Terminator tank's battlefield reality: From hype to ineffectiveness

The heavy tank support combat vehicle (BMPT) Terminator appears to be a machine capable of dominating the battlefield. Built on the chassis of the T-72 tank, it boasts considerable armour. With its unmanned turret, the crew positions are set low in the hull, enhancing their safety.

The BMPT Terminator is also heavily armed with two 30 mm cannons, two 40 mm grenade launchers, a machine gun, and four Ataka-T anti-tank guided missile launchers. This arsenal theoretically allows effective combat at distances ranging from several dozen metres to several kilometres with various adversaries—from tanks and different armoured vehicles to infantry soldiers.

The vehicle has the dimensions and mass of a tank: about 7 metres in length and 48 tonnes, with a crew of five soldiers. The BMPT Terminator is also an excellent example of how misleading technical data tables can be.

This vehicle, which has no equivalents worldwide, performed well in combat against Syrian militants. Still, in the conditions of the European battlefield, saturated with modern weapons, it is a spectacular, costly failure. After more than two years of war in Ukraine—even the Russians themselves admit it.

Where did the idea for such equipment come from? Attempts to build a vehicle with such characteristics appeared in the USSR as early as the 1980s, based on experiences from Afghanistan, where self-propelled anti-aircraft artillery systems were used to combat opponents positioned high on mountain slopes or canyon walls, capable of elevating their weapon barrels at a steep angle.

However, the first Chechen war is considered to be the direct cause of the creation of the Terminator. During the infamous New Year's Eve assault on Grozny at the end of 1994 and early 1995, Russian armoured columns invaded the city, outpacing the infantry units covering them.

The unshielded tanks and other armoured vehicles were destroyed amongst the urban buildings by Chechen units using simple, hand-held anti-tank grenade launchers. In just a few dozen hours, the Russians lost almost 1,500 soldiers, as well as around 180 tanks and other armoured vehicles.

The course of the fighting also showed that anti-aircraft systems with rapid-firing cannons, such as the ZSU-23-4 Shilka or 2K22 Tunguska, were very influential in repelling Chechen attacks. However, due to their poor armour, they were quickly destroyed.

Based on these experiences, the Russians decided to develop a vehicle—armoured or tank—that could accompany them in combat, providing support and protection. This is how the heavy tank support combat vehicle Terminator was created.

Despite appearances, the creation of the Terminator is not an example of Russian industry's strength but rather a testament to its weakness. To support their own tanks, the Russians needed a special, separately designed vehicle, which, in combat, fulfilled a similar role to that of modern Western infantry fighting vehicles.

In their case, instead of a large array of weaponry, a single 30-40 mm cannon is sufficient beside the anti-tank missile launchers—albeit one that fires programmable ammunition, equipped with a modern fire control system with reliable sensors and effective stabilisation, allowing for precise firing on the move.

Although the Terminator's combat debut in Syria seemed successful, its use in the context of the war in Ukraine brought vastly different experiences. The Terminator—whose firepower is indisputable—proved surprisingly ineffective in combat.

As noted by the author of the Topwar.ru website, Yevgeny Fedorov, this partly results from a change in the tactics of Russian tank warfare, which, contrary to its intended purpose, began to function as "sniper artillery," fighting from positions away from direct threats from Ukrainian infantry.

In addition, tanks are often protected by various forms of "space armour," such as roofs, nets, or grates, which hinder attacks by FPV drones. Meanwhile, the Terminator cannot cover the turret if it wants to maintain its capabilities, which leads to another issue.

As noted by the Russian author, the tank's main armament, including some of its sensors, is protected by the turret's solid armour. Meanwhile, the Terminator's sensors and weapons are mounted in an external, unmanned module, making them vulnerable to damage, even from near misses or nearby explosions.

As a result, even inaccurate shelling is enough to render the Terminator "blind and deaf" due to electronic failures, making it incapable of continuing the fight and leaving it vulnerable to destruction. The Terminator is slightly less expensive than a main battle tank and is even harder to repair and produce. Although it uses a standard tank chassis, this chassis requires significant modifications.

The large crew is also a problem. To fully utilise its firepower, the BMPT Terminator must be manned by a five-person crew, with two soldiers operating the 40 mm grenade launchers. The author of the Topwar.ru website poses the question of whether it is better to train five crews (15 people) of universal tanks or three crews for a vehicle that may only be useful in certain circumstances.

This means that the BMPT Terminator—although hypothetically a powerful weapon—is, in practice, a military shell whose significance, initially promoted by pro-Kremlin media, has not been substantiated on the battlefield.

Thus, the heavy tank support combat vehicle joins the long list of "Putin's parade equipment"—weapons presented by Russian propaganda as the best in the world and ostentatiously displayed at military parades, but in the conditions of the Ukrainian battlefield, have proved ineffective.