Military Review

On the chassis of the BMP "Dragoon" can create a light tank with an 125-mm gun

30
Recently in a number of countries interest in lungs has woken up again tanks. True, these fighting vehicles can be called light only conditionally - in terms of their mass they are more consistent with medium tanks of the Second World War, writes Messenger of Mordovia.


On the chassis of the BMP "Dragoon" can create a light tank with an 125-mm gun


Such armored vehicles are currently being built in South Korea, Indonesia, Turkey and China.

Russian defense enterprises in this direction can also make potential customers a number of very attractive offers: “Besides the 2C25M Sprut SDM1, which is positioned as a self-propelled gun, the appearance of a light-medium version of the tank is possible on the Dragoon BMP chassis. At least in 2015, such a machine was told at an exhibition in Nizhny Tagil Russia Arms EXPO 2015, ”says a material by Roman Katkov.

He notes that the Dragoon with the 125-mm cannon, embodied in the armor, “will have an interesting feature - an engine with a capacity of more than 800 hp. will be located in front of the car, while the tank, unlike foreign competitors, will be floating. "



Judging by the publications, the combat module is unified with the similar one mounted on the Sprut.

The machine will be able to hit targets not only with projectiles, but also guided missiles, and modern sights will allow it to operate effectively both day and night.

Currently, BMP "Dragoon" successfully passed the tests. It is likely that "it will become the basis of the unified modular platform in demand in our time," the author concludes.

Photos used:
Denis Peredrienko / vestnik-rm.ru
30 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. NEXUS
    NEXUS 26 October 2017 12: 46 New
    33
    The question is, why do we need a light tank, if we already have it and it is called Octopus? Again, we are creating a line of almost the same complexes with the same capabilities and tasks.
    1. Berber
      Berber 26 October 2017 13: 14 New
      +8
      Maybe an export option. Although to be honest, I also see no reason.
    2. alexmach
      alexmach 26 October 2017 13: 15 New
      +1
      It’s possible that Dragoon would be put into mass production. More chassis units in the series - each unit is cheaper. And so I will understand the same Octopus only on Dragoon and not on the classic BMP-3.
      And the question is what the military should buy.
      1. Setrac
        Setrac 27 October 2017 00: 49 New
        +1
        Quote: alexmach
        And so I will understand the same Octopus only on Dragoon and not on the classic BMP-3.

        Actually, the Octopus-SD is on the BMD and not on the BMP.
    3. Lopatov
      Lopatov 26 October 2017 15: 11 New
      +4
      Quote: NEXUS
      The question is, why do we need a light tank

      For intelligence.

      Quote: NEXUS
      if we already have it and is called Octopus?

      Octopus is for the Airborne Forces. The machine allows parachute landing and therefore very, very expensive.
      In addition, a light tank based on the "Dragoon" can be equipped with better protection. Again, due to the lack of requirements for landing.
      1. NEXUS
        NEXUS 26 October 2017 15: 36 New
        +3
        Quote: Spade
        Octopus is for the Airborne Forces. The machine allows parachute landing and therefore very, very expensive.

        Question-And do we need a light tank so massively? For what? So that techies do not seem like honey?
        There is an Octopus for an assault, why should a land tanker have a light tank?
        1. Lopatov
          Lopatov 26 October 2017 15: 51 New
          +3
          Quote: NEXUS
          Question-And do we need a light tank so massively? For what?

          For intelligence, that's it.
          Quote: NEXUS
          So that techies do not seem like honey?

          There are already quite a lot of vehicles based on BMP-3, but in the future their number will only increase.

          Quote: NEXUS
          There is an octopus for landing

          There is. It is expensive, it is intended for landing, it is very, very poorly protected.
          1. NEXUS
            NEXUS 26 October 2017 16: 01 New
            +3
            Quote: Spade
            For intelligence, that's it.

            Why do we need a massive series of light tanks? Is it necessary, with such a diverse and already armored lineup, taking into account new models based on the Boomerang and Kurganets (which is being redesigned in a hurry)?
            Quote: Spade
            There is. It is expensive, it is intended for landing, it is very, very poorly protected.

            A light tank a priori will be poorly protected, as it is light. A canopy of new armor will turn it not at all into a light tank.
            1. Lopatov
              Lopatov 26 October 2017 16: 14 New
              +3
              Quote: NEXUS
              Why do we need a massive series of light tanks?

              For intelligence. units of the ground forces.

              Quote: NEXUS
              A light tank a priori will be poorly protected, as it is light.

              But at the same time it will be floating. What will provide intelligence. units need mobility.

              Quote: NEXUS
              A canopy of new armor will turn it not at all into a light tank.

              Dragoon is better protected by default than Octopus. Consequently, the machine based on it will have the best protection.
  2. marshes
    marshes 26 October 2017 12: 46 New
    +8
    125 to Dragoon, not seriously if you do not sell to the countries of South, Asia and Africa.
    But thresher 57, as an enhancement to a platoon of BMP-3 Dragoons, maybe that was it.
    1. Alex777
      Alex777 26 October 2017 18: 31 New
      +2
      The engine forward and the 125 mm cannon on top are mainly weapons for export. For modernization, etc. IMHO. hi
    2. electrooleg
      electrooleg 26 October 2017 23: 50 New
      +1
      57 mm module turned out serious. I really look forward to seeing new samples equipped with it! Yes, and I think everyone is looking forward to winked "Barys" Kazakhstan cool turned out.
  3. aszzz888
    aszzz888 26 October 2017 12: 47 New
    +3
    while the tank, unlike foreign competitors, will be floating. ”

    ... along the way, after the PT-76, we seemed to have no amphibious tanks ... recourse
    1. NEXUS
      NEXUS 26 October 2017 13: 14 New
      +8
      Quote: aszzz888
      ... along the way, after the PT-76, we seemed to have no amphibious tanks ...

      And Octopus is your what?
      1. Lopatov
        Lopatov 26 October 2017 15: 09 New
        +3
        Quote: NEXUS
        And Octopus is your what?

        PT SAU
        1. NEXUS
          NEXUS 26 October 2017 15: 37 New
          +3
          Quote: Spade
          PT SAU

          You can call it anything you like, but the gun on it is from the tank, and not from Msta-S.
          1. Lopatov
            Lopatov 26 October 2017 15: 52 New
            +2
            Quote: NEXUS
            You can call it anything you like, but the gun on it is from the tank, and not from Msta-S.

            What’s the gun here?
            He is armed with anti-tank units. Means- PT SAU
            1. NEXUS
              NEXUS 26 October 2017 15: 55 New
              +4
              Quote: Spade
              He is armed with anti-tank units. Means- PT SAU

              I repeat, do not call it, but it doesn’t change the essence. You still haven’t answered me.
              1. Lopatov
                Lopatov 26 October 2017 16: 05 New
                +4
                Quote: NEXUS
                I repeat, do not call him, but the essence

                ... this is a tank destroyer. Because it is armed with anti-tank units. With all the consequences. Including the fact that these units are commanded by artillery officers.

                If the T-90 tank was put into service with the PTA OPTADN batteries, then due to the specifics of its combat use, this would be a pure tank destroyer.
                1. Haye
                  Haye 30 October 2017 00: 08 New
                  0
                  Actually, the "Dragoon" with a 125 mm gun is also a tank destroyer, everything else will depend on where it (the Dragoon in the sense, and the Octopus too) is determined, everything else is pure sophistry.
    2. Svarog51
      Svarog51 26 October 2017 14: 43 New
      10
      Here, please, it floats and it seems that even a fire can lead afloat.
  4. batonow44
    batonow44 26 October 2017 13: 30 New
    +1
    Did any of your acquaintances serve on the Octopus?
    I have a classmate commander of this miracle ... more precisely, his first modification.
    Ask around and compare reviews.
  5. Proton
    Proton 26 October 2017 13: 34 New
    +1
    What kind of things, they didn’t have time to break in one, abandoned, give another to create, give the same kurgan and the bankrupt factory, who needs such a motley wassat
  6. Grits
    Grits 26 October 2017 13: 40 New
    +5
    What is the point of making a light tank based on BMP if you already have a light tank based on BMD (extended) with the same gun?
    The only difference is that in Octopus there is no landing squad. If this is still a tank - then why would he land? If this is an infantry fighting vehicle, then why a tank gun? The ideal option on Dragoon is 57 mm. gun. Both infantry support and light armored vehicles are sewn through, and helicopters and attack aircraft can be wrestled with.
    1. marshes
      marshes 26 October 2017 13: 50 New
      +1
      Quote: Gritsa
      The ideal option on Dragoon is 57 mm. gun. Both infantry support and light armored vehicles are sewn through, and helicopters and attack aircraft can be wrestled with.

      It is possible even without an airborne detachment, To create a pure fire support vehicle, the vacated space will be used for ammunition, and the crew can be enclosed with armored shields.
  7. mariusdeayeraleone
    mariusdeayeraleone 26 October 2017 13: 47 New
    +1
    I see only commercial goals here. Production in Russia is much cheaper than in other countries of the world.
  8. Per se.
    Per se. 26 October 2017 14: 02 New
    +2
    Use the BMP chassis under the tank 125 mm gun ... It would somehow be more suitable for the Marines or Airborne Forces (BMD). In the ground forces, under the tank guns, there are tanks themselves, and it would be better if the base (platform) from the BMP was used for self-propelled guns of the Nona type, especially since the layout of the Dragoon will be in place here, and especially with plans for new 120-152 mm systems.
    “Currently, TsNIItochmash is already developing promising samples of self-propelled artillery guns as part of Zauralets-D,” said Dmitry Semizorov, general director of TsNIIochtomash, at TASS.
    According to him, two calibers are being developed - 120 and 152 mm. According to the CEO, they will be distinguished from the existing samples by “the firing range and the power of the shot”.
  9. Zomanus
    Zomanus 26 October 2017 14: 20 New
    0
    Interestingly, after the installation of the gun, the landing can be transported there?
    Well, theoretically, you can put a bunch of different modules on the shoulder ...
  10. tchoni
    tchoni 26 October 2017 15: 15 New
    +1
    Exclusive IMHO. A machine weighing up to 25 tons should be wheeled. In this case, it makes sense. Otherwise, it makes sense to combine the shortcomings of a caterpillar mover and low security !? But, let’s say, a tower from the same octopus on a “boomerang” would have looked very appropriate ....
  11. Sergey53
    Sergey53 26 October 2017 15: 45 New
    0
    The Marines will do. Yes, and the infantry. For airborne do their own, lightweight.