Military Review

Tanks from cubes

56
The Soviet army knew very well what kind of war awaited it and was accordingly preparing. We had one thoroughly developed branch of combat tanks and one side. There were linearly developing BMPs and armored personnel carriers with a clearly defined appearance and functions.


And then we got involved in the Afghan war and it turned out that we were preparing for some other battles. But as an adversary, we could at least choose ourselves as an adversary and could stop at any moment, which we took advantage of. We did not choose “spirits” in the Caucasian mountains and again we were not ready.

It is worth saying that confronting irregular forces dispersed in difficult terrain and receiving support from abroad is an extremely difficult task for the armed forces of any country. But the state needs the army just to solve complex problems, not to tread on their boots.

Over the past decades, the world has gained enough experience in fighting professional partisans, the main conclusion of which is that we must be able not to get involved in such a confrontation. Meanwhile, it was finally lost understanding of what will be the "Big War".

Today, it seems, it is obvious to any student of the history department how tanks should have been used in World War II. But then we were able to understand this only after undergoing thorough "training" from the German generals. We are still lucky, the French, for example, failed to complete this training.

That the military-tactical idea will spill out onto the battlefields in the 21st century is known only to the god Ares. We have to be ready for anything.

Tanks from cubes


Developing plans for the protection of the Motherland for all occasions and storing them in top-secret folders is a feasible matter, but what about the technology? How to make the right choice in the direction of development? What to adopt?

The answer suggests itself: the Russian army must have a variety of victory tools: a superior tank, a tank-workhorse and even a light tank, a heavy BMP, a light BMP and even a wheeled armored vehicle, and various armored personnel carriers. And all this with the traditional machine-gun, anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles.

How with such an approach not to empty the state treasury? After all, money is always not enough. Even Americans with their 596 billions of dollars in the military budget have to close promising projects. What can we do with 66 with billions of dollars, which the country has managed to allocate for the Armed Forces?

The answer is obvious - save and turn on the brains.

Today, when developing domestic weapons, design bureaus are guided by four principles: modularity, unification, unity of platforms, and the value of a soldier's life.

Using the combat module allows you to isolate from the crew of the tower protruding on the body of the car as the most vulnerable part.

We have a Boomerang-BM combat module, an excellent crewless system. Armed to the teeth. The 30-mm automatic cannon can “spit out” five hundred rounds in less than a minute, without interruption to cooling. Effectively affects lightly armored vehicles with one and a half kilometers, and air subsonic targets - at a distance of two kilometers. In the module's subunit - 160 armor-piercing sifting projectiles and 340 high-explosive fragmentation missiles to destroy enemy enemy personnel at a distance of up to four kilometers. Four launchers with ATGM "Kornet" - to destroy enemy heavy armored vehicles at a distance of up to eight kilometers. The anti-tank complex allows two missiles to be launched with a minimum delay to overcome the KAZ. The armor penetration depth is 1200 – 1300 millimeters behind dynamic protection. Launchers are reloaded manually and, apparently, out of combat. 7,62-mm machine gun Kalashnikov tank upgraded allows you to precisely destroy the enemy's manpower at a distance of one and a half kilometers. Ammunition - two thousand rounds. The fire control system has rich possibilities: independently search for any targets, fire at two of them at the same time, etc. The composition of the aiming equipment is not known for certain, but television and thermal imaging channels are assumed, an active optical system, a radar. It is possible that a complex of electron-optical active protection is installed. An excellent combat module that combines a variety of powerful weapons, a rich set of sighting devices and a modern fire control system.

Let's pay attention to another excellent feature of the “Boomeranga-BM”: it is mostly assembled from ready-made components, which best affects the cost.

There is another combat module - AU220M "Baikal". It includes the 57-mm gun, which is based on the ZAK-60 cannon. The maximum range is 12 kilometers, the rate of fire is up to 120 shots per minute. This gun can pierce the armor of any modern combat vehicle with the exception of the main tanks. There is the same modernized PCT. Even less is known about the sighting equipment, but it is assumed that it will meet the requirements of firing from a cannon and not too far behind the Boomerang-BM. The combat module is armored around the perimeter from shots of the 7,62-mm machine gun and in the forehead from the 30-mm guns.

Now let's see what equipment these modules are installed on. They are armed with infantry fighting vehicles T-15, K-17, B-11 and not only.

T-15 - BMP on a heavy platform "Armata". This 50-ton is a first-class defended infantry fighting vehicle with a troop compartment and a speed of 40 – 50 kilometers per hour. In the presence of the already assembled corps, we get machines with various capabilities using the Boomerang-BM or Baikal combat modules. At the same time, the Armata itself has already served as the base for the T-14, TBMP T-15 tank and will become the mother for a number of combat vehicles. Of course, they are seriously different from each other, but they have a single tracked platform, which makes it possible to reduce the cost of both production and subsequent repair.

B-11 - BMP on the average track platform "Kurganets-24". This is an infantry fighting vehicle, close to the classic indicators of security. The weight is 24 tons, the troop compartment is eight fighters, and the speed is already approximately 90 kilometers per hour plus the ability to swim. And it can also be installed any of the two modules. On the basis of the platform it is planned to create, in addition to the BMP, an armored personnel carrier and, possibly, other vehicles.

K-17 - BMP based on the Boomerang wheel platform. This car is an innovation for our army. Mass in solid 25 tons, it develops speed for 100 kilometers per hour and has a greater range compared to the track-laying counterparts. When installing any of the two combat modules, we get a BMP with different characteristics. An armored personnel carrier will also be created on this wheeled chassis.

Any army for ground forces requires at least three types of combat vehicles: armored personnel carrier, infantry fighting vehicles, and tanks. What do we have today?

Three different platforms: the Armata heavy tracked, the Kurganets-24 medium tracked, and the Boomerang medium wheeled. Several types of machines are created on each of them, which makes it possible to reduce the cost of both development and subsequent production to some extent. When using two combat modules and three base machines, we get six infantry fighting vehicles, differing both in the characteristics of protection, mobility, and firepower.

Six models of BMP - from heavy to wheeled - a very diverse range for modest money.

An important detail: modularity and unification allow you to create unique offers. For example, African countries, where solid soils prevail, will be happy to buy wheeled BMP with good weapons. Naturally, after we fill our own Armed Forces with equipment and the corresponding decision will be made.

Some would say that six BMPs are unnecessarily wasteful. I believe that the case is not limited to two modules - "Baikal" and "Boomerang-BM" and using the third one, we will get nine cars.

Investing in the army in peacetime is always expensive. But it is even more expensive to invest in it in wartime.
Author:
Originator:
http://vpk-news.ru/articles/34107
56 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. couch but smart general
    couch but smart general 11 December 2016 06: 15
    +22
    at the beginning of the article, the right topic came up, the application experience. which, alas, is often forgotten, and without it, super duper and even alien weapons will hardly help .. examples? yes please .... mountain shooters in the Second World War urgently created victims out of nothing, they had victims Thousands of Elbrus from a handful ... they forgot and came to Afghanistan, again they were disoriented and get signed. and again they came to Chechnya on the same horse as they say..but now it’s good that there are special mountain parts .... eternal health to those who have not forgotten this experience and actively support such parts without almost need .. or an example of my service- shot a maximum for the entire 2-year service from the strength of 20 stores and got on the BMP and landed studied (attention) -WITHOUT the BMP and the tailgate !!!! this all leads to the victims ...
    1. RASKAT
      RASKAT 11 December 2016 15: 25
      +7
      But as for me, combat experience is not taken into account. Let’s take the tanks, I don’t take new armats and kurgan there is still too early to judge them in the troops yet. I'm talking about all sorts of upgrades to old BMPs, armored personnel carriers, and tanks. Most of the equipment is destroyed by commutative ammunition, RPGs, Ptury, and so on. And on all modernizations of armored vehicles, dynamic protection was not there. The same T-72b3 and t 90s covered their foreheads and the sides, as they were naked, remained. BMP, BTR-82, BMD, also without DZ, mechanics in wars are forced to engage in scavenger sheathe equipment themselves with all sorts of nets drawers, etc. Although dynamic protection costs a penny, there is essentially a pair of metal plates and a bit of plastid. I don’t understand that soon our troops will receive new equipment; it is already spared this defect, but what if the war is tomorrow? And we will go into battle on the same technique without DZ and everything will be repeated a new way.
      1. couch but smart general
        couch but smart general 11 December 2016 23: 17
        +3
        that's about it, dear comrade ... in front of the protected one, it’s the expectation that in Europe head-to-head ... and local conflicts where the front is 360 degrees again forgotten, well, you understand me ....
      2. DenZ
        DenZ 17 December 2016 17: 28
        0
        To wind up the palisade and gratings "in case of war" is not a tricky business and it is not a long time you worry.
  2. couch but smart general
    couch but smart general 11 December 2016 06: 22
    +7
    and yes, save on the military budget, you know ... compromises will have to be found while running sparkling with your heels, but compromise is when everyone says it’s bad. Everywhere after 25 years of doing nothing, everything needs to be done to the fleet like air especially .. .ladeo I look crazy enough to be invested in the most important areas, it is air defense and aviation slowly .. but after all it requires updating with us EVERYTHING .. IMHO.
    1. Cat
      Cat 11 December 2016 07: 15
      +6
      There is no need to spare money for the development of promising military equipment, the same for the development of related science. Work out small-scale production, develop mobilization versions of BBT. And the most important thing to build on your own!
      Now, in the mountain parts, over the past century three times on the same rake! Perhaps the vaccine has already been received!
      I also propose to raise the issue of the unification of technology for the Arctic parts. At least a minimum of running and engine. Over 1 km, any failure will be fatal!
  3. demiurg
    demiurg 11 December 2016 07: 23
    +4
    Something I'm in the morning some kind of depressive. Who can write an article, what will be the war two modern armies?
    I, as a true couch expert, for example, do not see BBM in the same order as the advancing infantry. And towed artillery, too, can not find a place.
    All are fixated on the destruction of partisans, or irregular formations, and in some colonies. Although it has long been known, it is easier to bribe the local elite, and it will itself solve this problem.
    1. Razvedka_Boem
      Razvedka_Boem 11 December 2016 08: 06
      +3
      Who can write an article, what will be the war of two modern armies?

      Which for example? If the United States and Russia, then it will be a clearly nuclear, fur-bearing animal. If for example, Israel and the Arabs .. I think the same thing .. India and Pakistan-similarly.
      Maybe Germany and England? .. At this point in history - is unrealistic.
      A war between two modern armies will not be a war between only two states. It will inevitably spill over into the world. Since, having begun as a fight, for example, the Russian and American contingents in Syria, the events will turn into a "hot phase" like an avalanche.
      1. demiurg
        demiurg 11 December 2016 08: 11
        +1
        I did not ask about opportunity, I asked what there will be a war of two modern armies.
        It is clear that no one is going to fight now, but the army still needs to be prepared for something. It is the vision of modern combat that I want to see.
        1. ICT
          ICT 11 December 2016 08: 48
          0
          Quote: demiurg
          I asked what will be the war of two modern armies.

          it is necessary to specify which countries and set a goal for the attacker,

          india and pakistan for example, everything will surely boil down to a border conflict
          whatever weaponry would be used
          1. demiurg
            demiurg 11 December 2016 09: 07
            0
            That is, the oncoming tank battle of regiment to regiment, for example, do you admit? )))
            Or attack aircraft hanging over the battlefield?
            Howitzer divisions pounding from the same position for hours?
            Trenches, flights of 5-10-15 ton shock drones at an altitude of 10 km at a speed of 300-400 km / h over enemy territory?
            1. Lopatov
              Lopatov 11 December 2016 11: 26
              +7
              Quote: demiurg
              That is, the oncoming tank battle of regiment to regiment, for example, do you admit? )))

              This will not happen. Tanks without infantry are now nonsense. But the oncoming battle of infantry (motorized rifle / motorized infantry / mechanized) brigades involving tanks is possible.
              Quote: demiurg
              Or attack aircraft hanging over the battlefield?

              Maybe. But not directly above the battlefield, but out of the reach of medium-range air defense systems. Attack aircraft as a platform for precision weapons.

              Quote: demiurg
              Howitzer divisions pounding from the same position for hours?

              From the same region of the OP. After suppressing someone else's artillery, you can stop moving after each fire attack.

              Quote: demiurg
              Trenches

              Definitely yes.

              Quote: demiurg
              flights of 5-10-15 ton shock drones at an altitude of 10 km at a speed of 300-400 km / h over enemy territory?

              Definitely not.
              1. demiurg
                demiurg 11 December 2016 12: 11
                0
                Quote: Spade

                This will not happen. Tanks without infantry are now nonsense. But the oncoming battle of infantry (motorized rifle / motorized infantry / mechanized) brigades involving tanks is possible.


                With the shooting of Kalashnikov, M-16 and other FN? With a developed guidance system?
                Quote: Spade

                Maybe. But not directly above the battlefield, but out of the reach of medium-range air defense systems. Attack aircraft as a platform for precision weapons.

                Why, then, an attack aircraft? It’s easier to make a platform of drones.

                Quote: Spade

                From the same region of the OP. After suppressing someone else's artillery, you can stop moving after each fire attack.

                And who will give time to roll up the battery? After the first shots, it will already be lit. And the answer will go.

                Quote: Spade


                Definitely yes.


                So is any engineering construction the first target for strikes? Meaning?
                1. Lopatov
                  Lopatov 11 December 2016 12: 42
                  +6
                  Quote: demiurg
                  With the shooting of Kalashnikov, M-16 and other FN? With a developed guidance system?

                  Well yes. The main task of the advancing infantry is to prevent the enemy from using TCP. The main task of the defenders is to use the TCP and protect them.

                  Quote: demiurg
                  Why, then, an attack aircraft? It’s easier to make a platform of drones.

                  Not easier. The presence of a pilot makes the system an order of magnitude more universal

                  Quote: demiurg
                  And who will give time to roll up the battery? After the first shots, it will already be lit. And the answer will go.

                  To begin with, such a concept as "battery firing position" is steadily becoming a thing of the past. The area of ​​the division's firing positions with decentralized placement of guns / installations. Plus movement after each minute of fire raid. At least at the stage of "conquering superiority in artillery"

                  Quote: demiurg
                  So is any engineering construction the first target for strikes? Meaning?

                  In defense. Even high-precision ammunition will not give guaranteed destruction of a firearm in the trench.
                  In addition, knocking out every trench with artillery / aircraft will not have enough time or ammunition.
                  In modern warfare, the high pace of w / d comes to the fore. And every trench is a great opportunity to slow down this pace. Dada if this trench is empty.
                  1. demiurg
                    demiurg 11 December 2016 14: 00
                    0
                    1. Why is a TCP required? If, hypothetically, each squadron has a private cornflower in the rear, in a platoon a machine with ATGMs firing from cover, with real-time fire adjustment, are there many chances for attackers to approach 400-500 meters?
                    2. But cheaper and easier. 3-4 drones are much more efficient than one aircraft. And the pilots are not lost.
                    3. A minute of fire, and how much does folding take? To lower the beds, the implement to transport position, to hook on the towing truck, to dump it to a safe distance? Well and then, if you're lucky, in a new position, everything will be new ..... Isn't it easier and more efficient to rely on mobile AUs from the very beginning?
                    4. Mine fields, covered by artillery in theory, also smartly inhibit the offensive. But invisible from a penny drone.
                    Solid trench lines, as in WWI? You know better, you are closer to the god of war, but my expert-couch essence doubts :))
                    1. Lopatov
                      Lopatov 11 December 2016 14: 50
                      +3
                      Quote: demiurg
                      And why is TCP required? If, hypothetically, each squadron has a private cornflower in the rear, in a platoon a machine with ATGMs firing from cover, with real-time fire adjustment, are there many chances for attackers to approach 400-500 meters?

                      Everything listed by you is also a TCP and also can not effectively perform its tasks without infantry cover.

                      Quote: demiurg
                      But cheaper and easier. 3-4 drones are much more efficient than one aircraft. And the pilots are not lost.

                      The price of the attack aircraft and UAVs carrying the same bomb load will be approximately the same, as well as their complexity.

                      Quote: demiurg
                      Beds to reduce

                      But was it really about towed guns? By the way, they were almost gone. Only the British-American M777. All other modern towed guns are in fact self-propelled and able to move quickly.

                      Quote: demiurg
                      The minefields, covered by artillery in theory, also smartly inhibit the offensive. But invisible from a penny drone.

                      And so are they. By the way, the era of "cheap drones" is coming to an end.

                      Quote: demiurg
                      Solid trench lines, as in WWI? You know better, you are closer to the god of war, but my expert-couch essence doubts :))

                      Why solid? Focal defense. A network of engineered and mutually supportive strong points.
                      As for artillery, advertising accuracy of the Excalibur shell SEP = 10 meters. This means that 100% of the shells will fit into a circle with a diameter of 80 meters.
                      The cheaper "Precision guidance kit" (PGK) has SEP = 50 meters or 400 meters for 100% of the shells.
                      I think this is sufficient justification for digging trenches.
                      1. demiurg
                        demiurg 11 December 2016 15: 06
                        0
                        Thanks again, I like to learn something new))

                        1. I did not say that infantry on the front line is not needed. I said that things should not go to a shootout on machine guns.
                        2. An UAV for any will be cheaper; there is no cockpit and no reservation.
                        3.))
                        4. At what distance from the trench should a 152mm shell or 120mm mine explode so that a soldier in the trench is shell-shocked with loss of combat effectiveness?
                        And if you recall the aerial bombs and thermobaric ammunition?
                        Yes, and about the possibility of undermining in the air while there was no conversation, and to realize it is several times cheaper than correction.

                        Correct if not right, but already in 44, the USSR in the direction of the main attacks created such a density of fire that the soldiers the first two or three lines of trenches passed along the lunar landscape.
        2. cannabis
          cannabis 11 December 2016 11: 09
          +4
          Quote: demiurg
          I asked what will be the war of two modern armies.

          Why is there an intelligence and sabotage service? Correct for destroying command posts. These are such military-bandit methods. How did the Western generals defeat Italy in the years of WW 2? Landing in Normandy? How were Iraq, Libya, Yugoslavia conquered? That's right, bribery of the generals! How was the Soviet Union defeated? Correctly bribery and betrayal. This is how the war against Russia will be. This is, in principle, but in reality it will be a "puff pie" of variegated parts and opponents. That is, organized chaos with observation from space.
        3. pv1005
          pv1005 11 December 2016 12: 23
          +1
          Quote: demiurg
          I did not ask about opportunity, I asked what there will be a war of two modern armies.
          It is clear that no one is going to fight now, but the army still needs to be prepared for something. It is the vision of modern combat that I want to see.

          So get up from the couch and go to serve in the army, there you will find out everything and see.
          1. demiurg
            demiurg 11 December 2016 12: 36
            0
            They tell ordinary private service about promising, with a horizon of 15-20 years of development? hi
            1. pv1005
              pv1005 11 December 2016 13: 09
              +2
              Quote: demiurg
              They tell ordinary private service about promising, with a horizon of 15-20 years of development? hi

              So go not ordinary. Satisfy your curiosity.
              1. demiurg
                demiurg 11 December 2016 14: 03
                +2
                Throw the address where they take to the General Staff of engineers for controlled electric drives.
                And don’t poke already, I see you for the first time.
        4. Razvedka_Boem
          Razvedka_Boem 11 December 2016 13: 26
          +1
          I believe the first step will be the destruction of the grouping of enemy satellites in orbit. If successful, this can play a crucial role. Also, the start of the war will be preceded by serious sabotage, both in physical and in cyberspace.
          And then .. Next, add the human factor, the condition of the equipment in the field, after 2-3 months, without proper maintenance, the equipment will have nowhere to recharge, extreme stress and loads of the first stage of hostilities ..
          As a result, the surviving, and mutually bloodless opponents, will move on to partisan action, since I doubt that a winner is possible in the war of modern armies.
        5. KaPToC
          KaPToC 12 December 2016 01: 02
          0
          Quote: demiurg
          It is the vision of modern combat that I want to see.

          We must proceed from the fact that this will be a limited nuclear war. Ballistic missiles will not go into battle, but they will use tactical nuclear weapons. That is, all equipment with protection from residual radiation, no tented urals and KAMAZs, no infantry and no towed artillery. It is for such a war that the Russian army is being prepared.
        6. uskrabut
          uskrabut 12 December 2016 14: 28
          0
          Quote: demiurg
          It is the vision of modern combat that I want to see

          Here, everything will depend on the development of the scenario, which, so to speak, will be selected play for production. But the most likely option is a hybrid war, when large armies will not directly contact each other on the battlefield, since in this case the outcome is a nuclear armageddean. This means that the war will be fought with the participation of 3 and 4 sides, behind which large players will stand.
      2. Zaurbek
        Zaurbek 13 December 2016 12: 55
        0
        As long as there is nuclear weapons, on our scale, there will be no major war. And for a war with a middle state (where it is indecent to use nuclear weapons), combat-ready equipment is needed, and other equipment is needed to keep occupied territories ... On the scale of the Russian army, it is enough to equip one army with heavy armored vehicles (Heavy armored personnel carriers, infantry fighting vehicles, 57mm modules, etc.) just such tasks. The main part of the army should be equipped with conventional (modern) infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers with medium armor and the ability to sail. And accordingly, the unification should be maximum (sights, modules ...) and I would like to see modern bb ammunition for 57mm and 30 mm guns.
    2. avt
      avt 11 December 2016 10: 25
      +6
      Quote: demiurg
      Something I'm in the morning some kind of depressive. Who can write an article, what will be the war of two modern armies?

      Never mind . Here tovarisch is discussing the 57mm device, after a night battle in the World of Tanks, when with a fiery broom, Baikal swept the Abrams
      1. demiurg
        demiurg 11 December 2016 10: 38
        +3
        No, I already let me go.
        In fact, I would read with pleasure about the war in 15-20 years, as it is seen by smart military men. Not fantasy with pilomechi and blasters, but what the general staff is really preparing for.
        To entrust this business to Andrey from Chelyabinsk, he is a meticulous man, he writes well. For pathos and mention of battleships, add Kaptsov as a co-author. It would be great.
        1. uskrabut
          uskrabut 12 December 2016 14: 31
          +2
          Quote: demiurg
          about battleships add Kaptsov to the co-authors

          Given that the latest military conflicts are taking place on continental areas, you have to do without Kaptsov’s battleships (as it’s not hard to admit), no one will drag them into the sand wassat
    3. Denimax
      Denimax 11 December 2016 13: 34
      0
      Quote: demiurg
      Who can write an article, what will be the war of two modern armies?

      It will probably be easier to say about your kind of troops (who served where).
      1. uskrabut
        uskrabut 12 December 2016 14: 32
        +1
        Quote: Denimax
        It will probably be easier to say about your kind of troops (who served where).


        Well, I'm in touch ...... "I'm sitting, I'm sitting," laughing
    4. N100
      N100 11 December 2016 14: 59
      +2
      All are fixated on the destruction of partisans, or irregular formations, and in some colonies. Although it has long been known, it is easier to bribe the local elite, and it will itself solve this problem.


      demiurg you are looking into the water, and the topic has already been run in Iraq, with a bribe top.
      This is no less relevant for us, because the bribed elite are dead zones in aviation and air defense, after which ... the defeat of aviation, the fifth convoy, the Airborne Forces and Airborne Forces (NATO) jumped over the front line with impunity, with the authorities announcing the introduction of a peacekeeping contingent preventing the spread of nuclear weapons to various terrorist groups in the world.

      Or the Yugoslav scenario and a complete economic defeat with the collapse of individual principalities.
      But all the options come from the bribed traitorous elite, as Zbigniew Kazimir (Kazimierz) Brzezinski said, about half a trillion private savings from Russia are stored in our banks, and whose ETA is it now ???
    5. Ostup bender
      Ostup bender 17 December 2016 01: 35
      +1
      Battlefield & Call of duty of the last parts ... also take part ...
  4. The leader of the Redskins
    The leader of the Redskins 11 December 2016 11: 11
    +3
    The author pointed out the diversity and heterogeneity of the BMM, but somehow he did not take into account the moment of the timeliness of using a particular sample. What should a regiment or division commander do if, for example, an order is given to attack, and his staff is staffed with light reconnaissance systems? Or, on the contrary, to scout out what kind of village is there on the horizon, behind a bridge with a carrying capacity of 30 tons, and only "armata" at hand?
    And I know how it will be - the lieutenant colonel will call the starley to him, poke his finger at the map (horizon), bark a combat mission and finish with the usual "... I don't know how, but to be done!"
    And all the above reasoning will go to the cat under ...
  5. tchoni
    tchoni 11 December 2016 11: 14
    +8
    What enslaved in the article? - And the fact that the author stands for diversity actually justifies monotony. He correctly says that at least three main types of armored personnel carriers are required - this is a tank, infantry fighting vehicle and armored personnel carrier, but it is absolutely uncritical in the functionality of these machines and their tasks. And if we critically examine this moment from the perspective of functionality and tasks to be solved, we will see that all of our diversity, won over by the capitalist competitive system, will turn into simple and understandable classes of machines. So let's try to figure it out.
    1) Tank! Its task is to transport a powerful weapon on the BATTLE FIELD and to ensure its optimal use in the interests of supported units and for solving assigned tasks. Consequently, the machine should have high security, have effective reconnaissance and communications equipment, high mobility in difficult road conditions and, of course, powerful weapons capable of fighting targets on the battlefield, including armored and fortified ones.
    2) BMP! Its main task is to transport units in the BATTLE FIELD under the conditions of enemy fire. As an auxiliary task, fire support may or may not (we remember the main function of the tank - isn't it?) Based on this, the main requirements for infantry fighting vehicles are: high security (at the tank level), ensuring high situational awareness of the landing about what is happening outside, ensuring high transport efficiency (capacity, large cargo volume, ease of landing_, landing convenience of landing), ensuring high mobility in difficult road conditions (high traffic)
    3) BTR! Its main task is to transport personnel OUTSIDE the battlefield and protect it during shelling from an ambush, artillery shelling, explosions on mines, in case of enemy air raids.
    Based on this, it can be assumed that the main qualities of the armored personnel carrier should be: High capacity, high speed of movement on roads, even with unpaved surfaces, ensuring a high level of situational awareness for the landing, the presence of an effective deployment system capable of detecting ambushes and mines, ensuring the convenience of dismounting the landing and its effective fire support.
    Here .. It remains to draw conclusions Do I sculpt a boomerang on an armored personnel carrier? Do bmp with cardboard armor, etc.
    1. Cat
      Cat 11 December 2016 12: 30
      +7
      I will add! In addition to armored personnel carriers, infantry fighting vehicles and tanks, engineering vehicles, evacuation and fire support vehicles will go into battle, which should also have a degree of unification with the former.
    2. N100
      N100 11 December 2016 15: 03
      +2
      Here .. It remains to draw conclusions Do I sculpt a boomerang on an armored personnel carrier? Do bmp with cardboard armor, etc.

      You can’t say more precisely hi

      Especially the second point.
      2) BMP! Its main task is to transport units in the BATTLE FIELD under the conditions of enemy fire. As an auxiliary task, fire support may or may not (we remember the main function of the tank - isn't it?) Based on this, the main requirements for infantry fighting vehicles are: high security (at the tank level), ensuring high situational awareness of the landing about what is happening outside, ensuring high transport efficiency (capacity, large cargo volume, ease of landing_, landing convenience of landing), ensuring high mobility in difficult road conditions (high traffic)
    3. AUL
      AUL 11 December 2016 22: 00
      0
      I've already asked a question once, but have not received an answer to it. Maybe the second time I'm lucky. The essence of the question is as follows:
      There are armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles. The former are driving drugs to the battlefield, while the latter are fighting on this very field. Here they are transferring some unit to the necessary area, naturally on an armored personnel carrier. They brought it, it is necessary to transfer to the BMP. And where to get them? So, they need to be overtaken there in advance (EMPTY!) From somewhere. Where from? Who will carry out this fit? And where to put the APC during the battle? Drive away somewhere? And if you have to retreat?
      If everything went as planned, ours won, the unit is transferred to a new section - again a transfer to an armored personnel carrier, and who will be driving the BMP (WHITE!) To where and where? Isn’t it too wide for us to drive empty! Exaggerating, maybe tankers to be brought to the battlefield on an armored personnel carrier, and specially trained people will drive tanks? (About transporting tanks on trailers in the course). In my amateurish opinion, armored personnel carriers should leave the function of delivering ammunition, other supplies, transporting auxiliary (not directly going into battle) units that do not have their own specialized equipment. And to use motorized rifles to use, after all, their native infantry fighting vehicles, as, incidentally, they did in Afghanistan and in Chechnya.
      I ask those who are really in the know to clarify this issue. Sofa theoreticians please do not strain!
      1. KaPToC
        KaPToC 12 December 2016 01: 13
        0
        Quote: AUL
        Sofa theoreticians please do not strain!

        You wrote it in vain, now no one is tense. Moreover, the answer is obvious even to couch theorists.
      2. tchoni
        tchoni 12 December 2016 05: 54
        0
        A bit wrong. The army has DIFFERENT units with DIFFERENT combat capabilities and mobility characteristics. So the units on the BMP have greater firepower and are better suited for combat, but at the same time they have worse mobility characteristics than the units on the APCs. (if only because the speed of the march is 25-30 km per hour, and the service life of the goose is 3000 km .. and then changed .. and maybe more often, depending on what to ride and how to follow. Yes, and the movement will have to be on the side of the road, most likely) That’s why the essence is .. there are different divisions with different equipment. If you exaggerate and do not climb into the wilds, then the task of units reinforced by tanks with infantry fighting vehicles is to knock down the enemy from their positions, and the task of the armored personnel carriers is to chase the retreating enemy in order to prevent him from gaining a foothold in the new ones, and in the case of a counterattack, gaining time for approach and deployment of the main forces ...
        1. AUL
          AUL 13 December 2016 19: 00
          0
          tchoni Thank you for reacting seriously. hi But here the roofing felts do not go with me, the roofing felts are something else.
          So the units on the BMP have greater firepower and are better suited for combat, but at the same time they have worse mobility characteristics than the units on the APCs.
          This is beyond doubt.
          the service life of the goose is 3000 km .. and then changed .. and maybe more often, depending on what to ride and how to follow. Yes, and the movement will have to be carried out along the sidelines, most likely

          EMNIP, the life time of a tank on the battlefield is estimated by experts at 15–20 minutes. I don’t think BMP will have more. So it is unlikely that the machine will have time to develop a resource of ghusl. And move along the side of the road - in wartime, it is unlikely that someone will think about the safety of the road, if there is a combat order!
          That's why there are different units with different equipment. If you exaggerate and do not climb into the wilds, then the task of units reinforced by tanks with infantry fighting vehicles is to knock down the enemy from their positions, and the task of the armored personnel carriers is to chase the retreating enemy in order to prevent him from gaining a foothold in the new ones, and in the case of a counterattack, gaining time for approach and deployment of the main forces ...

          I don’t get it again! It turns out that there are units of motorized rifles on different vehicles. While those on the BMP are knocking the enemy out of their positions, those on the rear of the armored vehicles are smoking and playing cards and football. When the enemy flinched and fled - IFVs are returning to the rear, and those on the APCs will go to pursue the enemy? And how will they gain time for the approach of the main forces, if they themselves are the very same main forces?
          No, I completely dislike such an algorithm for using armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles!
  6. NEXUS
    NEXUS 11 December 2016 13: 10
    +3
    There is another combat module - AU220M Baikal. It consists of a 57-mm gun, the basis of which is taken ZAK S-60 gun.

    It seems that a module with paired 57-mm guns that are going to be placed on Terminator-3 has already been developed. But on the T-15, most likely, if they install the Baikal module, it will be with one 57 mm gun, unlike the Terminator , T-15 will still carry personnel, which means there will be less space for the BC than the Terminator.
  7. pv1005
    pv1005 11 December 2016 14: 19
    +1
    Quote: demiurg
    Throw the address where they take to the General Staff of engineers for controlled electric drives.
    And don’t poke already, I see you for the first time.

    Before the General Staff, you must first serve as a lieutenant in Tmutarakan, graduate from the General Staff Academy and then the General Staff. Only the first step needs to be taken. Well, there are regulated electric drives in modern military equipment. Oh yeah, I almost forgot about the address, write THE MILITARY COMMISSARIAT nearest to your house.
  8. mr.redpartizan
    mr.redpartizan 11 December 2016 14: 24
    +3
    The creation of the Armata platform is a step in the right direction. For another 20 years, the new armored combat vehicles will serve along with the modernized Soviet models. The greatest need is in the soonest replacement of the "cardboard" BMP-1/2/3 and BTR-80 / 82A with new models. We are doing much better with tanks than with lighter armored vehicles.
    And now the points:
    1. The T-14 tank is undoubtedly a masterpiece of the Russian military industry. Thanks to the new layout and the presence of KAZ, the survivability of the vehicle and its crew has significantly increased. There is superiority over the best world models in mobility and firepower, but it is not overwhelming. In the future, it is possible to equip T-72/80/90 tanks with a new weapon of increased power, as well as a new generation fire control system and KAZ. In this case, their firepower and mobility will be equal to the T-14, but in terms of survivability they will still not be able to reach the level of the "Armata". As for the T-14 tank, I see it in two modifications - with a 2A82-1M cannon in 125 mm caliber and with a 2A83 152 mm gun. A tank with a 152 mm cannon is essential in the most important sectors of the front.
    2. The heavy T-15 infantry fighting vehicle is ideal for a full-scale war with a serious enemy, as well as for the fight against semi-partisan formations. The presence of thick passive armor and KAZ brings the survivability of the machine to the level of MBT, which is very necessary both in oncoming battles in the field and in urban battles. The presence of such a machine will significantly reduce the loss of infantry.
    3. Kurganets-25 would be more suitable for the airborne. Its mass allows it to swim and in the long term create a system for its parachute landing. The small thickness of the armor (even in the presence of KAZ) will not allow the Kurgan in vitality to approach the T-15, because it will be vulnerable to fire from small-caliber guns with a caliber of 35-45 mm. On the basis of Kurgan, it is possible to create other types of BBM: self-propelled guns, self-propelled guns, mortars, mortars, etc.
    4. Coalition-SV in the future should replace almost all self-propelled guns in the Russian army, including "Hyacinth" and "Pion". The firing range of more than 50 km, the presence of a radar for adjusting fire, the presence of guided and nuclear projectiles make it possible to abandon guns with a caliber of over 152 mm. The "Armata" chassis will increase the mobility of the ACS and the protection of its crew.
    1. KaPToC
      KaPToC 12 December 2016 01: 21
      0
      Quote: mr.redpartizan
      2. The heavy T-15 infantry fighting vehicle is ideal for a full-scale war with a serious enemy, as well as for the fight against semi-partisan formations.

      To see a T-15 with a 2A75 gun.
  9. svp67
    svp67 11 December 2016 15: 38
    +1
    The answer suggests itself: the Russian army must have a variety of victory tools: a superior tank, a tank-workhorse and even a light tank, a heavy BMP, a light BMP and even a wheeled armored vehicle, and various armored personnel carriers. And all this with the traditional machine-gun, anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles.
    A sound idea, but some kind of terminology is not military.
    - tank of excellence, should sound like a tank of high-quality gain
    - a workhorse tank, this is of course the main tank
    - even a light tank ????, why EVEN? A light tank, it is an airmobile and amphibious tank, which can be quickly transferred to a threatening sector of the front or used in the first wave of landing, both air and sea, is necessary.
    BMP heavy - already have BMPT
    BMP light and even wheeled here is somehow not very clear, it is possible that by analogy with tanks they should be divided into the main (tracked) BMP and light (wheeled) BMP
    - A variety of armored personnel carriers, here I also think that separation of heavy, medium and light armored vehicles into armored personnel carriers and wheeled armored vehicles is required.
    Something lost from this list:
    - Tank support combat vehicles, self-propelled guns for various purposes, army air defense systems and special equipment.
    So it turns out that we need to have one heavy-type tracked BSH based on the "Armata", one light-type tracked BSH based on the Kurganets, one heavy-type wheeled BSH based on the Boomerang, one light-type wheeled BSH, most likely based on the development of the BTR-80 ... And one BSH of the armored car ...
  10. Denimax
    Denimax 11 December 2016 15: 53
    +2
    Maybe in the future they will fight as in the old days, one infantry will run on the ground. Heavy equipment will be customized to capture cities, as catapults and rams used to be. Artillery and aircraft will operate from a distant rear to support infantry. IMHO
    1. mr.redpartizan
      mr.redpartizan 11 December 2016 16: 46
      +1
      It is advisable to capture only your cities, it is much easier to turn the enemy’s cities into dust with the help of aviation and artifacts. Our people should not perish in order to save the civilian population of the enemy.
  11. Locksmith
    Locksmith 11 December 2016 16: 39
    0
    Quote: demiurg
    Something I'm in the morning some kind of depressive. Who can write an article, what will be the war of two modern armies?
    I, as a true couch expert, for example, do not see BBM in the same order as the advancing infantry. And towed artillery, too, can not find a place.
    All are fixated on the destruction of partisans, or irregular formations, and in some colonies. Although it has long been known, it is easier to bribe the local elite, and it will itself solve this problem.

    A strange idea is to put forward impossible requirements and refute them here. smile
    Well, you know better, I suspect that the crews of PROTECTED vehicles will more than once say thanks to the designer, and the department of especially "gifted" soldiers will say a BIG THANKS TO THE DESIGNER !!
    There is no need to look for a place of something that you yourself do not understand.
    Military science does not stand still, which seemed delirious yesterday, now it’s quite a sensible battle technique laughing
  12. Maz
    Maz 11 December 2016 17: 13
    +2
    so far we only scare everyone with these armatures, Kurgan, BMPT. And where did they actually do in combat use? So far, continuous trolling on the Internet. There Syria, get a reinforcement there as part of a reinforced battalion group and let him try to see, aim and get there ..., but for now only zilchs, broads on the TV screen and sketches on Red Square. The module is uninhabited, it's cool, but the view from there is a complete G big. KvadroDron on a cable even had to come up with this not because we are smart, but because of this clunker without a reconnaissance and fire control machine nothing is visible on the battlefield. Conclusion: we need a land armored complex of fire and other destruction vehicles and a control vehicle, electronic suppression and reconnaissance, just as is done when using KA-52 and KA-50 helicopters on the battlefield. This complex should act as a single mechanism and tactical combat unit of at least three combat vehicles.
  13. Lopatov
    Lopatov 11 December 2016 17: 15
    +5
    Quote: demiurg
    1. I did not say that infantry on the front line is not needed. I said that things should not go to a shootout on machine guns.

    Just the same will be. There is no other way out. Roughly speaking, the closer the tank is to the enemy's positions, the less opportunities it has to hit the target that threatens it. Paradoxically, remember the angular distances, the increase in the "attention sector" with decreasing distance and the speed of horizontal guidance systems.
    Therefore, the only effective protection of an armored object at short ranges (100-200 meters) can only be infantry with their own rifle. Which a) can provide a larger, let's say, "zone of attention" in which a suddenly emerging target can be detected and b) can provide a shorter transfer time of fire compared to a tank / BMP.

    Quote: demiurg
    Any UAV will be cheaper, there is no cockpit and no reservations.

    But a much more complex and expensive control system and a much more complex and expensive communication system.

    Quote: demiurg
    At what distance from the trench should a 152mm shell or 120mm mine explode so that a soldier in the trench is shell-shocked with loss of combat effectiveness?
    And if you recall the aerial bombs and thermobaric ammunition?
    Yes, and about the possibility of undermining in the air while there was no conversation, and to realize it is several times cheaper than correction.
    Correct if not right, but already in 44, the USSR in the direction of the main attacks created such a density of fire that the soldiers the first two or three lines of trenches passed along the lunar landscape.

    You, in fact, yourself came to the thought of the need for trenches. They require much more artillery and other means of destruction.
    For example, according to the experience of the Second World War, for the suppression of sheltered manpower and firepower with the destruction of 25-50% of fighters, 120 152 mm shells per hectare are needed. And for the destruction of uncovered infantry 6 shells.

    120 and 6 ... "Price" of trenches
    1. mr.redpartizan
      mr.redpartizan 11 December 2016 17: 21
      0
      During WWII there were no drones to adjust real-time artillery fire and laser / satellite-guided projectiles. Now, to destroy the dugout with the command, it is enough to hit one or two high-precision shells.
      1. Lopatov
        Lopatov 11 December 2016 18: 18
        +3
        "
        Quote: mr.redpartizan
        During WWII there were no drones to adjust artillery fire in real time

        "Adjustment" is a very, very vague term. In artillery, there is sighting, and there is fire correction during firing to kill. There is no time for the first in modern combat, the absence of the second is "cured" by a rather small increase in projectile consumption.
        Therefore, the "wunderwaffe" drone by no means can make the good old trench useless.

        Quote: mr.redpartizan
        Now, to destroy the dugout with the command, it is enough to hit one or two high-precision shells.

        Or maybe more. I quoted the numbers above. In addition, this dugout also needs to be discovered that with an adequate adversary is a nontrivial task. Especially in modern conditions.

        I don’t quite understand these dances around the UAV. Firstly, their capabilities are very, very exaggerated. Secondly, they have a lot of flaws. And thirdly, the era of their unpunished use is rapidly coming to an end.
  14. Alex_59
    Alex_59 12 December 2016 07: 18
    0
    340 high-explosive fragmentation to destroy enemy manpower at a distance of up to four kilometers.
    Yeah, with a median deviation of 4000 meters at a height of 5,2 meters and in the direction of 2,5 meters. Knowing the high-explosive fragmentation power of the 30 mm projectile, they can only shoot at infantry at 4 km.
    1. IS-80_RVGK2
      IS-80_RVGK2 12 December 2016 09: 43
      0
      Quote: Alex_59
      Yeah, with a median deviation of 4000 meters at a height of 5,2 meters and in the direction of 2,5 meters. Knowing the high-explosive fragmentation power of the 30 mm projectile, they can only shoot at infantry at 4 km.

      The author would tell us how we deal with new armor-piercing shells for a 30mm gun, and then there are bad rumors about the fact that everything is very sad and Bradley’s forehead, alas.
  15. The stranger
    The stranger 17 December 2016 06: 45
    0
    Nonsense.
    How much do not feed the wolf - ...
    Infantry never sit on the bus. Not for this she was fed - taught. Yes, and do not want to die - she will fan herself, adjoining bayonets. And if you stay inside - who will be the hands of the battle? Boxes go on roads, bayonets take the territory.
    If he is one of these. Therefore, I arise.