coming, we love your stuff in Slovakia, do some video for Slovakia as you did for Latvia, Lithuania and Scandinavians pls :)

[@bruddaozzo]

I was a NOD player. All because of the obelisk of light. Cant remember too much about their units, but i just loved the obelisks. Our family had 2 pcs so i got fond memories of lanning with my brothers. 90's really were the pinnacle of rts

[@gradycdenton]

Alexa, play "Hellmarch"

[@jameswright2974]

Russia shafted the German army you pompous condescending usa puppet happy to send your children to die for 79 yrs on propaganda lies so they can steal other countries wealth and assassinate Their leaders a habit usa has against their own leaders 4 men slaughtered 3thousand yanks poisoned 10 thousand usa to busy playing stupid games in other countries

[@BlackEpyon]

I prefer the Apocalypse tank from RA2 myself.

[@anonymuz796]

ZSU-57-2 and experimenlal Koalitsia-SV are also looks like Mammoth tank.

[@isamu237]

Very informative. I always thought "gun elevation and depression" was a measure of how happy or sad you were based on how many modular muskets you own.

[@robertokandal]

look russians gave up they are going away one day later: wait waht that in our back?? Its a fuking russian army and theya re coming in range.. lets run away history happens too much time , only an imbecile dont understand

[@CBETdobra]

Strong superBMP

[@cjaydustie1867]

Yeah, I thought I was depressed enough that it wouldn’t matter if I played Russia in WT. but now I understand that I don’t have enough depression

[@Waldemarvonanhalt]

IMO this is a pretty neat-sounding concept if they could manufacture IFVs to have these kinds of turrets. I remember reading that the Russians resorted to using Shilkas (armoured AA) during the battles in Grozny, due to their ability to elevate their guns to very steep angles.

[@braveheart4603]

That one that could aim in 5 different directions looked badass. Totally insane but these things certainly look the part lol.

[@trololoev]

ifv has similar guns long ago.

[@zx169]

A wheel based vehicle would not be able to handle its kickback.. It would be all over the place. This is what tankers say, not my opinion.

[@tj006smith6]

"Sergey, Remember how we have issues coordinating movement, maneuvering and support between our poorly trained armored and infantry units? Yes Igor, should we just correct our doctrine to suit the training levels and capabilities of our units and adhere to proven principles? No Sergy, We need to adopt an over complicated vehicle we don't have doctrine, training, or support for and use that to make up for our shortcomings. My Uncle is a board member at Uralvagonzavod so we will be guaranteed a job when we release. SOLD!!!

[@obsidianjane4413]

That is probably very much how it went. Might not have even had the rationalization phase. Could have just been "ooooo shiney!" and give me many rubles.

[@Brainwashed101]

Basically how I pictured it going, too. It's astonishingly how they went to all the trouble of making a cool new toy without carefully training and pressure-testing how to use it. But then again, given the Russian army's performance in Ukraine, it seems like most of their "training" is pointless pro forma stuff that doesn't work, so...

[@keinfern3979]

The 'My uncle work at X' meme always make me laugh.😂 Also hope that the snail will not at some of these things into the game.

[@nhatpham2206]

keep dreaming Western bot while most Ukrainian soldier don't know any English words so NATO soldiers have to teach them in sign language

[@adamhall5298]

@@nhatpham2206 cope and seethe

[@joeguy5989]

From what you mentioned, about the rate of fire, this vehicle would use up all of it's rounds very quickly.

[@mainepants]

Nah mate. Ukrainian drones will take them out long before they run out of ammo!

[@bleekskaduwee6762]

Did he say it held 800 rds for each auto cannon or just 800 rds total ?

[@joeguy5989]

@@bleekskaduwee6762 I just remember that even 1000 rounds of say 20mm rounds get used up by say (as example) a cobra helicopter really fast due to the rate of fire, so I imagined the same for this setup. Perhaps they have a support vehicle close by to reload more ammo for it.

[@NMMojavePoet]

Anything with the words Auto Cannon attached to it, uses up ammo like water pouring out of a garden hose. You need fright train levels of ammunition to support them. Logistics is absolutely the key, and having trained maintenance personnel.

[@joeguy5989]

@@NMMojavePoet Oh yeah, any ordnance man/woman would agree.

[@gtfawaynotnow]

I’ve seen a few vids of the terminators in kremenaya. Their role from what I could discern is sort of a level 2 support for destroying dug in troop fortifications. Based off what I seen they can in theory engage 3 targets at once but so far the max I have witnessed is 2. Aka the main cannons were ripping at one target while one of the grenadiers was suppressing a fox hole. I haven’t seen it in urban combat yet but it does very well at suppressing the enemy in rural combat. I think once the staff figures out how to best use the thing then it can be a beast. As mentioned earlier it currently seems to be used as a “level 2” support unit now. Meaning if the bmp’s(being what I call level 1 support) have trouble with enemy fortifications they will then ‘call in’ or “summon” a group of 1-2 terminators which also seems to be accompanied by 2-4 MBT’s on average. Afterwards they form a killing box with the MBT’s on the flanks and the terminator in the middle with 1-2 drones overhead doing spotting and surveillance. The terminators then lay in overwhelming firepower generally in a straight line of fire while the MBT’s lay in firepower from an angle. It’s very effective. I’m not sure Chris’s numbers are correct and/or the build strategy may have been changed. Based off the info I seen now that none of the terminators are ‘new’. They instead fit the terminator turret onto existing t-72 hulls as part of a modernization program. Chris’s numbers seem to reflect more of the hull being freshly produced instead of being re-used. I’ve also seen vids of troop feedback stating that the optics are very good on the terminators granting them very good visibility/situational awareness. Lastly, all logical data aside it looks like one sexy death machine tho.

[@Davitofrito]

A Russian saying "summon the terminators", just causes a chill when you imagine being on the receiving end. Hadn't heard about T72 chassis being used but makes sense.

[@anthonyacevedo5869]

@@Davitofrito There are a videoshowing some terminator prototypes using the t14 armata chassis.

[@электронныймирСССР]

@@anthonyacevedo5869 Нет ни одного Терминатора на шасси т 14 !!! шасси у терминатора т 72-т90 !!!

[@giodima4024]

у терминатора стоят прицельный комплекс как у т-90м, и он бронирован как танк. Понятно что бойцы будут его любить)

[@anthonyacevedo5869]

@@giodima4024 Sorry,but i can´t understand russian or any other eastern europea language. I can understand only,english,french,spannish or portugueses.Greetings.

[@anotherone8805]

If you look at the vehicles caught on video in Ukraine, you will notice the dual grenade launchers on each side. This feature was removed from the production version of the vehicle. Or in other words, the ones in Ukraine are prototypes, sent there to do field trials or testing and maybe get some propaganda or export advertisement material. Any effects they'd have on the battlefield will not be released to the public any time soon, or ever. Such results will be used to modify the final design and decide on whether this item is worth producing at all. Their reports make me believe they are doing something similar with the Su57 fighter jets, but those are actual serially produced units and the project is much more important and further along.

[@Tom_Cruise_Missile]

I highly doubt the army reactivating t62s will be building more terminators, much less su57s.

[@Brian-px9gu]

Lol. They only made a dozen or so in total. They like so many other Russian weapon systems are more hype than anything.

[@Tabacish]

Lol, the only goal with this program is yachts...

[@lostbirdsproduction]

Terminator number is 14. A lot of them were blown up by the Ukrainian Army. The best part of them all is .. Ukraine Armed Forces captured 3 of these. This is the reason why the russian military have removed them from the battle ground.

[@dubielahmonarchyenjoyer9107]

@@lostbirdsproduction Source?

[@Flaris]

Honestly I'm glad we covered the important stuff. I was getting worried about these things going after Sarah Connor. The Terminator franchise can only take so much.

[@largol33t1]

Bahahahahahahaaaa! But the problem is James Cameron himself gave the last stinker his blessing so that's on him. It wasn't necessarily a failure as it grossed almost $90 million in pure profits but critics savaged the movie. He should have fired the director and taken over the director's seat instead.

[@Dave5843-d9m]

The director can’t do much without a half-decent script.

[@wescreedle9801]

I appreciate the specific mention of the holodomor.

[@MrReymoclif714]

The great starvation?

[@TRAZ4004]

Chris, you’re a above average military historian.

[@pickleman40]

The bmp t does not actually adress the purpose of infantry support, which is the enhanced awareness. The firepower aspect was never what necessitated the need for infantry support. This vehicle can not conceal itself, it can't scatter, can't spread out, can't fortify etc. Totally flawed concept

[@LexxoID1]

this is a fire support vehicle for fighting in suburbs and quarters with medium buildings, in Mariupol it was very lacking for clearing neighborhoods, BTR-82 operated instead, the terminator is an excellent vehicle for fire support of mobile company tactical groups

[@advancetotabletop5328]

Great to see someone follow-up on these Russian “threats”. IIRC, These tanks were designed by committee, so they got overloaded with features that made them harder to use. Fwiw, The American military has a similar problem, with the infantryman having to carry heavier and heavier loads because higher-ups keep wanting to add more “features” to their kit. Thanks for the video!

[@konstantinriumin2657]

I imagine higher ups playing with infantryman's kit like 13 years old with his creature from Spore.

[@DerDrecksack87]

Oh the Bradley....

[@westphalianstallion4293]

I love it when politic and industry spends a lot of money on technological solution on tactical situations I never want to be in the first place. In the best case scenario. Most of the time. yeah, you get a terminator with a lot of guns but not enough men to use them effectivly. And from an outside perspective, yes the US Military is like every military overblown and your descentraliced and always in election mode political system makes things complicated, but they are doing a lot of things right.

[@ІванКоваль-й5ж]

🤔😒😒😒 Yes, but what else they can do? Abandon soldiers (400 000$ per one) with their problems. Hey, garbages, stop bullets without armour, stop bleeding without CAT, stop enemy's tanks without AT weapons. This is an ORDER.

[@westphalianstallion4293]

@@ІванКоваль-й5ж This is what you got the AT, Medics for. I go for a combined approach. I prepared another phrase for this: I am infantry, I am a maneuver unit, I move and end stuff in close quarter. Everything I cant end with a bayonet isnt my job. But on the other hand ending air or armored targets is like slaying a dragon. And in this situation I want something that is really good at that. If its one system great. Two no problem. As long as the job gets done and the taxpayer gets what he pays for. Thermal, IR, fire and forget at/ aa stuff is great and useful and ofcourse you need a wide set of capabilites to survive in a modern battle space. But technolgies that combine a lot of new capabilities need time to mature. I believe the F35 Block 3 will be a great airplane. And hell yes I am the guy that abandons complaining useless grunts, we are not the legion, I leave you behind and booby trap you. But I am not a uncaring human being, they are more than their equipment and training, added their value as a human beeing, its 400 000,02 $ Just my 2 cents ;)

[@petesheppard1709]

It’s easy to see that this thing would be a very high priority target. To be effective, it would have to be used in numbers, so that the units can support one another.

[@rrolf71]

I'm just an armchair strategist, with an old engineer's interest in the technology. But I saw a video of one of them firing, and one issue became immediately clear. The design has two 30mm autocannons close to each other, and both with muzzle breaks. Every shot produces a lot of gasses directed to the sides... and at the other gun. Both barrels were shaking like mad from this interference. Who needs accuracy when you have mo' daka, right?

[@Дмитрийшик-в3м]

стреляет 1 ствол

[@ElTigre12024]

The Terminator got terminated.

[@jaanikaapa6925]

Jinx. :)

[@isaacwest]

what happened to russia's BMP-Terminator sent to ukraine? they made a couple propaganda videos. drove 'em around in the dirt a little bit and they either broke down or were sent back.

[@theorncampbell4432]

8:45 Most of the infantry that was killed in the big firefirghts of that battle of Grozny were killed in their armoured vehicles, for refusing to dismount. A majority of the soldiers that survived those fights did so just by exiting their vehicles to engage in the fights. It was common for them to take RPG fire from elevated positions, basement windows and moving teams in a 360 crossfire. That must have been hell on Earth, so I can understand how so many were compelled to stay in the vehicles, despite it meaning almost certain death. 😞 reports from both sides put them in Sieverodonetsk, during the battle, acting as medium range muscle to surpress and remove large groupings in buildings.

[@zebimicio5204]

So basically the ones survived used common urban warfare tactics while the ones died are too afraid of getting out in the field? Yeah that sums up how terrible drafting unwilling soldiers would be.

[@theorncampbell4432]

@@zebimicio5204 Local commanders knew that something big was going to happen, just prior to the battles that resulted in the columns being shot up, but their requests for support or new orders were all ignored. There are lots of radio transmissions, from those battles, available online. The troops on the ground had pretty much the same situation. When they were under attack they were calling for support or extraction and were told to figure it out on their own because no support was available. I don't know what their policies were for getting enlistments were back then.

[@n.a.4292]

I think the "Terminators can engage 3 targets at once" claim is easily explained: the turret engages a target while the two hull mounted AGLs engage the other targets independently.

[@largol33t1]

I think it's more likely that it can "lock on" three targets so the weapons know what's next on the "to hit" list.

[@JohnSmith-st5ud]

Ive been playing Enlisted over a year now. It is excellent. Takes forever to rank up but its awesome

[@leppa-fn7ge]

Same, can confirm

[@Bashirbros]

I feel like this could easily double as an anti-aircraft platform. Slap on a radar, include a tracking algorithm... You've got high explosive rounds and lots of ammo. Even add a few AA rockets. Make it an automated unmanned turret capable of tracking an object and setting a timer on the rounds for anti-air, and add an optional manual take over for urban combat focused on fighting infantry

[@MultiNike79]

It is standard function even for regular tanks (against helicopters).

[@ZafrielDante]

Спасибо товарищ! =). Но ПВО в РФ сильное, новых единиц не требуется. А вот техника для подавления пехоты, легких машин, ДРОНОВ, это вот то, куда скорее всего движется развитие терминатора, вы верно рассуждаете. По окончанию операции, скорее всего терминатор получит улучшенную версию во 2 раз. Так же как и "Солнцепек".

[@СергейСергеев-г1е4щ]

Сейчас терминатор чаще всего используют для подавления пехоты и захвата опорных пунктов прикрывая штурмовую пехоту. Пехота очень полюбила терминаторы.

[@Waldemarvonanhalt]

Then you have a Shilka.

[@georgeswanson697]

@@ZafrielDante Саратов moment

[@Longbow-jt8jp]

I think if they were tacked on to brigades of mechanized infantry as support vehicles they may be effective. As part of a tank formation, probably not so much

[@RadGuy8541]

Hey Cappy I love your videos. Your analysis and extremely thorough explanations are a welcome treat for an "Average Marine Infantryman" like me. I have to give you huge thanks and respect for giving a shout out to Command and Conquer Red Alert. I too am a gigantic nerd 🤓 and I am grateful that you gave acknowledgement to this legendary series of RTS games. Thanks for all of your amazing content. Keep up the great work soldier.

[@mvubu6823]

the production quality and depth of information makes me think Cappy is working for the government now.

[@moisesaguila1875]

Is i believe all ukraine says he be won the war,

[@PracticalTacticalFedeli]

Everything about this comment is 🇺🇸 🙌🏽

[@tikityler1386]

Its too bad that the tank he showed is the Mammoth tank from the remastered Original C&C rather than the ones from Red Alert. Red Alert was the first pc game I ever played.

[@dgthe3]

@@tikityler1386 Not the first PC game I played, but definitely the first one I loved. And over the years, I've managed to buy it 5 different times.

[@skullknight2008]

Red Alert 2/Yuri's Revenge is the most under-rated RTS game of all time. Also, good video as always.

[@justbecause3187]

The design still looks to have potential for urban combat and possibly mountainous terrain with those high elevation guns, it's just that like with so many other armored vehicles the situation awareness seems to let it down. If it could approach a battlefield environment while knowing where the threats would likely come from then it could be quite effective.

[@robertagren9360]

A homeless russian paid with a bottle of vodka sitting on a tank with a machine gun can do better. He maybe unable to see where he's firing caused by bad vodka but he be more accurate than two barrels pretending to be one. Tanks only strength is to fire first and is a cannon on wheels. The thermal let it see through woods and buildings, it still has the issue that it's a short range support fire machine gun restricted to being a tank. It should be a moving long range tower able to fire above the other tanks, otherwise it's the tanks supporting the support unit. And that's why a russian with a bottle of vodka sitting on a tank is better since he has a higher position above the tank.

[@daGO_BLUE]

@@robertagren9360 Well said!😊

[@Spaced92]

I think it's kind of an outdated concept, we actually did see many of this type of support weapon vehicle in WWII but they disappeared from modern doctrines for a reason. Whenever the time comes that Ukrainians actually want to enter an urban environment, it's well past time for Russia to retreat, and Russians attacking settlements, they rarely enter them before they are pushed back. They might have been useful in Sievierodonetsk. The problem with their tanks is not actually lack of infantry support which the Terminator mitigates (infantry aren't going to dive in the way of Javelins or Stuka's, the engagement range is huge as well).

[@PalleRasmussen]

@@robertagren9360 accurately describing 80% of all Orks.

[@XxxXxx-fm3wo]

By the time Russians sobber up it will be far too late for them to save their nation a whole.

[@demomanchaos]

A fast moving turret with some 20/30mm guns that can elevate high enough to fire at high elevation targets but was still armored enough to take large caliber rounds. Give it a few TOW missiles for anti-armor defence and a decent engine so it can scamper away from bigger threats if needed. Sounds an awful lot like a Bradley or a Striker but without troop transport capabilities.

[@IwillLose]

Yeah i agree. I kinda feel like its just an IFV which trades its transport capacity for more armour. Im no military expert tho, so im not sure if that armour is really needed or even helps at all.

[@jonacheson]

Seems like it's the armament from two Bradleys, jammed together and mounted on a full size tank chassis. I bet it costs more than two IFVs, though.

[@colbeausabre8842]

Why not add a brass band?

[@richardkudrna7503]

I get the feeling this was rushed and not trialed enough before going to war. Only recently when I read just how good TOW has become now I kind of feel these are essential. I’d love a comparison between the “smart” AT missiles and TOW but already guess these are complimentary.

[@SRFriso94]

Seems like once again, Russia has prioritized 'does it looks good in a parade' over 'is it useful on the battlefield'.

[@whyukraine]

I can tell you we here in Ukraine are really super scared of this new terminator. OMG whatever shall we do? I must loosen my corset lest I faint.

[@igor_pavlovich]

Hey is it ok there with electricity and recents events? Here in US they told us you're basically living under earth without elecrtricity.

[@someone-sl1hm]

Well, during air raid sirens we have to go in the bunkers to hide from Iranian shaheeds and Russian missiles they have left still, and electricity is being shut down from time to time, but other than that everything is somewhat fine

[@whyukraine]

Ya the US media makes it look worse than it is. Mainly Americans don't understand just how BIG Ukraine is . I mean its a war, and its bad in some places, sometimes. Ya, the electricity goes out a couple times a day, but not all day. And most ppl just ignore the sirens, except schools & govt offices. Teachers have alternative lesson plans so they can keep teaching in the basement. Its normal now. And we still have the best, fastest, cheapest Internet in the world.

[@djocharablaikan8601]

Marshall Ukrokhokholskyi is scared of nothing. They will win the war any day now 🤣

[@Salaci]

Why aren't you in the front? Coward

[@ovni2295]

I think the Object 782 might've been the best. The 100mm main gun with a high angle of elevation would make it a good mortar tank/mobile light artillery vehicle, which is a great combination with the support role it was already meant to play.

[@tommytomas-fr3sh]

that is what in BMP-3 weaponry now.

[@aesirgaming1014]

Also, I'd be shocked if these work as intended. They have a lot of firepower, yes. However, in urban combat they are still an enclosed armored vehicle, which means that they lack the situational awareness of dismounted infantry. As a grunt, the human senses gain so much situational awareness that a tanker just can't get in his tank. The sounds, lack of sounds, a human smell, a brief flash of movement, these are things that alert the infantryman/recon specialist to danger in the AO. So yes, this vehicle can put a lot of light/medium fires forward, but it doesn't solve the primary issue of the tank (situational awareness).

[@ocadioan]

Also, very importantly, it is meant to replace a lot of infantry. Meaning that it is meant to replace a lot of independent sets of eyes and ears, where only one of those would need to spot danger to alert the rest. Simply having it be _as good_ as a single infantryman's situational awareness isn't enough. It needs to be better than an entire squad's.

[@nihluxler1890]

On the plus side it has thermals.

[@litrspola-2614]

Вы ничего не знаете о системе помощи ведения боя и защите этой машины. Попробуйте подойдите к нему для нанесения значимого урона. Вот тогда и расскажете нам, как ему не хватает обзора.

[@acegramma7687]

​@@litrspola-2614 You are right 😊. Let these commenters above take various guns and attempt to eliminate this BMPT in real conditions and after that come back here and update their comments with how it felt like to fight with them

[@HeyGoogle-gt8oc]

They use a lot of drones in ukraine

[@Stuff749]

I love Cappys videos they include guns,history, and those are the only thing I need. 😂

[@John-mf6ky]

Go back to Roblox, kiddo 💀🤡

[@cleanerben9636]

>designed specifically for urban or high vertical combat >used in open fields in formation "this thing sucks!"

[@nonpartisangunowner4524]

I’m trying to imagine how much the gun tubes wobble from the muzzle brakes directing the gas at each other, while firing.

[@saamohod]

Russian design

[@Dimetropteryx]

Apparently they're supposed to be fired one at a time. They have two of them primarily to allow for longer sustained fire. One cools while the other one is being used.

[@brianfhunter]

That was my first thought...

[@nonpartisangunowner4524]

@@Dimetropteryx A genuine case of higher firing rate vs. accurate firing. The Russians ought as well have a flat top vehicle with a bunch of conscripts sitting on it who would focus-fire their AKs in the general direction pointed out to them by a Sergeant with a conductor’s wand.

[@stephensipe5405]

I love the equipment analysis of T&P. You are the kind of former soldier needed to write Field Manuals and Equipment Manuals. Any leader during a Company, Battalion, or Brigade can tell you soldiers always ask the “What About” question. Most of your T&P answers these questions. It should be in the Manuals as Notes that clear. As far as an Urban Combat vehicle, here is a lower cost, off the shelf, suggestion. Create an Infantry duel purpose air defenses/urban combat vehicle. Gut a Stryker. Add a crewless turret using a proven “Duster” AA gun. Add a 7.62 Vulcan machine gun on one side and 3 Stinger launcher on the other side. It would have a 3 man crew. It would train as a Brigade/Regiment, but be assigned by Division Command to individual Infantry Units when Urban Assaults are anticipated. At other times it would be an air defense supplemental weapon.

[@LadyAnuB]

You also need light infantry here to be the eyes and ears and to take the toughest defenses down.

[@jackharper5642]

Weight would be a major problem, bcz The Vehicle itself, with Infantry with their full load, Armoured Turret, Large amounts of Ammo, The Armour to protect the Infantry inside, Heavier and Powerful Engine to compensate for the extra weight, and Extra Fuel to well Fuel the Already Overweight Anti Aircraft APC.

[@stephensipe5405]

@@LadyAnuB NATO would call these “Light Infantry” Scout Units at the Battalion level and an Armored Cavalry Squadron/Regiment at Brigade/Division levels. I do not believe the US has any designated Light Infantry Units. For this purpose Special Forces or Airborne Units could be used. If large cities are in an Operations Area, a Unit of Mechanized Infantry, which is 100% of US Infantry, will get special training at an Urban Combat Range. MP Units should be part of this training. When the Unit is actually deployed, MI assets should be attached to isolate HV POWs and extract as much combat information as practical. This information would then go straight to Division or Corp MI Command to be turned into intelligence. The Division and Corp Commanders need to understand current enemy Commander disposition as soon as possible plus any special circumstances.

[@stephensipe5405]

@@jackharper5642 The Stryker weight is 19 tons. The crew is 3. It is NOT an APC in this configuration. The chain gun turret is probably < the AA/Vulcan/Stinger turret plus ammo. If the weight can be < 25 tons, this could still work off the shelf. It too heavy, redesign with only 6 wheels and a slightly shorter body to stay under 25 tons. The logistics support would still be the same for all Stryker components except the turret.

[@SworBeyE16]

It seems more likely that the few Terminators in existence were sent to the front for a short period of time as some sort of combat test/evaluation. It would make sense for them to be withdrawn quickly before one could be destroyed and the images posted all over social media

[@adalwolfhelthon749]

Love the Mammoth tank reference! My all time favorite tank in my favorite Command and Conquer game.

[@Fuzzawakka]

What happened? It went on a special operation to get demilitarized.

[@angrydoggy9170]

I don’t care about it’s usefulness in actual combat. I want one to do my weekly shopping. No more disputes about parking spots.

[@ricardoabh3242]

800 rounds? It would be interesting to have a video about ammunition. I am always surprised by the low volume of ammo in system. I have obviously 0 knowledge :)

[@jake4194]

Think about how much space 800 30mm cannon shells take up! That's a lot for that caliber. By comparison most tanks carry around 40 120mm cannon shells and IFVs carry like 200 30mm shells. The exact caliber varies slightly.

[@calvinmeliala7944]

I think one reason for that is amount of crew. Instead of 3 like other tank, this bmp have 5 crews. So less space for anything else

[@ricardoabh3242]

@@jake4194 unfortunately I have no idea… a video explaining this would be nice… in my head a few thousand should fit lol

[@MrPagandog]

I really dig your video, the grunt (or groan) humour sold me. As an average aviator, I appreciate the common dog approach your content provides.

[@tba113]

"One BMPT will replace 2 BMPs and a motorized rifle platoon." _-Uralvagonzavod Tank Factory press release_ Oh yeah, of course: one machine with a couple autocannons will absolutely be able to do the same spotting, screening, and anti-infantry work that two IFVs - also with autocannons - accompanied by fifty mechanized infantrymen can do. That totally makes sense, and is definitely not some marketing exec's fantasy about what he thinks his potential custsomers want to hear.

[@monkerud2108]

What you need to support tanks in urban emviorments are 1 suppression and 2 the ability to use tanks or artillery to demolish certain positions, and thats pretty much all you need.

[@user-yx3by4we1w]

I don't think the terminator and t14 (both based on the same chassis) will have much of an impact because they are not on the battlefield in large numbers. I don't even know if they have even entered mass production yet

[@AbuBakr-gm6bf]

they are not both based on the same chassis Terminator is based on T72 chassis

[@kdubs9111]

It's breaking Bakhmut's lines

[@KLD2929]

No expert by any means but I'm thinking the Terminator would be more better used as personnel support in urban warfare. It would perform better than a tank and could reach those hard to get targets on high ground. Maybe they need to rethink the use of that vehicle rather than some sort of take support.

[@АнтонШемякин-л8т]

Именно так его и используют. Тактика ведения боевых действий в условиях городской застройки.

[@KLD2929]

@@АнтонШемякин-л8т Well, then obviously the commanders didn't get that message if they are using it as Tank support instead.

[@kalashnikovdevil]

If it's going to be that big and slow, I'd rather have an MBT hurling high explosive rounds backing me up personally.

[@maciejfratczak4136]

when I see your analysis I think the ukrainian BTR4 is a similiar vehicle. The BTR4 has a very clever quick aiming sensor/display supported feature and a good overview of what goes on outside, but it is supposed to defend and lie in wait nad not attack due to its weak armor. The terminator is supposed to be an attack weapon, and thus it can be quickly destroyed by a single soldier. Probably the terminator would be a very good defense weapon if the displays and cameras were good and the aiming is quick, but it is an attack weapon by definition.

[@obsidianjane4413]

No. The BTR4 is an IFV as in its a troop carrier first and a weapons platform for supporting them second. The BMP-T is a weapons platform first and designed to support tanks not dismounts. Despite how it is described, the BMT-T isn't an "attack weapon", its role is supposed to be to identify and defeat attacking infantry before they can get to the tanks.

[@lanceroparaca1413]

It's still a BTR

[@FadeStrategy]

@@obsidianjane4413 If you had seen footage of the BTR4 in combat you would not call it a troop carrier first.

[@obsidianjane4413]

@@FadeStrategy Fortunately I don't get my information from UToobs.

[@georgyzhukov6409]

the terminator fucks the btr 4

[@podpiz4ik]

I think that the BMPT is a promising machine, but not as it is being used now. it will not be able to replace infantry and the best solution to this problem should be a new tactic of combat. it is not necessary to count on the fact that it will be able to replace the infantry completely, on the contrary, it should be used together with tanks and infantry covering them. and thus it will not replace the infantry, but will become its excellent complement in battle, especially if it is good to establish the simultaneous work of all elements.

[@breachstudios9511]

Russia to use these properly would probably use them as a modification to the mechanized infantry battalion called an urban battalion. Replacing a company’s worth of BMPs with BMPTs. These units would be assigned to armored brigades in cities. Allowing for a balance between IFVs, Infantry and BMPTs to support tanks

[@hq3473]

They have been terminated

[@madmit2007]

03:34 Need to mention that all Soviet tanks factories was named as "tractor factories" (in Stalingrad, Kharkov, Chelyabinsk etc) 05:35 you probably don't know, but three-headed dragon is a traditional Russian folklore character:)

[@litrspola-2614]

Простите им человеческую недалекость. Издержки западного образования! 😂

[@mdolfjitler9833]

At 13:53 it shows a Ukrainian BMPV-64 which is based on the T-64 it kind of had the same role as the BMP-T but different manufacturers and BMPV-64 never made it pass the prototype phase at least from my knowledge

[@gerritvalkering1068]

While I have no doubt that the vehicle is great at clearing out infantry from an urban area, just like similar vehicles were used in WW2 by pretty much all the various forces, I feel the Russians still kind of missed why you really need the infantry support when you engage in urban warfare. The problem, to my admittedly relatively inexperienced mind, is visibility and target acquisition. Sure, you can smoke the third floor window, but you still can't watch them all, or keep an eye on all the doorways at the same time. And every side street, especially if that too has doorways. And behind you. The only place you probably don't have to watch for surprise anti tank rockets is right in front of you, and even that is a maybe.

[@vendetta8022]

The fact is the most efficient way to cover tanks in urban warfare is infantry, and Russian only made terminator because their infantry sucks at both training and equipment. Russia do have some elite troops that is well funded and well trained like wester infantry but the average infantry is just not as good, many reports from Russian veterans said that sometimes infantry was trained less than a month before actually deployed and they were just a meat shield for artillery pieces. Like if they actually have good infantry, then a BMP-3 with half a dozen dismounted infantry is simply superior than the terminator either cover the tank or fight alone, but no Russian invested majority of their resources on armor not infantry and as a result the BTG lacking about both quantity and quality of infantry and terminator cannot solve this issue.

[@alamore5084]

The concept is good, but still not without infantry support. Also the tank needs to have separate spaced armour plating all over. Especially the roof. Also, active defense like Trophy needed. I just don't think they went far enough, thankfully.

[@michaelccozens]

It's already apparently too heavy to operate properly. Adding armor and additional systems is just going to make that problem worse. And the whole point of the thing is to replace infantry support; if it needs that support itself, it's worse than useless in that role. The reason tanks don't have great top-side (or side, or rear) armor is because they're trying to save weight in order to put as much armor on the front of the tank, which is supposedly the end you're going to have pointing at the enemy, as possible (and/or to put more points into the non-armor ends of the "armor triangle", those being "speed" and "firepower").

[@alamore5084]

@@michaelccozens It should be radically redesigned to have 10mm of armour plate on the front, sides and roof. But 300mm at the rear, as they spend most of their time retreating😉

[@BrokeWrench]

@@alamore5084 i thought that was French doctrine. Russia likes it too though

[@sigmamale6154]

I could see these being used extremely effectively against helicopters and ground attack aircraft

[@lanceroparaca1413]

Drone killers

[@FureyinHD]

I was thinking that.Give them some coverage from drones.

[@Anon26535]

That thing's turret looks like something out of one of those late 70s giant robot animes like Voltez or the original Gundam when the writers wanted to tell serious war stories but the toy companies who owned the IP kept pestering them to stick in lots of weird looking crap they thought preteen boys would want to buy diecast toys of.

[@stupidburp]

There was parallel development of a version of this that could be retrofitted to existing T-72 hulls. The main point of that was to help foreign sales of T-90 tanks. Many potential customers had limited interest in T-90 because of their old T-72 inventories. This was seen as a potential way of getting sales by offering conversions of those T-72 stocks into various types of support vehicles such as BMP-T, engineering vehicles, and bridge layers. That would give customers a perceived cost effective option of recycling T-72s into something useful while buying new T-90s to replace them. They got some interest but most customers preferred to just upgrade their T-72s with new sensors and reactive armor bricks instead to get performance closer to T-90 on the cheap. It is telling that the Russian army themselves chose to do the same, upgrading T-72s instead of converting them and replacing them.

[@Funkbass1986]

Ну у США тоже вряд ли хватило бы танков для войны на Украине

[@true_xander]

Its technically possible to get T-72 hull and upgrade it to T-90. They're sharing common chassis and a lot of other stuff.

[@dmitrye3212]

The main purpose of a Terminator is to support tanks not against infantry, but against tanks. Terminator has four guided long-range powerful anti-tank missiles. Low height of this bmp makes it a difficult target for enemy tanks. Terminator works well in Ukraine.

[@MrReymoclif714]

The lack of resupplying the ammunition expenditure the biggest challenge to this unit faces!!!

[@pulserifleman4538]

Object 787 would actually be resurrected in the Slovakian T-72M2 Moderna! The first two prototypes would mount a 20mm auto cannon on either side of the turret while still retaining the 125mm smoothbore cannon. While the third and fourth prototypes had only a single 30mm auto cannon mounted on the right side of the turret.

[@Martinlegend]

3:21 the idea of the Terminator comes from the ZSU-23-4 which was used succesfully in chechnya against the AT gunners on the rooftops and the afganistan war on the mountains

[@Tounushi]

BMP doesn't stand for APC, but for IFV. By broad classification, the Terminator'd be closer to a Sabre than a Bradley, just far heavier in both armament and armor. Other than with armored cars, does anyone else use vehicles that are primarily armed with a 20-50mm gun and doesn't carry troops? I mean, I can only name the CVR(T) and the Terminator that fit there, and the Terminator uses double 30mm guns. Well, there are also an Algerian T-62 with a BMP-2 turret.

[@neuropilot7310]

And I was even thinking of "Pentagon Wars" which went over all the weapons choices the Army brass added to the M2 Bradley

[@Tounushi]

@@neuropilot7310 M2 was from the start supposed to have a 20mm. But the turret was supposed to be closer to what was on the Marder. YPR-765 is closer to the original vision than the modern Bradley. Missiles and optics came later. What I'm looking for with the question/pondering is vehicles that were designed from the ground up to be tracked, Cold War and post era, and only armed with an autocannon and optionally with missiles. BMPT, CVR(t) Sabre and Scimitar, and Wiesel are the ones that immediately come to my mind. Firepower of an IFV, but no troop carrying capacity ever intended. Essentially a modern light tank, but that class nowadays means an IFV-grade hull with a 105mm gun.

[@kalashnikovdevil]

@@neuropilot7310 Pentagon Wars is a work of fiction. The guy who wrote the book the movie was based on was a nutcase who thought ejection seats and radar for fighter jets were superfluous.

[@kalashnikovdevil]

@@Tounushi You'd mostly be looking at AA vehicles to fit that pattern. The Gepard for example carries 35mm auto cannons and a four pack of IR missiles.

[@Tounushi]

@@kalashnikovdevil Guess then it'd be low profile turreted AA vehicles, like Shilka. Most other SPAAG turrets are huge boxes, like with the Gepard or Marksman.

[@oleof635]

this machine has proven itself well in the fight against Ukrainian armed formations

[@СемёнРуч]

These vehicles are used on the Svatovo-Kreminna route. Confirmed losses, only 1 vehicle

[@Mixa33331]

As a direct witness of their use, I can say that at the moment the BMPT is actively used by the forces of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation when attacking densely fortified enemy support points. The firepower of one BMPT overrides the need for three BMP-2s. There are really few such vehicles, but the command has learned to use them as a barrage fire system for an active attack on fortified positions, and while the soldiers of the Armed Forces of Ukraine cannot stick their heads out of the trench, infantry is advancing to their positions. A tank working alone makes it clear to the enemy that between each shot he has about 6 seconds to hide or detect the location of the tank, however, if the BMPT is working, the enemy is afraid to even look out of hiding once again. The BMPT ammunition allows suppressing the AFU firing point for half an hour, which is enough to successfully carry out an attack on the position by the infantry of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation

[@RadinoSka]

Спасибо за развернутый отзыв. Береги себя, друг.

[@stakantube]

ukrainian robin hood takes mobilisation letters from the rich and gives to the poor

[@peterwilson5528]

Well said!

[@SlinkyTWF]

If they really wanted to make this concept work, they'd need more advanced sensors and integrated AI so they could produce something akin to the robotic vehicle in the opening scene of the animated film, "Appleseed." Which Russia won't be able to do anytime soon.

[@OblivionDust2719]

no matter how good it is, it's being crew by russians, it's obsolete my default...

[@TheTermigrot]

This is a tactical issue. Attach these to infantry companies rather than tank companies. It is an excellent infantry support weapon kis utilized well

[@chevygiving]

This didn’t age well

[@litrspola-2614]

Хочешь проверить? 😂

[@floatingdeadfish4080]

@@litrspola-2614do you want to check?

[@ninobelov4153]

BS. Terminator is the best troop support vehicle in the world and ofcourse it is not made to fight heavy artilery while it can eliminate a standard tank it was not made to be a tank-eliminating vehicle.

[@rowdy8814]

you are asking common sense from a youtuber dicussing military politics and tactics, lol. dont let this moron waste your braincells.

[@ninobelov4153]

@@rowdy8814 I mean this channel is not bad but he just has to add a standard Western/CIA/Deep State fake PROPAGANDA information in EVERY VIDEO.

[@chiefordnance]

So they made their version of a BRADLEY Fighting Vehicle to support their Heavy Armor on the Battlefield ?? Wonder where they got that concept ??

[@The_Judge300]

Seeing a tank crew member popping up, is a sniper's dream. One shot, and you have often made the tank close to worthless in combat and much easier to take out with other weapons.

[@alexshapiro9841]

^ our Robin Hood here is known for headshoting tank drivers apparently. It comes easy to him

[@Kekszbelow]

@@alexshapiro9841 yeah 360 no scope. So easy. Noob tankers.

[@anxietydisorders5917]

to much cod

[@kydrukxd]

Огромный плюс в этой войне в том, чтобы наконец привести армию в порядок, ни одна страна мира еще не учавствовала в подобных современных конфликтах, и кто знает сколько бесполезного вооружения на их стоянках и складах

[@GuzlavKotik]

И сколько бесполезных политиков сидят в кабинетах 😁

[@ВячеславРунов-л1к]

В войне есть, убитые, раненные и люди с искалеченной психикой. А гражданские сидят без света и газа. Других "огромных плюсов" нет, и не будет.

[@outcastmoth78kaminski4]

Ok... small but kinda stupidly obvious problem... those muzzle flair vents are aimed AT EACH OTHER... meaning that each round out of one will cause the other barrel to sway wildly and cause accuracy to become only a function of bulk volume... not really helpful

[@godalmighty83]

Not the first tank support vehicle. There was the Skink, supposed to AA support, but was mostly used to scare away German troops. Crusader and Centaurs also had 20mm, and 40mm turrets fitted. Churchills had anti-infantry flamethrowers for urban support. Hell, you could argue the female variant of the original 'Tank' the Mk IV filled that role of suppressing enemy troops.

[@kalashnikovdevil]

Ostwind and Wirblwind AA tanks chewed up infantry too.

[@fairguinevere666]

It does seem like an idea that could work, but I'd imagine it'd need to be on a totally different chassis. Maybe in 20-50 years you could get something like the F35's sensor suite with head mounted displays, rubber tracks, electric drive, and if we're being totally hypothetical a microphone suite to enable something like apples transparency mode with the ANC. Something capable of moving somewhat quietly, having far superior situational awareness, and far less noise and weight and such than any existing vehicle. It'd probably less be an infantry replacement, but more a "here's something the size of a car with very light armor that can shoot big bullets where you need em; use it for fire support" Like a machine gunner more than a tank.

[@WhatHappenedIn-vt3vq]

Oh lawd. IV SEEN THOSE ALL OVER CHIGAGO

[@zebimicio5204]

Still wondered why most armored vehicles didnt just use lcd screens as an alternate window. Like the cars in that movie about vampires harvesting human blood. The one Sam Neill acted in.

[@dimask5021]

пехоту ты никогда не замениш роботом .что касается дисплеев и тому подобного, они упрощают ,но в то же время при выходе из строя, полностью выводят технику из боя . ребята ваши ф35 наши радары за 300+ км видят . безшумность это конечно хорошо , но ты рано или позно будеш стрелять и рассекретишся .

[@litrspola-2614]

@@zebimicio5204 Может потому, что ты ничего не понимаешь в вооружениях? Все это новомодное оборудование с обзором 360 градусов и жк панелями очень легко вывести из строя и танк ослепнет. А вот разбить триплекс нужно еще постараться. Это вам не из кустов за 20км стрелять…

[@endplanets]

Object 781, the dual headed hydra tank Sounds like an SCP entity.

[@Adam_Malcher]

If there was an urge for Potemkin village, so there can be an urge for Potemkin tank 🤣

[@pat0652]

I have to wonder of a slightly up-armored 2K22 Tunguska would be almost as good at this job while also helping with AA and anti-drone work.

[@jesusalfredofernandezcruz1833]

I love the Tunguska, maybe they need a small radar versión of him to apply un Urban environments.

[@itt2055]

Protecting tanks with tanks shows a lack of combat knowledge and a lack of understanding of how important the foot slogger is. No vehicle can be as effective as a squad of troops in an urban environment. The advancement of man portable anti-armour weapons has made it a lot easier for troops to destroy tanks. When tanks and troops have been trained to work together, they both compliment each other and make up for any weaknesses. The terminator is just a waste of money, time and resources unless it is used with infantry that have been trained to fight alongside it. It could make a good replacement for tanks in an urban environment with infantry support, but on its own, it is extremely vulnerable.

[@MrZlocktar]

You definitely shows a lack of combat knowledge and a lack of understanding of how dangerous it is to protect tank by foot slogger in modern warfare the like of Russo-Ukraine war. It didn't clicked you for a second, that there are AP mines everywhere, that AFU is now using cluster munitions because US has been depleted on 155mm shells, so their last option of desperation was to flood frontline with cluster munition, which is far worse in effectiveness in comparison to 155mm shell, but that's beside the point. What you need to understand - infantry can't support tanks in modern warfare. Environment is too fucking dangerous. There may be some places where that is possible, but in the current stage of war it seems unreasonable at best. I guess you missed all these videos where Ukrainians tried to cover vehicles from ground, so you haven't seen how their infantry were obliterated by mines and artillery. Stop watching stupid Hollywood movies, that's not how modern warfare looks like.

[@nispre70]

This guy is fantastic. Compares a thermal infantry periscope(implementation is wide) with a tank windows on a driver seat. 0_o terminators are totally okay and there are actually HUNDREDS of videos of them cutting forests and hostiles into a cute funny salad

[@TrampMachine]

Honestly I think these could be really good in the hands of a competent military. I'm sure if Ukraine got its hands on a few they would be very effective. It seems like the lesson of this war is that being able to spot the enemy first is the key to victory, with how lethal modern weapon systems are. CCTV and commander and gunner thermal optics seem like they're necessary these days. Whenever I see Ukrainians using tanks they're surrounded by infantry, but Russian tanks always seem to be alone without support. Also the elevated gun and optics seems important so tanks and IFVs can shoot hull down without exposing the crew compartment.

[@willthorson4543]

It's a ridiculous piece of equipment. Urban fighting is a 4 dimensional war. And it would have all the same issues a tank would. Infantry should be out and maneuvering and defending/supporting the vehicle. When I was in, we had after action reports from Grozny, and the mistakes they made? Still doing it in Ukraine. How many pictures are there of knocked out bmd and bmp with dead Russian soldiers on them and around them? Dozens. Like clockwork, they stay in the vehicles and come out when shot at. We took those lessons and used them to our advantage in Fallujah.

[@huntergatherer7796]

Ukraine is actually worse at tank combat than Russia. Most of their crews have no tank experience. They just hop in and figure it out usually leading to a quick death. Ukrainians also don't support their tanks either, plenty of video evidence to highlight their lack of training.

[@TrampMachine]

@@willthorson4543 I'm not an expert or anything, just like learning more about military technology and tactics. But I was imagining them being used more like an IFV. Stay behind infantry get called forward to deal with hardened positions or put down heavy suppressive fire that a tank cant. Like brick buildings, etc. But it sounds like these things aren't that agile, though I think one thing all but the newest Russian tanks lack is an elevated CITV which could be very good for spotting targets medium to long range then engaging. I think no heavy vehicle does well on it's own in urban combat. If you're sweeping a city or section of a city you just have to keep tanks and IFVs behind the line of contact and call them forward to deal with known positions, then have them fall back to safety, or relative safety.

[@Hotabich_Abdurahman]

Oh, and here about the Holodomor. It's a shame to bring up the topic of starvation. starvation was everywhere, not only in Ukraine. The famine was in western Ukraine (the territory of Poland). Is it Stalin's fault too? Kazakhstan, the Caucasus, the Volga region (this is central Russia) were starving.., but it's not interesting to you. Propaganda has told you only about Ukraine. Why? Because there are forces that want you to think badly about Russia. And there is no dispute between Russia and Ukraine. There are Ukrainian Nazis who have decided that they should hate Russians and they come up with fictional reasons to justify themselves.

[@MrMediator24]

Saw a bunch of them being transported to the front on railroad. A bit of a change after LMAOing almost all the way when seeing BMP-1, some old trucks and BTR-60s on route

[@John-mf6ky]

Sure you did 😂

[@AZREDFERN]

We need to turn our infantry in to tanks. Single man tanks. Take a skid steer Bobcat, armor it to stop up to 50cal, and add the remote control M2 system to it. You basically have a squad of 4 WarCats to support each tank, along with the normal support squad on foot.

[@abcdedfg8340]

Not good enough. We need gundams with the ability to fly and fight with swords lol.

[@tomfuller4205]

Thanks!

[@Taskandpurpose]

Of course

[@richardschleenvoigt4374]

I think it is very very missleading saying that the desicions lead to a famine that killed 4 million Ukrainians. The Holodomor (Ukrainian famine) was a political decision and not an effect of something. The Soviet state literally decided that the "khokhols" (deregatory term for Ukrainians) should starve to death.