You fail to grasp a simple truth. For the Terminator to remain at 10.3, it shouldn’t have any armor at all. Its armor should only be effective against machine guns and autocannons up to 50mm.
7 Likes
And could you explain why? Instead of spouting dogmatic statements without any argumentation.
1 Like
Well, because no other vehicle in this BR has such armor and mobility at the same time. Moreover, even without armor, the Terminator outperforms many non-Soviet IFVs and light tanks in this BR.
3 Likes
I don’t care where it goes though, and US mains are just jealous that their country can’t build anything remotely looking as cool as the Terminator lol
6 Likes
For example, the US has the M2A4E1 or M2A4E2 Bradley with BRAT reactive armor, LWS, and the new Ironfirst active protection system. If the US had such an IFV in its line, it would be a competitor to the Terminator.
A Bradley with Iron Fist and BRAT can fight against a BMPT without being “meat.”
2 Likes
Modernized bradley still using the same tow?
In reality, the BMPT Terminator is completely pointless. Because of its tank chassis, it has a limited fuel range and limited cruising life due to the tank engine. Therefore, it cannot reach the battlefield under its own power. It cannot lead infantry and cannot engage tanks. Essentially, this is a red flag for the US and other countries.
3 Likes
TOW-2B Aero.
TOW-2B RF (Radio Frequency)
1 Like
They have a lot of unique-looking vehicles and I’m a big fan of their obscure heavy tanks like IS-7 and Object 279, even Hideo Kojima the creator of Metal Gear series was really versed in obscure Soviet vehicles. They also feature the strange prototype plane that hovers above lakes, Beriev vva14.
I play soviet tanks for the drip, not for politics. At least I admit I’m here for the aesthetics, not the freedom bonuses lol btw are you a Pentagon employee?
4 Likes
So how tf do you think tanks reach the battlefield? And if tanks can do it, why do you think a lighter IFV with the same engine and gearbox can’t do the same thing?
6 Likes
Because a regular IFV has a different engine, a different gearbox, and a longer range due to its low weight.
1 Like
Terminator its an AFV
cant u read???
I wouldn’t want the moderators to close this thread because it’s been moved to another discussion. But I understand your point perfectly.
So what’s the difference, m8?
Purpose plus internal empty space for crew
1 Like
You do realise that “AFV” stands for “Armoured Fighting Vehicle” and applies to almost every vehicle, right?
MBT’s, IFV’s, Light-Tanks and many SPAA’s are also AFV’s by defintion.
With what other designation you would call it? Not an apc, mbt, spaa, light tank, spg nor ifv.
FSV - Fire Support Vehicle
or CST - Combat Support Tank ( IDR used that term once, no clue if anyone ever officially adopted it though)
Its a similar situation to Begleitpanzer 57 mm, where there also isnt a proper english-role-designation as such type of vehicle never entered service.
Though it for example had the german term “Kampfunterstützungspanzer” (Combat Support Tank) which IDR used under CST (see above) for another vehicle that I cant remember in a 80’s article.
3 Likes
Okay this one then. Terminator its a FSV.