The high combat survivability of the Russian BMPT Terminator has become known

31 309 11

Russian combat technique continues to demonstrate miracles of survivability and reliability. This time, in the area of ​​the special military operation of the Russian Federation, the crew of the BMPT "Terminator" distinguished itself, which, after being hit by two anti-tank guided missiles, was able to remove the vehicle from under fire.

The episode described in the publication of the Russian Ministry of Defense "A red star", took place in the vicinity of the village of Ilyinka in the DPR. The crew of the Terminator was supposed to provide fire support to a group of paratroopers who had moved out to clear out the fortifications of the Kyiv regime militants.



After the first task of landing the troops was completed, the Terminator began to roll back to the starting point. At that moment, two ATGMs of the Ukrainian Armed Forces militants hit the hull of the combat vehicle one after the other.

However, the reactive armor and additional protection in the form of sandbags installed on the BMPT hull allowed the crew to remove the vehicle from under fire. The soldiers were even able to extinguish the fire caused by the ATGM hit themselves.

Our base is the same, but the "uninhabited" turret, which does not even contain ammunition, gives serious advantages. Therefore, the "Terminator" can withstand many hits, but still remains in service

- said one of the BMPT crew members with the call sign Shchuba.

It should be added that during its use in the SVO zone, the BMPT Terminator has earned exclusively positive reviews from servicemen of the Russian Armed Forces and military experts.
11 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +5
    April 10 2025 14: 05
    In two strikes, you have to thank not only the armor, but also your ingenuity and your safety in the form of sandbags. I'm not an expert on all this, but I think half of the ATGM strike was extinguished by sandbags, and without them, the damage to the Terminator would have been much worse. The crew of the vehicle is definitely great, but why the equipment is not modernized and you have to defend yourself with sandbags is a question for the higher-ups.
    1. +5
      April 10 2025 14: 42
      Quote: Valera75
      but why the equipment is not being modernized and why we have to defend ourselves with sandbags is a question for the higher-ups.

      So the higher-ups "Cossacks" did not want to see the BMPT as a type at all, not to mention its presence on the LBS. Hence the sandbags.
  2. -1
    April 10 2025 15: 47
    Our base is the same, but the "uninhabited" turret, which does not even contain ammunition, gives serious advantages. Therefore, the "Terminator" can withstand many hits, but still remains in service

    No, I'm definitely not a tanker, but even I know that the T-72 turret has no ammunition, it's not an Abrams. And the fact that the combat Terminator has no ammunition makes me think that this is a breakthrough.
    1. +4
      April 10 2025 17: 19
      The T-72's full ammunition complement is forty-five rounds. No more than 22 rounds can be loaded into the automatic loader's transporter. The remaining 23 shells and charges are distributed throughout the tank: five shells and four charges are in the turret, and eighteen shells and nineteen charges are in the tank's hull on racks. 4

      The automatic loader conveyor is located below the tank's support rollers, so the shells and charges in it have additional protection. That's why tanks usually have half a set of ammunition. If they're in an ambush, they can take a risk.
  3. -2
    April 10 2025 18: 59
    Well, I once read descriptions of both the Great Patriotic War and the South Ossetian conflict. In the first one, after battles, they often counted hits and calculated the effectiveness. I remember, after Kursk, it seems - about 10 hits on a tank on average from different things.
    A Georgian tank was also shot down in Ossetia (the story was about a militia commander, I think) with 10 shots from hand grenade launchers. They deprived it of mobility, ran behind houses and shot it. And without any nets, etc.
    so 2 pieces is still good. Thank God I was lucky.
  4. +5
    April 10 2025 22: 36
    The most effective defense is to organize combat operations in such a way as to avoid being hit by enemy fire. Because the means of defense will always be weaker than the means of attack. What can you say here? Unsatisfactory intelligence work, which "blew" the ATGM position. Where were the attack drones that were supposed to suppress the enemy's firing point after the first shot.
    I'm not even talking about the snipers who were supposed to protect this attack from such surprises.
  5. 0
    April 10 2025 23: 40
    In my opinion, the Terminator is more defenseless against FPV than a tank. Building a barbecue and other things around its turret would severely limit its armament.
  6. +4
    April 11 2025 08: 37
    If the Terminator's combat module is so effective, then it should be mounted on any tracked base. I hope that the old tanks still in storage would be quite suitable for this: T-55, T-62, T-72, even BMP-1. Raise the combat module's turret, and install additional anti-drone protection underneath it. The armor protection of old tanks is much higher than that of many modern armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles anyway.
    The chassis and engine were repaired and sent into battle.
    1. +1
      April 11 2025 16: 36
      We need to tell MuMu about this. He will never figure it out himself.
  7. -2
    April 11 2025 13: 04
    An uninhabited tower with virtually no armor protection and any APC with a large-caliber machine gun or automatic cannon will easily leave the Terminator without weapons....
  8. 0
    April 11 2025 16: 35
    That's why the Terminator isn't produced in Russia? Is it too strong?