Military Review

Wheeled tank for European autobahns

95
Director General of the Military Industrial Company (VPK) Alexander Krasovitsky announced the development of VPK-7829 on the Boomerang wheeled platform tank, or rather a combat vehicle with heavy weapons (BMTV).


Wheeled tank for European autobahns


Krasovitsky’s speech cannot be called a sensation in full measure - plans to create a fully automated artillery combat module for the wheelbase armed with an 125-mm gun developed for the Armata T-14 tank were reported back in 2015.

Recall that the modularity and high potential of the design was confirmed by the fact that the Boomerangs originally participating in the rehearsals of the Victory Parade in Alabino were originally equipped with a combat module armed with an 12,7 caliber machine gun. And on the Red Square, all 4 machines came out already with modules with 30-mm cannons and the Kornet ATGM, which look much more impressive.

Information about the developed BMTV is not so much, however, experts believe that in the “tank” version the “Boomerang” will receive not only the 125-mm gun from the T-14, but it will also be unified with it by the sighting system and means of active protection.
It should be noted that interest in the "wheeled tanks" or "cannon armored vehicles" arose among the Russian military not today.
Thus, on the basis of the BTR-90 “Rostok”, the “wheeled tank” 2C28 Sprut-K, armed with the 125-mm 2X75 cannon from the self-propelled artillery 2CXNNXX Sprut-SD, was also developed.

And, in 2012, the media reported that the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation is conducting an assessment test of two Italian heavy wheeled armored vehicles of the type B1 "Centaur" (Centauro), and representatives of the firms IVECO and Oto Melara expect that Russia will acquire a license for the production of Centauro, which can be placed on OAO "KamAZ".

These plans, if they really were, did not have to come true.

And it is quite reasonable. Alexander Krasovitsky did not accidentally indicate that today there are no direct competitors to the Russian Boomerang armored personnel carrier and, accordingly, BMTV, which is being built on its base.

First of all, it concerns the uninhabited automated combat module, by virtue of which the ammunition and armament are completely isolated, both from the crew and the landing (in the variant of the BMP and BTR).

One of the weak points of all "wheeled tanks" is their lesser (compared to tracked vehicles) security. Having a powerful weapon "tank" level, they, as a rule, are equipped with light bulletproof armor.

So, for the B-1 Centauro, which participated in the peacekeeping operation in Somalia, had to quickly buy ROMOR-A dynamic protection kits in Britain. To protect these armored cars from RPG-7 missiles.

And the M1128 MGS cannon "Strikers" of the US Army, as a result of the war in Iraq, are amplified by such a number of hinged panels and screens, which somewhat reduces the driving characteristics of this machine.

Against this background, the wheeled platform of average weight (24 tons), "Boomerang" compares favorably. According to some reports, it can withstand an anti-tank grenade or a rocket fired from a portable complex from any angle, and also provides protection from small-caliber artillery shells fired into frontal armor and large-caliber machine guns - into airborne. The armor will be modular, consisting of removable armored ceramic plates, gratings to combat cumulative shells and dynamic protection. Like many light tanks, the car will be floating.

The wheel formula is known 8x8. Moreover, the suspension is completely independent for all wheels, with all-wheel drive and Run Flat system. "Boomerang" can turn on the spot, like a tracked tank, thanks to the possibility of rotating the wheels of different sides in opposite directions.

The speed on the highway is about 100 km / h, afloat - 12 km / h, the range on the highway - 800 km.

As you know, most BMTVs were created, primarily for use in local wars in conditions of African shrouds or Middle Eastern deserts.

Wheel equipment, has a large resource, is much cheaper to operate (does not need tank trailers). Lighter weight makes it easier to transport aviation and sea transport. High speed opens up great opportunities for long-distance raids and escort of columns. Insufficient security for low-intensity conflicts was not considered very critical - it was assumed that the rebels against whom these machines would operate would be armed mainly with light weapons.

However, I would not compare the BMTV based on the Boomerang with “colonial” armored vehicles like the French Panhard AML, or the South African Ratel FSV90.

Rather, there seems to be an analogy with the Soviet wheeled-tracked tank BT-7 (high-speed tank), which was conceived as a long-range strike tank, combining the patency of a tracked vehicle with the speed of a wheeled armored car necessary for operations on European autobahns.

It is clear that all the main advantages of wheeled vehicles are instantly negated, if necessary, to act on the roads. That is why BMTV can not replace conventional tanks, but can seriously enhance the capabilities of the troops. Especially on the European theater with its developed network of high-quality roads.

So the Boomerang wheeled tank, in terms of its firepower, is comparable to the T-90, with its speed and power reserve, it can become, along with the upgraded T-80, another “European horror”.

It is noteworthy that the Americans, compensating for their lack of light tanks, are placing their “gun” strikers in Europe, and not only in the M1128 MGS modification, but the new Stryker Infantry Carrier Vehicle Dragoon (ICVD), armed with an XM30 automatic speed gun XM813 production ATK company.
Author:
95 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. First iron-faced
    First iron-faced 6 March 2018 07: 00
    +6
    Still, wheeled BMWs are preferred specialized in the classic version (layout), such as Ruikat or AMX-10RC.
    1. Torsion
      Torsion 6 March 2018 08: 18
      +4
      Why in the classic version? The habitability of the tower increases the weight of the car, and the survival of the crew is significantly reduced. Of course, technically and technologically it is more complicated than the classic, but the advantages are obvious.
      1. Monarchist
        Monarchist 6 March 2018 14: 47
        0
        Turison, as it seems to me: the Boomerang will not be able to replace the "classics" completely, and therefore two branches will exist in parallel for a long time
      2. First iron-faced
        First iron-faced 6 March 2018 23: 19
        +2
        The habitability of the tower? ... The layout was meant, i.e. front or aft location of the engine compartment (MTO).
        The front location of the MTO is useful when speaking about chances of survival when it comes to armored personnel carriers or infantry fighting vehicles (less commonly, self-propelled guns), in d.s. the landing and dismounting conditions are better (in the case of self-propelled guns, loading of relatively heavy ammunition and its safety). But combat vehicles with a stern MTO arrangement do not need to run out of the shelter (building, hill) by half a hull or more to fire a shot and hide back.
        In general, the survival rate of the crew and the car is more affected by the level of booking, the height of the silhouette, but not the front location of the MTO.

        BMW from the "former", but demanded armored personnel carriers (BMPs) to almost anyone not neededthat looking at them becomes understandable ...

        Patria AMV

        Piranha III C (with a 90 mm gun, only 18 reconnaissance battalion DF90 in Belgium)

        By the way, floating from a wheeled BMW is only a light specialist. AMX-10RC.
        1. k_ply
          k_ply 8 March 2018 14: 39
          +2
          With such a height of the center of gravity, one does not even have to talk about buoyancy and stability on water. And what images of a non-floating BM will support floating armored personnel carriers, maybe there are enough MBTs and their 125-mm guns, without questionable understudies? But the 120-mm universal SAO type "Nona" / "Vienna" is a completely different matter. The battery in combat, like mortars, occupies a completely different niche.
      3. First iron-faced
        First iron-faced 6 March 2018 23: 22
        +1
        Specializedbut all with the same MTO front-end ...

        Centauro B-1, Italy

        MCV, Japan (a very successful compact MTO due to the mass-dimensional characteristics of the engine)
    2. Artek
      Artek 6 March 2018 10: 39
      0
      it is unclear if the new armored personnel carrier is ready why then to push money into the old 80s and 82? The same thing about the T14 tanks is almost ready, it is necessary to begin mass production, instead, the forty-year-old T72 scrap metal will be modernized ?!
      1. LastPS
        LastPS 6 March 2018 12: 28
        +3
        Because the pace of production of new equipment is very low, and achieving a level of technical readiness is not at all a quick process, let alone the cost of all this. T-72 is already in large quantities now, there are personnel for it now, and, as the practice of the same Syria shows, the tank does not have to be ultra-modern to be effective - it is a workhorse. Anyway, you might think that someone in the world is doing differently, the Abrams and Leopard are also forty-year-old platforms, but they’re just being modernized, not to mention the fact that all types of “new tanks” also use them as a platform, except that except for the merkava.
        1. Artek
          Artek 6 March 2018 16: 23
          +3
          Quote: LastPS
          the production of new equipment is very low,


          he understood what he said? One UralVagonZavod can produce HUNDREDS OF TANKS A YEAR. Which "low rates" is not the reason. The reason is that the Ministry of Finance again does not give money and Putin can not do anything about it.
          1. LastPS
            LastPS 6 March 2018 16: 40
            +3
            I perfectly understand what I'm saying, but here you have delusional questions. Fuck us hundreds of tanks a year? Why the heck at an emergency pace to spend money on a dubious weapon system such as a tank, if the old ones cope with possible tasks? I don’t understand how you imagine the process of developing and putting a tank into production, such as the guys came and they say, “Here’s a brooch, we’ve riveted something here, tomorrow we’ll do it hundreds in a year, yeah and right away parts - they’ll figure out what and how. "
            1. bayard
              bayard 7 March 2018 00: 25
              +2
              That's right. Now we need tanks in large numbers for newly deployed divisions - reliable, tested, mastered in the troops, repairable and inexpensive because there are LOTS of them. Therefore, the T-72 is the optimal solution - for the cost of one T-90, you can get 4 upgraded T-72s, instead of one T-14 - 6 excellent (all victories in the tank biathlon) T-72 upgraded. The troops know them, spare parts of the shaft, if they call on the reservists - the crews are ready.
              T-80 - the same thing - a great tank, the cost of upgrading which is about the same as that of the T-72. There are many of them in storage (4000) and they rearm the army much faster (this is important) and cheaper (this is good).
              Armata, in the army, will only hinder now, because it will take a lot of time to develop, maintenance (especially electronics), repairs (to whom and where are the spare parts), only the crew’s protection and survivability are better in combat value. But the PRICE!
              The T-14 should be equipped with a 152 mm gun and made into a special purpose tank — for destroying specially protected targets, strong buildings in the event of urban battles, and firing special ammunition from the attacking orders in the big war. That is, to revive the idea of ​​an "assault tank" of WWII (IS-2).
              A wheeled tank based on the Boomerang will be in demand not only for the European theater of war, but also for Central Asia, where the soil is hard and dirt is rare. Also in Syria, Egypt and generally in the BV.
              1. Artek
                Artek 7 March 2018 09: 30
                +1
                Quote: bayard
                Now we need tanks in large numbers for newly deployed divisions - reliable, tested, mastered in the troops, repairable and inexpensive because there are LOTS of them


                this is an ENEMY point of view i.e. Ministry of Finance or NATO.

                Now, when NATO is at a distance of one tank passage to St. Petersburg, we need the BEST WEAPONS, not the old T72. Got it?
            2. Artek
              Artek 7 March 2018 09: 28
              0
              Quote: LastPS
              I perfectly understand what I'm saying, but here you have delusional questions. Fuck us hundreds of tanks a year? Why the heck at an emergency pace to spend money on a dubious weapon system such as a tank, if the old ones cope with possible tasks? I don’t understand how you imagine the process of developing and putting a tank into production, such as the guys came and they say, “Here’s a brooch, we’ve riveted something here, tomorrow we’ll do it hundreds in a year, yeah and right away parts - they’ll figure out what and how. "

              "low pace of industry" do not use? negative
              When t14 was shown, then all the experts / journalists choked with the highest reverence - "... this is a new word in tank building, this is the next generation tank, no one has it, they will not be able to catch up with us, etc."
              And now you’ve played back, what are you talking there? What will the T72 be like T14? You are just a local talker and have no idea what you're talking about. T72 will NEVER be equal to T14.
              1. LastPS
                LastPS 7 March 2018 20: 42
                +1
                Yeah, but six T-72s are better than one Armata? This new word in tank building is, of course, only what is the use of a tank, even the best, in the era of nuclear weapons and the overwhelming superiority of enemy aircraft. This tank is an instrument of local wars, complex, expensive and effective, but what is the use of it in a possible global conflict, what is the point of building hundreds of them, if you can spend this money on weapons systems that are more priority in the current international situation - Putin’s recent speech is completely corresponds to this concept and this is an extremely reasonable approach to create smart weapons systems that can give an adequate rebuff, rather than riveting tanks, whose usefulness is currently doubtful.
                1. Pissarro
                  Pissarro 21 March 2018 06: 30
                  0
                  In a nuclear war, the tank is the most protected vehicle, no one has denied this fact yet.
    3. san4es
      san4es 6 March 2018 21: 24
      +3
      Quote: First iron-faced
      ... or AMX-10RC.

  2. KVU-NSVD
    KVU-NSVD 6 March 2018 07: 29
    +9
    According to some reports, it withstands hit by an anti-tank grenade or rocket fired from a portable system from any angle, and also provides protection against small-caliber artillery shells fired into the frontal armor and heavy machine guns into the side.
    You can believe about anti-tank systems from any angle only if there is a KAZ, and even then if it is modified to protect it from above and behind without turning the turret. About installing a module like Armatovsky, it will probably require significant alterations of the hull and facilitating the module itself due to booking and less ammunition to preserve buoyancy. Such a modification will be rather interesting in terms of export prospects of the platform, but a batch is also possible for the RF Armed Forces for parts intended for the Turkestan direction.
    1. LastPS
      LastPS 6 March 2018 12: 47
      0
      Mmm, why did you decide that he would need buoyancy?
      1. KVU-NSVD
        KVU-NSVD 6 March 2018 12: 49
        +5
        Mmm, why did you decide that he would need buoyancy?
        This will significantly increase the scope and range of potential customers.
        1. Monarchist
          Monarchist 6 March 2018 15: 03
          +1
          Comrades, regarding buoyancy and whether this buoyancy is needed is not all clear: Sharply, “Suvorov” believes that. Buoyancy is a sign of aggressive intentions. In January, I accidentally met a man: he was the commander of a tank battalion, he claimed to me, took part in the last military countries of the Warsaw Pact "Brotherhood of Arms" (?). His opinion is that the tank also needs buoyancy like: an umbrella for fish : anyway, a pontoon is preferable, and a simple tank is simpler and therefore more reliable
          1. bayard
            bayard 7 March 2018 00: 40
            +1
            A boomerang with a combat module from the Octopus and ammunition (and on the hell. To him on the other side without a BC?) Still will not float, except with floats ...
        2. LastPS
          LastPS 6 March 2018 16: 05
          0
          The design is modular, I am more than sure that it can be easily adapted for marines by lowering its protective properties. But I don’t think at all that the lack of buoyancy will be critical for most customers, it’s still a cheaper alternative to the tank than an APC or BMP.
          1. seos
            seos 6 March 2018 23: 10
            0
            There was a hint in the military acceptance that there might be an unmanned BM with an ammunition located outside the armored personnel carrier, although most likely it’s just a tower from the Octopus stuck ... quickly and reliably ..
    2. max702
      max702 6 March 2018 12: 49
      +2
      It’s just interesting, but can he shoot only strictly on the course? Chet, I doubt that when firing a turret, he will not settle on his side .. Especially when you consider the height of this chassis ..
      1. KVU-NSVD
        KVU-NSVD 6 March 2018 12: 53
        +5
        Quote: max702
        It’s just interesting, but can he shoot only strictly on the course? Chet, I doubt that when firing a turret, he will not settle on his side .. Especially when you consider the height of this chassis ..

        It is possible, but for this then they simply lower the energy of the gun and (or) will shoot only at certain course angles on the go and with jacks from the spot.
        1. Alf
          Alf 6 March 2018 20: 17
          0
          Quote: KVU-NSVD
          will shoot only at certain heading angles on the go and with jacks in place.

          And then what the hell is this? A machine that can only fight in limited angles?
          1. Blackgrifon
            Blackgrifon 6 March 2018 22: 46
            0
            The octopus shoots sideways, although it is an order of magnitude lighter (though its center of gravity is lower).
            1. max702
              max702 10 March 2018 23: 14
              0
              Quote: Blackgrifon
              The octopus shoots sideways, although it is an order of magnitude lighter (though its center of gravity is lower).

              Voooot! And not an order of magnitude, but 5 tons that way ...
              It is possible, but for this, then simply lower the energy of the gun
              Eeee .. If you lower the energy of the gun (and with it, respectively, armor penetration) then why the hell is it needed? !!!
      2. Forever so
        Forever so 12 March 2018 20: 58
        0
        they will put an injector and may still have to slow down so that they would not leave when fired forward))
  3. The comment was deleted.
  4. The comment was deleted.
  5. bouncyhunter
    bouncyhunter 6 March 2018 08: 11
    +3
    As you know, the idea of ​​a wheeled tank is not new. Let's see what happens in this particular case ... Thanks to the author!
    1. Mikado
      Mikado 6 March 2018 13: 46
      +4
      thanks for that?
      Rather, there seems to be an analogy with the Soviet wheeled-tracked tank BT-7 (high-speed tank), which was conceived as a long-range strike tank, combining the patency of a tracked vehicle with the speed of a wheeled armored car necessary for operations on European autobahns.

      Rezun-Suvorov re-read the author? Or is it the sarcasm of the Author? what autobahns in the early 30s? already a bunch of times everything is proved! or am I misunderstood something? No, my friends, the despicable Mikado could be mistaken, if anything, correct me! hi
      Dear editors, why do you miss such reservations in articles? The next article will be the opinion of "Kohl from Urengoy"? this is no longer funny ... It remains to apologize to the Germans for purposefully adopting the "autobahn tank" ... (but this is already my sarcasm) hi
      1. sxfRipper
        sxfRipper 6 March 2018 15: 02
        +1
        what autobahns in the early 30s?
        No need to juggle - not in the beginning, but in the middle and towards the end of the 30s Aloizych built autobahns in Germany. And slip the stub of Poland, captured by him in 1939, BT-7 could just on the tracks.
        It remains to apologize to the Germans
        It’s also not clear to me what kind of theater it is intended for. Here I agree with you.
        1. Mikado
          Mikado 6 March 2018 15: 06
          +1
          No need to distort - not in the beginning, but in the middle and towards the end of the 30s Aloizych built in Germany.

          I do not distort. Dear colleague, I recommend reading Isaev. Then Svirin. The tank originally approached for Russian conditions in the form of large distances. Do not forget that the tank was originally developed in the United States. And he came to the USSR and was adopted even before Hitler came to power and the construction of the autobahns. hi Do you think the seer mediums were sitting in the Kremlin? wink I still recommend literature ... with respect, Nikolai.
          1. sxfRipper
            sxfRipper 6 March 2018 15: 19
            0
            Read. And not only them. So many "beloved" here by many Suvorov also read. Do not confuse the first BT models of the early 30s with the BT-7, especially the 1939 model. And all of them are direct descendants of the Walter Christie tank. More precisely - Christie's pendants.
            The tank was originally suitable for Russian conditions in the form of long distances
            Wheeled-tracked tanks appeared in the 20s just because of the large distances at ALL. And EVERYTHING also lacks normal roads. And tank speeds in those years, remember, huh? If the infantry on the battlefield, these sliders successfully escorted, then their transfer from one section of the front to another could take days, or even weeks. So the idea came about a wheeled caterpillar mover.
            1. Alf
              Alf 6 March 2018 20: 20
              +2
              Quote: sxfRipper
              So the idea came about a wheeled caterpillar mover.

              And one more little fact that few people know about. The idea of ​​wheel-tracked tanks was also based on the unpleasant moment that in the early 30s the resource of the tracks themselves was very small.
        2. bayard
          bayard 7 March 2018 01: 02
          +1
          Yes, for all the theater of war, which were. Then the resource of the tank tracks was very small, so they ran on the roads on wheels, and the tracks were worn only before the battle. By the way, they also ran on wheels on the primers on Halhingol, and then they put on shoes and broke the samurai ... They returned back again on wheels.
      2. Pissarro
        Pissarro 21 March 2018 06: 38
        +2
        Freight tanks inspired a classic

        Freight tanks are flying
        Rustling on the asphalt rollers,
        And rob Swiss banks
        Mordatny political officers,
        And with chalk on the walls of the Reichstag
        Chief Scraps scratches:
        "We need Paris and The Hague,
        And Africa is also needed! "
        Again over the La Scala Theater
        As soon as the smoke blows
        Winged jackals roar
        Buzzing motor spare.
        Everywhere Toidze Posters
        (Circulation - forty-first, spring):
        "We need Naples and Nice,
        And Africa is also needed! "
        In the English Channel the moody depths
        Everywhere you look
        Crawl in diving suits
        Agents of Bloody Gabney.
        These tasks are simple:
        They need a writer Rezun,
        And Africa (this is holy)
        And Mars, and the Moon, and Neptune!
        Winged tanks rushing
        In the dawn distance, blue
        Citizens cry in Europe
        Over your bitter fate.
        Ah, how tragically late
        Rezun's covenant is heard:
        They need both London and Oslo,
        And Africa is also needed! "
        1. Mikado
          Mikado 21 March 2018 10: 39
          0
          yes, to the point! good
  6. Sverdlov
    Sverdlov 6 March 2018 08: 38
    +1
    The most interesting thing about the European theater ... :)
  7. tchoni
    tchoni 6 March 2018 08: 52
    +5
    Comrade Yan in his story “Genghis Khan” has an episode where, after breakfast, the emperors of Khoreshma come to their emperors (scribes) and begin to praise him, proving God's chosenness and special significance of the ruler by quotes from the Koran.
    So here, the author is trying to prove the "peculiarity", "God's chosenness" and "having no analogy in the world" of a furry machine based on the "boomerang" platform, but for this he does not use the Book of Books, but his exuberant imagination and unreliable rumors.
    1. bayard
      bayard 7 March 2018 01: 21
      +1
      It’s just an armored personnel carrier with a firepower of a tank ... But ... THIS IS an armored personnel carrier with a FIRE POWER OF A TANK !!! To strengthen the light brigades. And yes, it’s quite for Europe.
      1. tchoni
        tchoni 7 March 2018 11: 03
        0
        And I don’t argue that the thing is good ... Just when they start yelling about the uniqueness of a machine that has a bunch of analogues, which, in fact, is not yet in the gland, which has never been in battle. How it becomes unpleasant, or something.
  8. Torsion
    Torsion 6 March 2018 08: 52
    +3
    As bouncyhunter correctly noted, the idea of ​​a wheeled tank is not new. However, the military of different countries and different times stubbornly returning to the "caterpillars." Why? And here is why. Wheel tanks (we will call them that) are very, VERY, specialized weapons. They can be used where:
    1. The enemy is armed with bananas.
    2. There is a fairly developed network good roads.
    3. Non-flying weather and, accordingly, the task cannot be completed, for example, by helicopter landing or MiG-29.
    The presence of such conflicting requirements does not give the universality of this machine. To produce such specialized military equipment is an expensive pleasure.
    1. seos
      seos 6 March 2018 09: 55
      0
      The transition to wheeled vehicles began due to the fact that tracked vehicles spoil the road surface ...
      Perhaps if for a place with an armored car the Moscow Region initiated the development and implementation of rubber-fabric tracks, this could solve the problem ...
      1. Alf
        Alf 6 March 2018 20: 23
        0
        Do the rubber-fabric tracks have a normal coefficient of friction on the road surface? Or will the tankers have an expression-Like a cow on ice?
      2. Blackgrifon
        Blackgrifon 6 March 2018 22: 55
        0
        Quote: seos
        The transition to wheeled vehicles began due to the fact that tracked vehicles spoil the road surface ...

        The transition began because of the desire to save money and provide a quick transfer. The first were the French, then the Yankees (when they abandoned the M8 in favor of a striker with 105 mm), and then the rest of the Europeans pulled themselves up. Only in China and South Africa things were a little different: the former began to make their wheeled tanks under the influence of already voiced reasons and the desire to occupy a niche in the market, and the latter because they preferred long-distance raids against a well-armed enemy.
        For those who say that African countries and a dangerous adversary are mutually exclusive concepts, let me remind you that the same “Ruikat” was developed in conditions when a contingent of Cubans was active in Africa (using modern technology and giving a light) and there was a stream of weapons and military specialists from the USSR.
    2. Blackgrifon
      Blackgrifon 6 March 2018 22: 48
      +1
      Quote: Torsion
      1. The enemy is armed with bananas.
      2. There is a fairly developed network of good roads.

      Ruikat and Yuarovtsy look perplexed: they didn’t have good roads on the theater, but there were many, many blacks with RPGs and T-54/55/62 and mines.
      1. Torsion
        Torsion 7 March 2018 08: 11
        +1
        You're right. I've been thinking, why so? From the subject "Armed Forces of Foreign Countries" (as the subject was called, I forgot it already) I remember that South Africa had not only tanks, but also howitzers and MLRS on wheels. What is the reason? Rummaged through the Internet. Yeah, here it is "... South Africa is a huge, relatively flat and sparsely populated area, known as Karru, becoming withered as it approaches the Namib desert ..." (excerpt from Wikipedia). Then everything becomes clear. On relatively hard and dry ground, the wheels itself! And open spaces sharply reduce the cheerful mood of local grenade launchers.
        1. Blackgrifon
          Blackgrifon 7 March 2018 17: 38
          0
          It seems that they even used their MBTs during the confrontation only once. Another thing is that now their CT is perhaps the only adequate and based on real combat experience representative of this class of equipment, and not the result of getting a cheap and economical platform - a substitute for MBT.
  9. Micfoster
    Micfoster 6 March 2018 10: 29
    +2
    For a European theater is a very suitable machine. There are many good roads and many rivers flowing from south to north. Fleet and amphibious tank for Europe is what you need. To have a certain number of such vehicles in service will not be superfluous.
    1. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine 6 March 2018 15: 44
      0
      Quote: Micfoster
      There are many good roads and many rivers flowing from south to north.

      And a lot of advanced weapons.

      So there will be a caterpillar tank or wheeled - the end is one, here you are right.
    2. Alf
      Alf 6 March 2018 20: 25
      0
      Quote: Micfoster
      Fleet and amphibious tank for Europe is what you need.

      Exactly. You just forgot that in Europe the number of anti-tank hand weapons and their level exceeded, perhaps, all reasonable limits. And nothing shines on the cardboard armored personnel carrier.
    3. Blackgrifon
      Blackgrifon 7 March 2018 17: 41
      0
      Quote: Micfoster
      For a European theater is a very suitable machine. There are many good roads and many rivers flowing from south to north.

      And there are a lot of settlements and cities. Which, in the case of mass database maintenance, will automatically lead to the appearance of a large number of barricades and blockages and will reproduce the experience of Italians in Somalia. In principle, CT is more like a tank destroyer, and not an analogue of MBT.
  10. DimerVladimer
    DimerVladimer 6 March 2018 10: 32
    +4
    So the Boomerang wheeled tank in terms of firepower comparable to the T-90A, with its speed and power reserve, can become, along with the modernized T-80, another “horror of Europe”

    Only you don’t need to sing fairy tales - the low security characteristic of all wheeled vehicles will never make them any horror, except for the crew ...

    During WWII, the Americans were already building light anti-tank tank destroyers SAU M10 and self-propelled guns M18 Hellcat self-propelled guns M36 Jackson - which suffered heavy losses from conventional tanks.

    The M10 Wolverine performed best in defensive battles, where they far outnumbered towed anti-tank guns. They were also successfully used during the Arden operation. Battalions armed with M10 tank destroyers were 5-6 times more effective than units armed with towed anti-tank guns of the same caliber. In those cases when the M10 strengthened the defense of infantry units, the ratio of losses and victories was 1: 6 in favor of the tank destroyer.
    1. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine 6 March 2018 15: 48
      0
      Quote: DimerVladimer
      Only you don’t need to sing fairy tales - the low security characteristic of all wheeled vehicles will never make them any horror, except for the crew ...

      Nevertheless, there is an opinion, including among the Americans, that the realities of tank building with 60 + ton vehicles do not quite correspond to the situation. Attempts to make the tank light at the same time, i.e. transportable, and suitable for urban battles, i.e. with very serious protection, they have been going on for several decades. Now they are trying to realize this with the help of KAZ, first of all.
      1. Blackgrifon
        Blackgrifon 6 March 2018 22: 58
        0
        Quote: Cherry Nine
        Nevertheless, there is an opinion, including among the Americans, that the realities of tank building with 60 + ton vehicles do not quite correspond to the situation.

        Therefore, they again dug up the stewardess - launched that year the program for the supply of a light battle tank (reinforced to protect the analogue of our Octopus). The first proposal is the Griffin, and the second is the M8 in the version already this year.
        1. Cherry Nine
          Cherry Nine 6 March 2018 23: 06
          0
          Quote: Blackgrifon
          The first proposal is the Griffin, and the second is the M8 in the version already this year.

          Yes, that’s exactly what I meant.
          Actually, this time it will turn out with a stewardess love, or end with another mountain of money burned - we'll see.
  11. Poppy
    Poppy 6 March 2018 11: 30
    +2
    Rather, there seems to be an analogy with the Soviet wheeled-tracked tank BT-7 (high-speed tank), which was conceived as a long-range strike tank, combining the patency of a tracked vehicle with the speed of a wheeled armored car necessary for operations on European autobahns.

    BTs were made wheeled and tracked for exactly one reason - the low resource of the then tracks, they simply could not withstand a long run, so the tank had to move to the battlefield on wheels. As soon as the tracks were brought to the required resource, they immediately abandoned the idea of ​​a wheeled-tracked tank.
    Rather, if you really want to compare it with pre-war equipment, it’s easier to look at heavy cannon armored vehicles, such as the BA-10 - the tower and armor as on the BT-7, but purely wheeled. They fought in the 41st approximately as "successfully" as the BT with the T-26, no worse than ever.
    1. Mikado
      Mikado 6 March 2018 13: 52
      +2
      I said everything higher on the branch, only in stronger terms. I have no words.
  12. dDYHA
    dDYHA 6 March 2018 12: 33
    +2
    Just a year ago, our official media about wheeled tanks left no stone unturned. And now we start to sing another. IMHO this machine is more suitable for civil war. Read - against the electorate. Why do we need such a tank. What are we waiting for a civil war?
    1. Alf
      Alf 6 March 2018 20: 26
      0
      Quote: dDYHA
      What are we waiting for a civil war?

      And why did the National Guard under Putin personally subordinate?
  13. Tarasve
    Tarasve 6 March 2018 13: 49
    +1
    Explain to me unreasonable why our aircraft needs a floating tank.
    1. seos
      seos 6 March 2018 23: 02
      0
      Not the fact that he with a cannon tower will maintain buoyancy ... The weight of the gun and ammunition is much more than the regular BM.
      The requirement is not a floating, but a wheeled tank ...
  14. Curious
    Curious 6 March 2018 14: 29
    +3
    “Rather, an analogy with the BT-7 Soviet wheeled and tracked tank (high-speed tank), which was conceived as a long-range attack tank combining the crawler’s patency with the speed of a wheeled armored car necessary for operations on European autobahns, suggests itself.
    Well, how much can this baby talk in the Armament section be posted. Start the section "For those in diapers", where authors, like today, will be able to post their "nonsense."
    The first BT-7 tank was launched in 1935. The third tank in the series of Soviet BT wheel-tracked tanks. The first, BT-2, has been mass-produced since 1932.
    Now about the autobahns. The first motorway in Europe connecting two cities (Cologne and Bonn) was opened in Germany on August 6, 1932. The length of the autobahn was 20 km. Now it is designated by the abbreviation A 555. In 1935, in Germany there were as many as 108 km of autobahns.
    I’m not talking about the history of the wheel-caterpillar mover. She was born back in 1911 with Gunther Burshtyn.
    1. Mikado
      Mikado 6 March 2018 14: 36
      +2
      Well, how much can this baby talk in the Armament section be posted. Start the section "For those in diapers", where authors, like today, will be able to post their "nonsense."

      Viktor Nikolaevich, but this is soooooooo patriotic! fellow and the name? Just a song! "Wheel tank for European autobahns." T.N. "Patriots" are delighted, rejoice and clap their hands. Wow, now we’ll throw all of Heyrop with caps! Well, or we’ll throw boomerangs! And crush the "boomerangs." angry Wow, we are the strongest! fellow
      "We are in awe"! fellow

      "Evil is punished, everyone is extremely happy, no one has died, you can celebrate!" (my friends, I emphasize that the level of a number of articles and discussions on the site has fallen to agitators and slogans. And I see this not only hi) with respect to all, Nikolai. drinks
    2. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine 6 March 2018 15: 52
      0
      Quote: Curious
      Start the section "For those in diapers", where authors, like today, will be able to post their "nonsense."

      There is a long time.
      https://topwar.ru/opinions/
      But if pieces of iron are described in the text, the administration puts the text in the "armament".
  15. motorized rifle
    motorized rifle 6 March 2018 16: 00
    +2
    Well, let's put it not so simple (s)! I mean, the article is equated with agitation, and the question of whether a wheeled tank is needed. On the first point, I note that I do not see crime, the author wrote his thoughts, well, okay. If this tank is going to be released, then there is already something to talk about or a topic not worthy? As he wrote, this is the second question, the message he created and the topic still pops up more than once if the tank will be produced.
    But in fact, i.e. on the second question, I need it, I don’t need it, I would like to have a thoughtful attitude to the topic, and not reasoning in any kind of awkward manner. Here the author conducts an anology with BT, but does so in passing, calling it "shock, long-range action", but without going further. In order not to get bogged down in disputes about the same BT and not get away from the topic, I note that the analogy in my opinion should be drawn not with a specific type of weapon, but with a certain type of weapon designed for a certain effect on the enemy, and considering it ( impact), in the aggregate of certain same military operations. I would draw an analogy of a wheeled tank with ... cavalry of the Red Army in the second half of the Second World War. So, as it was then used, input into the breakthrough and tasks on the environment, mainly on the creation of the external front of the surrounded groups.
    Look how the databases are being conducted now, the formats of military operations are changing, such as the lack of solid lines of contact between the troops, the actions of those that are available in the core at the BTGrupp level, but !, there remains one, basic principle, in order to win, you need to surround the enemy. No frontal strikes, crowding out and other maneuvers that do not have depth lead to victory. The enemy withdraws, regroups and everything starts from the beginning. So for actions on the environment, where the speed of movement determines its (environment) geometry and often this speed is more important than the thickness of the armor, and the caliber of the guns (remember German tanks in 1941), a wheeled tank will obviously be no worse than a cavalryman. Break through, quickly occupy key points, to prevent the encircled exit or attempts to unlock them, disrupt the provision of the enemy’s surrounded forces, a wheeled tank with weapons like MBTs, I think it will cope completely and will make it faster than a tracked one. This, of course, is my personal opinion, so to speak, of what they think in the General Staff I naturally don’t know, but since the wheeled tank appeared in the discussion, why is it needed? But the thoughts that he is for a civil war, or for a war with a banana army, I'm sorry, not serious. The Airborne Forces also do not have 40-ton tracked tanks suitable for landing and cost light armored vehicles, why doesn’t anyone say that they can only fight with the “army armed with bananas”? So, in vain some commentators dismiss the article, but you can (and should) probably write it more seriously, but in any case the topic is worth it.
    PS Sorry for a lot of text
  16. Torsion
    Torsion 6 March 2018 16: 06
    +1
    It’s just that developers and manufacturers are lobbying Boomerang. Well, this is nothing new, a completely working situation. drinks And a wheeled tank itself can come in handy. In the second tier, for example. Digging out of the radioactive ruins of the stupid enemy machine gunners. This is if on the European theater. am
    1. Alf
      Alf 6 March 2018 20: 28
      0
      Quote: Torsion
      Digging out of the radioactive ruins of the stupid enemy machine gunners.

      And what will he do with the stupefied anti-tankers?
    2. san4es
      san4es 6 March 2018 21: 01
      +2
      Quote: Torsion
      And a wheeled tank itself can come in handy.


      1. Cherry Nine
        Cherry Nine 6 March 2018 23: 20
        +1
        Good movie. At the 40th second, by the way, the hawks from the Pentagon say hello to all experts on the issue of 50 years, they could not get into the automatic loader.
  17. Torsion
    Torsion 6 March 2018 16: 52
    +2
    motorized rifle, it's all good "... to break through, quickly occupy key points, to prevent the encirclement from coming out or attempts to unlock them, disrupt the provision of encircled enemy forces ..." If not for one circumstance. Patency. Her wheeled tank is NOT. Here the enemy turned a highway with a land mine. Funnel - 10 meters. In diameter. And as much in depth. What we are going to do? Right, drive off the road and try to go around. A lot of wet ground and slippery grass? Even on eight driving wheels. It is in the summer. And if autumn-spring or winter? Where MBT does not notice a change in soil (asphalt, sand, snow, dirt - but do not care!) The wheeled tank will be forced to look for what it was created for.
    1. motorized rifle
      motorized rifle 6 March 2018 17: 47
      0
      A funnel at 10m, even at 20m is not a problem. If there are engineering units operating in the same battle formations, I think the sappers will confirm. I have to watch cross-country traffic, I won’t tell you about it, but I also wouldn’t say that wheeled vehicles (multi-axle) are not able to move off roads. Stuck tanks or shilka had to see, stuck BTR-70 (there were no others in the division) and BMP, and especially the BRDM.
      1. Torsion
        Torsion 6 March 2018 18: 39
        +1
        Well yes. In the presence of engineering units in battle formations. Do not forget that wheeled tanks rod at breakneck speed. None of the engineers, sappers and bulldozers will follow them. Will have to wait? That completely eliminates the concept of "mobility".
      2. Torsion
        Torsion 6 March 2018 18: 48
        +1
        motorized rifle, you didn’t see the APCs stuck because they didn’t leave the road. laughing and BRDM get stuck where they are not visible. Intelligence is tongue
      3. Alf
        Alf 6 March 2018 20: 33
        0
        Quote: motorized infantryman
        If there are engineering units operating in the same battle formations, I think the sappers will confirm

        Do sappers, along with tanks and infantry in the first line, go on the attack and close the craters on the go? Are you okay? March 8th only after tomorrow, and the 9th even later.
        Quote: motorized infantryman
        stuck BTR-70 (there were no others in the division) and BMP, and especially no BRDM.

        But did they go ahead or following the second line, could they still have the OPPORTUNITY to go around the funnel?
        But BRDM-ki do not go on the attack at all, no one bothers them to find a bypass road.
        1. motorized rifle
          motorized rifle 6 March 2018 22: 21
          0
          No matter what the attack was, no? Sappers go in battle formations along with equipment on the march, otherwise they simply are not needed. The speed of movement, I think they correspond, it all depends on the complex of equipment used. About armored personnel carriers and armored personnel carriers we had in mind the usual marching conditions, if you remember (you know) there was such a standard in SA, a 500-kilometer march on equipment, when it is all, and tanks and armored personnel carriers and everything else, this march must be completed. There were no military operations at the same time, just a march, everyone who knows how is going.
          Actually on the topic, is there something? Do you need this wheeled tank or not and why? I expressed my opinion without claiming the ultimate truth, I just wanted to point out that in my opinion it is not entirely correct to dismiss the topic since it arose. Of course, I suspect that all this general staff, yes, what can I say, all these general staffs, are not suitable for us to great strategists, but why would they want to have it, why? Can it be that we have won so many victories and penetrated into the very essence of war and peace? But the funnel prevented you from going round, but if they don’t give some ice cream, then will the war end? Trouble!
          1. Alf
            Alf 6 March 2018 23: 03
            0
            Quote: motorized infantryman
            but why did they want to have it, why?

            In GS, there are also people who can also be wrong.
            An example? Easy.
            In the 60s, attack aircraft were abolished as a class, it was considered that fighter-bomber aircraft would replace it, and as war fired on the BV in a jamb, it turned out that the fast SU-17, SU-22 miss constantly, but they are very vulnerable. I had to urgently gash Grach, who once again turned out to be a soldier plane. Overseas, by the way, also burst.
            Quote: motorized infantryman
            Actually on the topic, is there something? Do you need this wheeled tank or not and why?

            My personal opinion is no. To drive the Basmachi back and forth, but for Europe, with its oversaturation with the most varied VET, it is not suitable.
            Quote: motorized infantryman
            if you remember (you know)

            Glory to the eggs, was relieved of such happiness, sat in his cockpit, moved radar in all directions, surveyed the entire Ivanovo one and was happy that there was no need to run after the tank.
            Quote: motorized infantryman
            There were no military operations at the same time, just a march, everyone who knows how is going.

            And why then do you need a WHEEL tank if the speed of the column is on the latter?
          2. VlK
            VlK 6 March 2018 23: 04
            0
            a wheeled tank for assaulting positions probably will not work, but, for example, a self-propelled gun for fire support - why not.
            1. Alf
              Alf 7 March 2018 22: 11
              0
              Quote: VlK
              a wheeled tank for assaulting positions probably will not work, but, for example, a self-propelled gun for fire support - why not.

              Question- From what distance in this case should this self-propelled guns shoot without fear of the “gratitude” of the opponent?
  18. Torsion
    Torsion 6 March 2018 16: 58
    +1
    If we compare it with the Airborne Forces, which are intended for military operations with banana armies and require absolutely clear sky, then wheeled tanks are designed for the same armies, plus clean roads.
  19. Felixsoft
    Felixsoft 6 March 2018 21: 29
    0
    In order to fight on the roads of Europe, it is necessary to understand that the war of the 6th generation will occur throughout the enemy without the introduction of ground forces.
    By the way, the USA has only 400 modernized Abrams and no longer intends to spend money on this stupidity.
    1. Alf
      Alf 6 March 2018 23: 06
      0
      Quote: Felixsoft
      it must be understood that the war of the 6th generation will occur throughout the enemy without the introduction of ground forces.

      Well I do not know. Even if it comes to something very serious, then, in my opinion, the loaf will be vigorous for a long time not to be used, a point is not iron, everyone will understand that 40 minutes and EVERYTHING. And again, mother infantry will have to knead the dirt.
    2. Cherry Nine
      Cherry Nine 6 March 2018 23: 10
      0
      Quote: Felixsoft
      and no longer intend to spend money on this stupidity.

      Stupidity is 10 thousand devices on the Central European theater of war, as in the past.

      When used more wisely, tanks are still useful. In particular, the number of abrash partners was sharply reduced, but the quality is still regularly dying.

      Quote: Felixsoft
      that the war of the 6th generation will occur throughout the enemy without the introduction of ground forces.

      Not at all necessary. The replay option of the Korean War is quite relevant now. The tanks there, of course, will not solve, but will not be superfluous.
  20. VlK
    VlK 6 March 2018 22: 57
    0
    This, it seems, is based on the pickups with weapons in Syria, only more capital - for the fire support of raid groups. Well, the principle of modularity in the development still takes, finally, its place.
  21. Micfoster
    Micfoster 7 March 2018 13: 07
    +1
    I support comrade MOTORSTELKA! I agree with his arguments. I want to add or recall that the PT-76 was in service with the Soviet army, although it was not super fast, but basically it had to carry out very similar tasks. The need for a Boomerang is obvious in my opinion. It is not a replacement for MBT, but a good addition expanding the capabilities of the ground forces.
  22. Micfoster
    Micfoster 7 March 2018 13: 20
    +1
    Not much about the use of PT-76
    https://inforeactor.ru/66168-vnezapnyi-pt-76-noch
    noi-koshmar-zelenyh-beretov-vo-vetname
    https://topwar.ru/111647-pt-76-groza-amerikanskoy
    -armii.html
  23. db1967
    db1967 7 March 2018 14: 24
    0
    Purely IMHO. Here 57mm would look good. wink
    1. Micfoster
      Micfoster 7 March 2018 18: 35
      +1
      Where is it here? 125 forever better than 57 will be! That is the whole point. Caliber MBT on the "light" high-speed platform! Why 57? Why make an armored personnel carrier from a tank!
  24. k_ply
    k_ply 8 March 2018 14: 07
    +2
    Quote: First iron-faced
    BMW from the "former", but demanded armored personnel carriers (BMPs) to almost anyone not neededthat looking at them becomes understandable ...

    Patria AMV

    Piranha III C (with a 90 mm gun, only 18 reconnaissance battalion DF90 in Belgium)

    - Clearly enough, what is expected at the exit.

    Wheeled BMTV is a purely car for flat terrain, dry soils of deserts and steppes are ideal, ambush is destructive at times much more than more protected MBT, the latter is also able to turn around on the spot in the cramped conditions of n / a streets or mountain roads. The chassis is also more vulnerable to urban destruction and ammunition. And there is absolutely no advantage over MBT in the speed of movement in military marching columns (or will there be priority as with special signals? laughing ), not to mention dirt roads and rough terrain. BMW in NATO, with the exception of Amer. MGS in the Stryker brigades belong to the BRM reconnaissance (France, Italy, Spain, Belgium), and the wheeled chassis allows them composed of no more than head or side patrol / patrol(1-3 BRM) to be in isolation / at a distance from the main forces for reconnaissance / protection of troop movement routes, move by rifts and occupy convenient positions. Their AT capabilities are realized only from ambushes and with a quantitative superiority, the oncoming battle with advancing MBT and BMP of the enemy is strictly contraindicated. The gun is mainly used as an assault gun.

    The maximum unit for BMW is no more than a company. If the battalion is mixed, i.e. together with another type of BRM, as the machine itself needs support and protection. For example, the French armored cavalry regiment is equivalent to a battalion (naturally, NATO standard of numbers), except for the AMX-10RC it includes the same number of light VBLs in companies (squadrons) and 1 light and anti-tank company per VBL, but this is not bad for African operations in Djibouti, Mali and the CARs.
  25. 4thParasinok
    4thParasinok 10 February 2019 17: 16
    0
    One "writer" writes nonsense in an article and raises ducks, while others stupidly discuss whether a wheeled "tank" with a T-14 cannon is needed or not. But at the same time, no one even tried to think, is it possible to cross a hedgehog with a snake? And not to the comrades' house, that even the Sprut-SD with its 2A75 is forced to "lie down on the ground" for shooting, and the 2A82 will simply tear off the wheels of the Boomerang by recoil. Even the one given in the article:
    Thus, on the basis of the BTR-90 “Rostok”, the “wheeled tank” 2C28 Sprut-K, armed with the 125-mm 2X75 cannon from the self-propelled artillery 2CXNNXX Sprut-SD, was also developed.
    they didn’t go beyond preliminary calculations and for 9 years of development they couldn’t even make a prototype, the wheels fall off even in the calculations, and the author uses a more powerful gun. even refused the option with the combat compartment of the SAO 2S31 Vienna on the T-90 due to the strong rocking of the machine after each shot. This led to low accuracy and rate of fire - one shot per minute.
    And the reference to Stryker is inappropriate, since the Americans came to the conclusion that the concept was erroneous. Indeed, even with a "shortened" 105 mm L7, the recoil is such that shooting is possible only along the course (angle of + -15 degrees horizontally), otherwise, at best, the suspension flies, and at worst, the BMTV also turns over.
    1. svp67
      svp67 10 February 2019 17: 24
      0
      Quote: 4-th Paradise
      And not in the house of comrades that even Sprut-SD with its 2A75 for shooting is forced to "lie down on the ground"

      Well, judging by the video, SPRUT can shoot not only from a prone position, another question, but what is the accuracy with such shooting
      1. 4thParasinok
        4thParasinok 10 February 2019 17: 38
        0
        Quote: svp67
        Well, judging by the video, SPRUT can shoot not only from a prone position, another question, but what is the accuracy with such shooting

        1. Have you noticed how the Octopus gets on the goat even when shooting from a place? and now what will be in motion ...
        2. below clearly.
        3. When shooting "prone", the Octopus's hydraulic suspension works as an additional hauler reducing recoil, while "standing" there is no such effect, and when firing sideways it can roll over.
        1. svp67
          svp67 11 February 2019 03: 21
          0
          Quote: 4-th Paradise
          and when shooting sideways, it may roll over.

          All this can be avoided by installing a muzzle brake. He can absorb up to 30% of the energy of the shot
          1. 4thParasinok
            4thParasinok 12 February 2019 22: 49
            0
            Quote: svp67
            All this can be avoided by installing a muzzle brake. He can absorb up to 30% of the energy of the shot

            Have you ever thought about the fact that on our tanks and tank destroyers, with rare exceptions, they do not put a muzzle brake? due to the fact that the muzzle brake detects the exact location of the tank after the first shot.
            In military technology, the simplest solution is far from always used.
            1. svp67
              svp67 13 February 2019 07: 10
              0
              Quote: 4-th Paradise
              due to the fact that the muzzle brake detects the exact location of the tank after the first shot.

              As a man who fired from modern tanks more than once, I’ll say that this is the most stupid attempt to explain the rejection of the muzzle brake. The power of a shot at a modern tank gun is such that it is simply impossible not to notice it
              1. 4thParasinok
                4thParasinok 16 February 2019 01: 06
                -1
                Quote: svp67
                As a man more than once ...
                soldiers always consider themselves smarter than generals ... so I realized that you are always right, which means there is nothing to discuss.