Military Review

T-80 tanks returned to service with marines

55
The Marine Corps, deployed in Kamchatka, has adopted the main combat Tanks T-80BV.


As Rear Commander Sergei Lipilin, commander of the troops and forces in northeastern Russia, told the Red Star in an interview, the equipment is necessary to increase the firepower of the unit.

T-80 tanks returned to service with marines


Currently created a tank company. She has already begun to engage in combat training. It is expected that the crews will take part in the "Tank Biathlon"
- Commander reported

Also in the brigade received armored personnel carriers BTR-82A. The cars will undergo a kind of check that will show how well they are adapted for use on the peninsula, where the climate is characterized by temperature changes and high snow cover.

To replace the outdated self-propelled artillery, the marines received the 2-1 "Carnation" self-propelled guns. This technique showed itself well in the course of bilateral exercises of brigades of marines, reports "Herald of Mordovia"
Photos used:
http://vestnik-rm.ru/index.php
55 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. ioan-e
    ioan-e 4 December 2017 13: 54 New
    16
    To replace the obsolete self-propelled artillery, the Marines received 2C1 Gvozdika self-propelled guns.

    What did they have there?
    1. Chertt
      Chertt 4 December 2017 14: 00 New
      +6
      Quote: ioan-e
      To replace the obsolete self-propelled artillery, the Marines received 2C1 Gvozdika self-propelled guns.

      What did they have there?

      "Carnation" in a modernized form. There was an article about this. Although really sounds funny
    2. Hadji Murat
      Hadji Murat 4 December 2017 14: 00 New
      0
      they had acacias
      1. kirgiz58
        kirgiz58 4 December 2017 14: 33 New
        +3
        Quote: Hadji Murat
        they had acacias

        Instead of acacias they can’t go. 152 to 122 do not change. 2С1 regimental unit, 2С3 divisional. Rather, the "trailers" were, such as D-20 with ZILs.
    3. inkass_98
      inkass_98 4 December 2017 14: 01 New
      +1
      ACS-85 wink .
      The Nona must have been in service.
      1. rocket757
        rocket757 4 December 2017 14: 34 New
        +3
        “Nona” is such a good system, to shoot at closed targets at the hills, that's it.
        However, the place is more visible. although the "tanks of the English Channel" into the hills to drive, it is strange.
        1. cariperpaint
          cariperpaint 4 December 2017 14: 39 New
          +2
          you phrase didn’t bother you?)
    4. Paranoid50
      Paranoid50 4 December 2017 14: 11 New
      +3
      Quote: ioan-e
      What did they have there?

      Well, not otherwise - "St. John's Wort" ... yes Hmm, the 40th brigade, the "youngest" in the MP (since 2007). Although history has been going on since 1918. History says that in 1919 Chapaev himself commanded it (then the division).
      1. svp67
        svp67 4 December 2017 16: 28 New
        +1
        Quote: Paranoid50
        Hmm, the 40th brigade, the "youngest" in the MP (since 2007).

        This is the CURRENT formation, as well as its predecessor, the 40th division in the Coastal Fleet Troops from the beginning of the 90s ...
    5. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 4 December 2017 14: 41 New
      +6
      Quote: ioan-e
      What did they have there?

      I don’t know what the marines had, but their neighbors from 18 pulades had, before the furniture maker’s arrival, EMNIP, T-55AM (yeah, in 2007 - T-55AM).

      They began to be replaced with the T-80BV only after the war 080808 and the beginning of the "general audit" of the army.
    6. Alf
      Alf 4 December 2017 21: 59 New
      0
      Quote: ioan-e
      What did they have there?

      SU-76, ISU-122, ISU-152. laughing
  2. Radikal
    Radikal 4 December 2017 14: 00 New
    0
    Quote: ioan-e
    To replace the obsolete self-propelled artillery, the Marines received 2C1 Gvozdika self-propelled guns.

    What did they have there?

    And really? belay
    1. Hermann
      Hermann 4 December 2017 14: 09 New
      0
      There were kind of hyacinths, but that’s not accurate.
    2. viktorch
      viktorch 4 December 2017 14: 16 New
      +2
      d-20 not otherwise, with equestrian traction
      1. Hermann
        Hermann 4 December 2017 14: 25 New
        0
        It also seems strange to me that the Marines have hyacinth, this is infa from the milcavasus.
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 4 December 2017 14: 45 New
          +1
          Quote: Herman
          It also seems strange to me that the Marines have hyacinth, this is infa from the milcavasus.

          Maybe there Kamchatka marines with their Sakhalin-smoked neighbors out of 18 pulads confused? They definitely have both towed and self-propelled "genocides."
          1. Hermann
            Hermann 4 December 2017 15: 02 New
            +1
            Yes, most likely they got it wrong. In the marines, usually 2s1.
  3. Pax tecum
    Pax tecum 4 December 2017 14: 05 New
    +1
    At first, the paratroopers were reinforced with tanks, now the marines. They decided to create shock autonomous armies. What is it for? The question is more of a rhetorical one, knowing the tactics of these military branches.
    That would be a strategic plan to see, in detail, in combat manuals.
    1. viktorch
      viktorch 4 December 2017 14: 29 New
      0
      the question is how they are going to use them with such "gain".
    2. cariperpaint
      cariperpaint 4 December 2017 14: 42 New
      0
      but what do you think why there are no marines schools in the country but there are marines?) they generally always graduated from tank schools) so they didn’t strengthen them but just gave what they had before)
      1. verner1967
        verner1967 4 December 2017 21: 00 New
        +1
        Quote: cariperpaint
        But why do you think there are no schools of marine corps in the country, but there are marines?

        Is the Far East Higher Combined Arms Command School named after Marshal of the Soviet Union K.K. Rokossovsky is not preparing them? Tankers for the MP prepared like the Omsk Tank
        1. Streloks
          Streloks 5 December 2017 05: 59 New
          +1
          Even as he cooks, he studied there himself!
  4. Herculesic
    Herculesic 4 December 2017 14: 05 New
    +1
    If the tanks in the photo are talking about, then they have problems with protection - the rubber screens on the sides are the Stone Age. It’s a pleasure to shoot such a tank.
    1. kirgiz58
      kirgiz58 4 December 2017 14: 38 New
      +2
      Quote: Herkulesich
      It’s a pleasure to shoot such a tank.

      Have you ever been tested in tanks? When he doesn’t shoot, it may be a pleasure, but when he can tumble down it is somehow frustrating (a miss of 100 meters will not help you, it will blow off ... fix laughing )
      1. Herculesic
        Herculesic 4 December 2017 15: 08 New
        +2
        Do not believe it, I even drove a T72 as a driver, and there was nothing cool. ..
        1. kirgiz58
          kirgiz58 4 December 2017 15: 12 New
          +5
          Quote: Herkulesich
          I went to t72

          If you had served at my beginning, you would even have learned to drive, not ride. yes lol
          1. Asthma
            Asthma 4 December 2017 16: 32 New
            +1
            Greetings, comrade!
            but could you please explain to me exactly why the eighties and not seventy-second or nineties? and in biathlon they will also take part in the eighties?
        2. kirgiz58
          kirgiz58 4 December 2017 15: 15 New
          0
          Quote: Herkulesich
          and nothing was missing. ..

          So you were on our side and the infantryman was let in between the geese, and here the infantryman was stingy. Why do you need it? smile
          1. Herculesic
            Herculesic 4 December 2017 16: 12 New
            +1
            Freud's reservation - I was leading the T72! soldier
    2. svp67
      svp67 4 December 2017 16: 34 New
      +1
      Quote: Herkulesich
      If the tanks in the photo are talking about, then they have problems with protection - the rubber screens on the sides are the Stone Age.

      In the photo of the T-80BV and their sides should be like this T-64BV ...

      In general, the T-80 is now being brought up to this look ...



      1. Herculesic
        Herculesic 4 December 2017 17: 46 New
        +1
        Why is the rear sprocket so poorly covered? It is not a problem to break it from an RPG, because the screens are high, they do not completely close ..
        1. svp67
          svp67 4 December 2017 17: 54 New
          +1
          Quote: Herkulesich
          Why is the rear sprocket so poorly covered?

          This is called the "drive wheel" and there is a problem with the stuffing mud. It is necessary to establish a bulwark in a different way, so that they would not be disrupted ... Here, apparently, in a hurry. Yes, and getting specifically into the wheel is not so easy, RPG grenade, this is not a bullet of a sniper rifle.
  5. novel66
    novel66 4 December 2017 14: 06 New
    +7
    prepared for a jerk to the English Channel, and will go to Japan. for what Putin offered them a bridge.
  6. svp67
    svp67 4 December 2017 14: 15 New
    +3
    Tanks are good and it’s good that tank units, reduced to the "dashing" nineties, are returning to our MP. But the problem is what they will carry. Under them, you need new BDKs, since the old ones are of course able to carry them, but they were created under the "half-foot". Not just that way in the MP, they survived the longest.
    1. Vadim Zhivov
      Vadim Zhivov 4 December 2017 14: 24 New
      +1
      We had such Dresden and then brought the villains hi
  7. Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 4 December 2017 14: 36 New
    +2
    I understand that the Far East decided to unify the tanks of the marines and 18 bullets?
  8. cariperpaint
    cariperpaint 4 December 2017 14: 53 New
    +4
    but I kept wondering where they were taken)))
    1. Asthma
      Asthma 4 December 2017 16: 30 New
      0
      + for the "mashka" !!
    2. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 4 December 2017 17: 21 New
      +1
      - Pal Andreich ...
      - Yes?..
      “Are you a spy?”
      © smile
  9. cavl
    cavl 4 December 2017 16: 57 New
    0
    Still to know the number of tanks
    1. cariperpaint
      cariperpaint 4 December 2017 17: 10 New
      0
      company. mean 10-13
  10. MOSKVITYANIN
    MOSKVITYANIN 4 December 2017 23: 05 New
    +1
    Before the arrival of the MP in Kamchatka, there is an SMBr. stationed, it was necessary to reduce it (according to WIKI I did not see it), so that now Br. MP tanks had to be strengthened ...
  11. Valery Saitov
    Valery Saitov 5 December 2017 12: 40 New
    +1
    The time has come to modernize the equipment of all the okrugs and our Omsk Tank (Omsk Transport Engineering Plant) will not remain without work.
  12. Boris Chernikov
    Boris Chernikov 5 December 2017 22: 50 New
    0
    In principle, it is logical that they need tanks for defensive operations .. And since the tanks will still interact with the Marines (no longer with anyone), they subordinate them to the Marines to increase coherence
    1. MOSKVITYANIN
      MOSKVITYANIN 5 December 2017 22: 54 New
      0
      If we are preparing for defensive actions, it is better to use tanks with motorized rifle rather than MPs .... in the MP defenses it is less stable ...
      1. Boris Chernikov
        Boris Chernikov 6 December 2017 00: 05 New
        0
        no less, but if the Marines are there, then why not give them tanks?
        1. MOSKVITYANIN
          MOSKVITYANIN 6 December 2017 00: 50 New
          0
          Quote: Boris Chernikov
          no less, but if the Marines are there, then why not give them tanks?

          And why not return to the peninsula SMBr., And give the MP (with dshb in its composition) not tanks, but AA helicopters and drones?
          1. Boris Chernikov
            Boris Chernikov 10 January 2018 21: 18 New
            0
            because where are the helicopters for them? in the event of a conflict, the Mn task will hold the defenses and counterattack ... the helicopter landing forces will be dropped in extreme cases in the style of a la reconnaissance saboteurs. Unmanned aerial vehicles are already purchased and distributed in parts
            1. MOSKVITYANIN
              MOSKVITYANIN 16 January 2018 20: 10 New
              0
              Boris Chernikov
              because where are the helicopters?

              Those. ILCs US helicopter convertoplanes are needed and their need is not discussed by liberal Russian youth, and the Russian MP do not need them for sure?
              1. Boris Chernikov
                Boris Chernikov 16 January 2018 23: 26 New
                0
                Maybe because at the moment Russia does not have carriers for a tiltrotor? At least a UDC or an aircraft carrier is needed for a tiltrotor, so the tiltrotor has the task of transferring a platoon from infantry force is not buzzing ... by the way, the presence of tiltrotors does not cancel the fact that the US CLC has their tanks and they won’t turn their nose off them .. but it was worth giving tanks to our marines on the defensive line, so for some reason it’s not comme il faut .. In case of war, tanks should be there, so the question is ... what’s better: tank company of motorized rifle troops , with which it is necessary to constantly coordinate the teachings and interaction, or a subordinate TR, which in principle deals with this
                1. MOSKVITYANIN
                  MOSKVITYANIN 17 January 2018 19: 14 New
                  0
                  Boris Chernikov
                  Maybe because at the moment Russia does not have carriers for a tiltrotor? At least a UDC or an aircraft carrier is needed for a tiltrotor, so the tiltrotor has the task of transferring a platoon from infantry force there are no buzzes.

                  Those. without UDC / DKVD convertoplanes and helicopters cannot be used? But what about the use of the US MP in Iraq and Afghanistan, where they were used from airfields.
                  Incidentally, the presence of convertiplanes does not negate the fact that the United States Transportation Commission has its own tanks and they will not turn their nose off them.

                  Do not misinterpret my comments, this is stupid, because the whole dialogue is visible to everyone, I wrote about the "division of labor"
                  And why not return to the peninsula SMBr., And give the MP (with dshb in its composition) not tanks, but AA helicopters and drones? 6 December 2017 00: 50

                  Each has its own task. As the Russian Federation will build an ocean fleet and overseas bases, then tank battalions as part of Br. MP (on what are you going to transfer for example Br. MP from Vladivostok to the Kuril Islands - drop all completely killed BDKs - built, once in the NDP and the GDR?).
                  In case of war, tanks should be there

                  Where is there? On island territories, it is generally necessary to have SCRCs and air defense systems, as well as MSB-rich PTS ....
                  I did not say that coastal defense is not needed tanks, they just have to be at the motorized rifle .... included to the Fleet Coastal Force ....
                  I remind you, if you do not read the periodicals at all, then AKs were formed in all the fleets except the Pacific Fleet, which will be responsible for coastal defense ...
                  Do you want to make the RF MP "heavier" then take care of the amphibious assault forces of the fleet ....
                  tank company of motorized rifle troops, with which it is necessary to constantly coordinate exercises and interaction, or a subordinate TR, which in principle deals with this

                  Both motorized rifles (separate units and subunits, as well as formations) and the MP are part of the Coastal forces, why coordinate something ...
                  1. Boris Chernikov
                    Boris Chernikov 17 January 2018 23: 35 New
                    0
                    1) You said exactly what "why do they need tanks — give better helicopters"
                    2) I reported about the specifics of convertiplanes.
                    3) helicopters in defense? Och interesting
                    4) the generals probably know better that it’s better to immediately subordinate the tank company to the marines.
                    5) did you read the moment about the unit on the defensive? And yes, for that matter, the tanks were part of the marines just before, more than once already
                    1. MOSKVITYANIN
                      MOSKVITYANIN 18 January 2018 00: 01 New
                      0
                      Boris Chernikov 3) helicopters in defense? Och interesting

                      I did not write anything about helicopters in defense, although in defense as an anti-tank reserve, they can disrupt the enemy’s attack and, together with airborne landing groups, successfully fight against enemy reserves ...
                      MP - this is an offensive unit (to perform a limited range of tasks, because they operate in isolation from the main forces), motor riflemen are more resistant to defense ....
                      4) the generals probably know better that it’s better to immediately subordinate the tank company to the marines.

                      Apparently yes. Having disbanded the 55 th DMP at the Russian Pacific Fleet and creating two BrMP tanks on its basis, they took them away, now they returned, apparently either the DMP will be recreated again, or they decided to strengthen the existing two BrMPs in the Pacific Fleet, because one is apparently preparing for hostilities on island territories, etc. for the defense of the naval base of Pacific Fleet in Kamchatka ....
                      1) You said exactly what "why do they need tanks — give better helicopters"

                      Again you're lying, I did not say that ....
                      I said that the MP should be given helicopters and UAVs, and the SMBr should be returned to Kamchatka. with tanks in her state ....
                      I don’t want to talk to you further, so you are misinterpreting my comments ....
                      By the way, look how many tanks are in the Russian Armed Forces and how many are in the US Armed Forces ...
                      1. Boris Chernikov
                        Boris Chernikov 18 January 2018 21: 09 New
                        0
                        Hmm ...
                        1) "How the Russian Federation will build an ocean fleet and overseas bases, then we can speak of tank battalions as part of Br."
                        Just the opposite, until there are no marine means of delivery, the existence of convertiplanes and personal helicopters is not needed from the word AT ALL. For the delivery of the "mobile anti-tank reserve" there are helicopters that will be subordinate to the command .. As long as there are no delivery means, in case of war the marines will sit in the trenches, and not somewhere in the rear claiming "that they are not very on the defensive" .. And here the presence of tanks is very useful to them ..
                        2) Just about helicopters you said literally “why not give them tanks, but helicopters” .. Because they were given tanks, it’s more realistic that the MP will be in defense and for the “stability” that the marines allegedly have tends to zero according to your words and they were given tanks.
  13. brick
    brick 8 December 2017 13: 22 New
    0
    Good tank.)))