At the beginning of the 2000s, Uralvagonzavod demonstrated its new development - Object 199. When creating this vehicle, the goal was to provide fire support for tank formations in various battle conditions. For this reason, "Object 199" received an alternative designation BMPT (Tank Support Fighting Vehicle). The theme on which the project was created bore the code "Frame", which eventually became the name of the machine itself.
By its design, the BMPT is a kind of "hybrid" of a main tank and an infantry fighting vehicle: a turret with relatively weak armament for heavy armored vehicles is mounted on a tank chassis. At the same time, the complex of 7, 62-mm machine guns, automatic cannons of 30 mm caliber, automatic grenade launchers and anti-tank guided missiles in some parameters is not inferior to tank guns. The main purpose of the BMPT is to escort tanks, detect and destroy tank-hazardous targets, light enemy fortifications, as well as tanks. According to the calculations of the designers, one "Frame", thanks to a variety of weapons, is capable of replacing six infantry fighting vehicles and 40 mechanized infantry troops. Due to such high rates of calculated efficiency, the unofficial nickname "Terminator" was stuck to the combat vehicle.
BMPT "Terminator" (photo
In the middle of the 2000s, the first information appeared regarding the prospects of the project. Representatives of the Ministry of Defense talked about the planned purchases of BMPTs, as they say, in marketable quantities. In addition, the project was created on the basis of the chassis of existing tanks, which would make it possible to convert existing equipment into new combat vehicles. There were promises to form the first "Ramok" company in the Russian armed forces by 2010. However, in 2010, new messages arrived. As it turned out, the military leaders could not fit the BMPT into the current budget, and also did not find a place for it in the concept of using armored forces and, as a result, were forced to abandon purchases. Since then, the project that once seemed promising has not received appropriate distribution. All orders were limited to ten units, which are now supplied to Kazakhstan.
It is quite obvious that the refusal to purchase a new combat vehicle could not but cause a certain reaction from experts in the field of weapons and amateurs of military equipment. In the statements of some of them, an undoubtedly interesting and promising machine turned into a kind of miracle weapon capable of saving the entire army alone and winning any war. The leadership of the military department, accordingly, in these theses acquired the appearance of villains and traitors who want to destroy the entire defense of the country. Such categorical statements always raise doubts about their truth, which has led to numerous disputes. If you wish, it is not difficult to find another Internet forum with similar proceedings and study all the arguments of the parties, most of which relate exclusively to the technical and combat characteristics of the BMPT.
Much less attention was paid to the tactical side of using the "Terminator" or even to the very need for such a machine. In disputes on the topic of necessity, an argument was often used that appealed to foreign experience. In other words, if BMPT was demonstrated ten years ago and during this time no foreign analogues have appeared, is there any point in developing this topic? This is not to say that this argument is devoid of logic, although it is, perhaps, also difficult to agree with it. As it turned out, the opinion about the absence of analogues abroad was based on the lack of relevant information. A similar project has been developed by French designers over the past years.
This week in the blog of the well-known expert in the field of armored vehicles A. Khlopotov there was a small note about an interesting publication in the French magazine Raids. The latest issue of the publication is entirely devoted to the recent Eurosatory-2012 exhibition, held in Paris. Among other publications in the magazine, there is an article about the Russian BMPT vehicle. In general, the material does not represent anything interesting - a description of the history, characteristics, etc. In general, everything that is usually written about a new technique in advertising brochures or review articles. The expert's attention was attracted by the name of the author of the publication about the "Frame". It turned out to be Mark Shasillan, widely known in certain circles. This man at one time participated in the work on the French main battle tank AMX-56 Leclerc and rose to the position of program director. Monsieur Chasilland spoke well about the Russian project and told a little about the little-known Leclerc T40.
As it turned out, a few years after the first demonstration of the Terminator, the designers of the GIAT company began work on a similar machine. The idea of supporting tanks with small-caliber artillery fire and machine guns pleased the French engineers and attracted the attention of the military. However, for a more successful promotion, the project was initially positioned as a reconnaissance tank, and not as a support vehicle for main tanks. The project, called Leclerc T40, involved dismantling the turret from the AMX-56 tank and installing a new combat module in its place. The T40's armament is based on the 40mm CTA automatic cannon. The reconnaissance tank's auxiliary armament is a machine gun mounted on a remote-controlled turret in the upper part of the turret, as well as two four-barreled smoke grenade launchers. The crew of the vehicle consists of three people: the driver, the gunner and the commander. Unlike the Russian BMPT, the T40 does not have automatic grenade launchers in the fenders and does not need additional arrows for them.
Attached to Chassilan's article were several images of the planned T40 Leclerc. It follows from them that the French engineers rather adhered to the general concept of a vehicle for escorting tanks, rather than trying to copy the Russian "Object 199". So, the updated Leclerc with a new armament complex does not have the ability to simultaneously transport and use a large number of guided anti-tank missiles. Moreover, the existing images do not show any devices for installing ATGM transport and launch containers like MILAN or ERIX. Perhaps, with further development, the T40 project would receive missile armament in addition to the barrel armament.
The means of protection of tank support combat vehicles also differ significantly. Both of them were created on the basis of main battle tanks and, in general, inherited the concept of ensuring the protection of the crew and the main structural components. In the case of BMPT, there is anti-cannon armor with the ability to install reactive armor. The T40, in turn, is fully compatible with the attachments of the Leclerc AZUR project. Additional protection modules are mounted on the front of the armored hull. The feed of the T40 combat vehicle is covered with anti-cumulative grilles. A set of equipment for the Leclerc tank called AZUR (Actions en Zone Urbaine), as its name implies, was created to ensure the safety of armored vehicles in urban environments and on similar battlefields, where high speed is not required, but good level of protection from all angles.
Unfortunately, the technical characteristics of the Leclerc T40 were not disclosed. Therefore, one has to be content with only the available information regarding the corresponding indicators of the AMX-56 base tank. Perhaps the lighter turret of the "reconnaissance tank" slightly increased its top speed or cross-country ability. However, all the advantages of the new combat module could be "eaten" by the weight of additional protection. One way or another, there is still no exact data at least on the calculated characteristics of the T40.
The fate of the projects "Object 199" and Leclerc T40 is somewhat similar. The first one exists in several prototypes and a small series. The French combat vehicle is still available only in the form of blueprints. The fact is that the design of the updated Leclerc was completed just at the moment when the French government began to cut defense spending. The Fifth Republic did not even have the money to build a prototype. Even the proposal to make these vehicles from decommissioned tanks did not help with the promotion of the T40. The War Department was adamant. It did not allow even a new combat module to be assembled and tested.
Why Monsieur Shasillan wrote about the T40 right now is not entirely clear. Moreover, the logic of comparing this vehicle with the Russian BMPT is quite difficult to see. Yes, the equipment of both projects is designed to provide fire cover for tanks from tank-hazardous targets. But the appearance of the machines is significantly different: the composition of the "Framework" weapons allows you to attack and destroy enemy tanks. The T40 does not have such powerful weapons and is rather designed to work with lightly armored or unprotected targets and enemy personnel. The protection of a French combat vehicle rather transparently hints at the intended conditions of use - a city or other similar settlement, where the threat can come from all directions. This is the reason why the T40 lacks anti-tank missiles and related equipment.
Tank support vehicles, despite the general points of the concept, are quite different from each other and the reasons for bringing them into one article are a separate issue. A. Khlopotov expressed the opinion that the French engineer did not fail to recall the project with "political" goals. Probably, Shasillan is aware of the existence of many controversies around the BMPT and he tried to promote his Leclerc T40 with such an original method, telling the general public about it. In this case, under the pressure of interested popular masses, the T40 will be able to reach at least the prototype stage. Of course, this is only an assumption, but engineers sometimes go to great tricks in promoting their projects.
(photo
