Military Review

"Companion" through the eyes of the enemy

40
Most recently, the Kalashnikov concern published the results of winter testing of a whole range of new products, including two combat robots: the Companion and the Freeloader, at one of the testing grounds near Moscow.


The tests, of course, ended successfully (it is difficult, by the way, to recall that some time it was reported about unsuccessful trials), and it was reported that new combat robots could operate in winter conditions and interact with infantrymen in the storming of buildings.

"Companion" through the eyes of the enemy

BAS-01G BM "Companion" on tests in winter conditions

The development of combat robotics in Russia is of great interest to me. It is obvious that a large horde of robots will sweep away any enemy on the battlefield. Autonomous war drums, in my opinion, will open a new page and in stories weapons, and in the history of wars, because such machines will completely change the nature of the battle and war in general. However, so far in Russia, not a single sample or prototype has been created, which could be called an autonomous combat strike machine without the slightest exaggeration.

Well, okay. The Kalashnikov Concern, as well as other developers and manufacturers of combat robots in Russia, make their products on the basis of a well-defined concept of combat use of robots. Apparently, the ideas of "marching to the last sea" of lava automatic combat vehicles, they are not addicted. Therefore, to evaluate their products from the point of view of other concepts of the use of combat robots, by and large, it is meaningless.

You can consider the same UAS-01G BM "Companion" in terms of the concept in which it is developed. This is a machine of direct infantry fire support in the assault, sweep, various special operations - a kind of mobile and shooting armor for infantry or special forces, as can be seen in the photo from the tests.

Since some personal experience speaks for the fact that domestic concerns are not at all susceptible to criticizing their products, neither friendly nor constructive, then, I think, you can resort to setting up such an intellectual experiment: look at the “Companion” through the eyes of the enemy. What to do, how to fend off this miracle of modern military technology? Moreover, this experiment is close to the real situation, since the adversary will have to develop methods of counteraction, having the minimum information about the new technology, well, approximately, like us, the most brief description and a few photos.

Concern "Kalashnikov" may think anything, but the enemy will undoubtedly carry out such work and try to determine even before the first battle, where the "Companion" has vulnerabilities, which can be taken from the available arsenal and how. If the critics can still be brushed aside or kept silent in words, then the enemy will undoubtedly confirm the correctness of his conclusions by destroying this battle robot on the battlefield.

General impressions

The first thing that catches your eye is that the “Companion” is a large and very noticeable car on the battlefield. In its modification, which was tested in winter conditions (with a tower for AG-17A and PKTM, as well as for an optical unit), the height is more than two meters, which can be clearly seen by how much the tower towers over the infantrymen. If we take the average height of the infantry in 170 cm, then the total height of the vehicle will be about 2,3 meters. Approximately, as at T-90.

From this it follows that a car with such dimensions in height will be very difficult to disguise and on the battlefield it will most likely be well distinguishable. Even in the case when the combat robot will be used as a passive firing point (this possibility is provided), then digging the machine will take time and effort, and still the tower will rise above the position, unmasking it.
Why not make the combat robot as flat as possible, and install the armament on a rising bracket? Flat, with a small height (about a meter or a little more than that), the car will give in to camouflage is incomparably better than this armor-mounted monster. Good disguise and sudden fire is half the battle success.

The second conclusion from the general view of the car - it is most likely armored. What does it follow from? Firstly, the overall dimensions of the machine are not so large: the length is approximately 2,5 meters, the width is 2 m, the height of the body (without a tower) is about 1 meter. Secondly, the main part of the zabronevogo volume takes the engine. Most likely, this is something common, for example, diesel UTD-20С from BMP-2. Its dimensions allow you to squeeze a diesel engine into such a body (length - 79 cm, width - 115 cm, height 74 cm). A part of the hull is also occupied by a transmission, and in the fenders there must be fuel tanks. Machine weight about 7 tons. The engine with the transmission is about a ton, the tracks are about 500 kg each, together with wheels and tracks with suspension in the amount of about one and a half tons. Well and still the tower will pull on 500-600 kg. Total, the body accounts for about four tons of weight. Approximately we will calculate the booking area (it turned out approximately 15,5 square meters), and we will define how much weight falls on this square meter. Counting gives 258 kg steel per square. meter. If you look at the table of steel-rolling standards, then this weight is per square meter. The steel sheet meter corresponds to the thickness 33 mm.

Taking into account all the blots and errors of such an approximate calculation, it can be assumed that the Companion has a booking thickness of not less than 30 mm, and its frontal projections of the hull should definitely have such a reservation.

What to take?

From the overall assessment of the combat robot, it is obvious that weapon no good. More chances for large-caliber machine guns. From the DShK, you can try the BS 12,7 chuck from a distance of approximately 400-500 meters to pierce the front of the case, it can work out, although without a special guarantee. But if the breakthrough is reached, then the diesel will most likely be hit and the combat robot will be immobilized.

Despite the fact that the DShK and other large-caliber machine guns most likely will not be able to take the “Companion” in the front of the hull, this does not mean that they are useless. On the contrary, even a large-caliber machine gun is most likely to hit the robot in the board, and especially the tower, which is unlikely to have thick armor. Since the hull is most likely occupied by diesel, the mechanism and electric motors for turning the turret are clearly located in its lower part.

Total, fire from a large-caliber machine gun can hit: board the car above the tracks (engine damage), fender shelves (damage to fuel tanks), lower part of the tower (defeat of the mechanism of rotation of the tower), as well as the upper part of the tower (defeat of the optical unit and guidance mechanisms) . In practice, it turns out that a long queue from an ASC or something like that in the middle of a side projection is likely to lead to the exit of a combat robot.


The most vulnerable places of the BM "Companion": A - the most advantageous area of ​​fire from a large-caliber machine gun, B - unprotected guide wheel suspension, C - tower, vulnerable to being hit by hand grenades (in the photo is another modification of a combat robot, without protective shields on the tower)

Grenade launchers of different types, starting with the RPG-7, of course, will hit the combat robot, that in the forehead, that in the board. Their armor penetration is enough for a confident defeat. Hitting a cumulative grenade approximately in the center of the frontal or side projection will undoubtedly lead to the destruction of the combat vehicle.

Since the combat robot, judging by its tests, is supposed to be used as a mobile shield for infantry (which, in general, corresponds to the usual practice of using armored vehicles in urban combat), it is more expedient to bombard the combat robot with several shots or a volley of rocket launchers when detected. This will destroy or damage the robot, and disperse the infantry hiding behind it.
The defeat of a combat robot with mines and grenades can most likely be expected in a city battle. Hand grenades, such as the F-1, may well be used against a combat robot if there is a possibility of approaching the throw distance. The most vulnerable part of the Companion, which can be hit with hand grenades, is the tower and the equipment located in it. If you throw a few grenades, aiming so that the grenade hits the top of the tower or explodes above it, you can beat the optics and damage the weapons pointing mechanisms. The shards will also disperse the infantry hiding behind it.
For close combat, it is necessary to note one more vulnerability of a combat robot - an unprotected guide wheel suspension assembly, which is perfectly visible on any photograph of a combat robot. This is a design defect, clearly the result of saving and reducing the weight of the machine. A comparatively weak explosion in front of a combat robot, including a hand grenade or anti-personnel mine, is enough to knock down this steering wheel or at least damage it, which will lead to immobilization of the vehicle. A sheet of the bottom of the frontal part of the body will protrude in the explosion with a screen that will send a shock wave to these unprotected guide wheels.


This photo clearly shows how vulnerable the steering wheel of the combat robot track is.

A very good tool against such a combat robot, especially in terms of tactics demonstrated at the test site, will be a mortar. Mortar shelling must cut off infantry from a combat robot, so that later it can be shot from grenade launchers or a large-caliber machine gun. If the mortar crew and the gunner are good, then you can try to achieve a direct hit in the tower. It seems that hit 82-mm mines in the tower "Companion" will be enough for the robot to lose its combat value.
The conclusion from this consideration of the combat robot "Companion" from the point of view of the enemy turns out to be quite interesting. All that is said above is a consequence of a visual introduction to the machine, literally from several photographs and openly published reference data. Any infantry unit that is armed with anti-tank grenade launchers, large-caliber machine guns or mortars, not to mention something more serious, will quite easily break off this combat robot. A rather expensive and complicated machine is a serious danger only for those who are armed only with small arms (but even then, in battle, there may be an opportunity to successfully throw a grenade).

So, it is permissible to believe that such a fighting robot will not frighten any organized and armed enemy, and means and methods of counteraction will be quickly found against it. Anything can be developed and tested, but the “Ally” and similar combat robots are unlikely to become so effective as to bring a revolution in the conduct of hostilities.
Author:
40 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Tarikxnumx
    Tarikxnumx 12 March 2018 06: 54
    +23
    As far as I understand, the tactics of using the robot are approximately the same as those of the APCs, BMPs on the battlefield. Those. if this is a combined arms battle without the use of tanks, then the infantry goes ahead, and the robot provides fire cover at a short distance behind. If, however, a counter-terrorist operation is carried out to seize a separate building, then yes, soldiers can use the "comrade-in-arms" as a mobile shield. In the same way that they cover themselves with the same armored infantry fighting vehicle, armored personnel carrier during an assault.
    And by the way, the above devices are much more vulnerable due to the large size than the robot. And in the event of a defeat from a grenade launcher or mortar, at least three people (machine commander, gunner and driver) can die or be seriously injured. Despite its rather large dimensions (but still smaller than manually operated armored vehicles), it’s more difficult to get into the robot. And the personnel managing it is guaranteed to survive.
    If your assumptions about the frontal armor of 30 mm are correct, then a 12,7 mm machine gun with a bz bullet will not even take it at point blank range, except that the CPV can handle it with 14,5 mm and that is not a fact. The side armor of the BMP and BTR holds a maximum of 7,62 × 54 bullets and somehow is in no hurry to refuse them. So, it seems to me, with proper use, the robot can replace light armored vehicles, and at the same time provide all the same functionality, but without the risk of losing personnel managing it ...
    1. alstr
      alstr 12 March 2018 08: 17
      +5
      I agree: The most important thing is the correct application. It must be understood that robotics has its limitations and it is not all strong and is not a panacea for everything.

      At one time, the practice was held at the Scientific Research Institute of the RTK (this is where the manipulator was made to Buran). So old-timers said that as a result of the improper use of robotics in Chernobyl, all of their projects were frozen.
      In addition, oddly enough, a person’s life was cheaper than a robot (((((That is, death payments at execution cost more than a primitive robot. Therefore, the relevant departments were not interested in the development of robotics.
      All this was in 98, but now everything is now much better in this industry.
      1. Torsion
        Torsion 12 March 2018 08: 46
        +2
        Still, robots did not fight in Chernobyl, but rather saved. It’s always with us that it’s easier and cheaper to build a killing machine than to protect and save.
        1. alstr
          alstr 12 March 2018 11: 46
          +3
          It was all easier. On the knee for a week created robots based on tractors (stupidly attached remote control). But the mistake was that everything was done on the radio instead of the wire. And with that radioactivity, the radio didn’t play from the word at all (by the way, in a fire, the radio doesn’t work either (meaning in the center of fire, and not nearby)). As a result, they had to shoot from tanks, so that they would not demolish anything. And there was a hope for a blessing.
          This is where the freezing of works from - did not live up to trust.
      2. Torsion
        Torsion 12 March 2018 08: 55
        +1
        And yes, by the way. Human life, or rather the man himself, is very, very expensive. Contrary to popular belief. Count for yourself how much it will cost to prepare a fireman, medic, sniper, sapper, etc. Just over time, sooner or later, robots and machines will “grow wiser” and replace people. Especially in such a difficult matter as killing each other. wink
        1. BAI
          BAI 12 March 2018 10: 14
          +1
          Just over time, sooner or later, robots and machines will “grow wiser” and replace people. Especially in such a difficult matter as killing each other.

          It seems in the Netherlands, in tests, a combat robot shot testers.
        2. alstr
          alstr 12 March 2018 11: 41
          +1
          Yeah. Expensive. But here is the paradox. It was cheaper for an organization to have a person die rather than become disabled. Because At death, the payment was lump-sum, and with disability it was permanent and quite long.
          We then believed (by those standards) that at the death of the Ministry of Emergency Situations, the Ministry of Emergency Situations paid about 50 thousand dollars, and the robot cost about 100.
      3. Bell pepper
        Bell pepper 14 March 2018 22: 25
        +1
        Why let people die ahead if it is possible to send a robot bistro ahead, which can cover a large distance in a short time and provide dense fire in advance, than the infantry began to storm the target ????

        This is not WWII for you, and today the human life of a specialist has a price!

        Why build a robot if you don’t want to donate them in place of your guys ??????????????
    2. seos
      seos 12 March 2018 09: 44
      +1
      BMP 1 and 2 hold 12,7 mm aboard with 300 m, a B-32 bullet. (indicated in the statement of work for the development of infantry fighting vehicles) BMP-3 has even more armor.
      As for the Companion, if 30mm in the forehead, then this is a good result .... Modern brands of armor have good stability ... Recently I read about NATO bulletproof armor, there are 2 sheets of medium and high hardness armor, they were fused with each other in a tricky way the output was armor that held B-32 7.62X54 from 50 meters, a thickness of 10,5 and with a thickness of 29 mm from 50 meters held B-32 14.5 mm
    3. Vlad.by
      Vlad.by 12 March 2018 18: 29
      +3
      T-4 and even T-3 and T-2 in 41-42 also had a lot of vulnerabilities, however, there was such a thing as tank fear. And not from scratch!
      And this box how many trunks to distract? and the accompanying infantry, I think, will not be lost - as long as the defenders are occupied with a piece of iron - the entire shooting of the attackers will be aimed at suppressing the firing points.
      And the "piece of iron" itself will also give change.
      Of course, this is not a robot, in the literal sense.
      No artificial intelligence, just remote control. But can it be for the better?
      Why are we having problems with the Terminator?
      1. Mitrich
        Mitrich 12 March 2018 20: 47
        +3
        It’s necessary to put a more powerful engine, so 1000-1200l.s, reinforce the reservation, cover the driving rollers, the gun can be stuck 125 mm, better smooth-bore, dynamic protection is necessary, without a "Curtain" in any way. The mechvod will be needed, charging and of course the commander. And to call it all is somehow beautiful. for example T-90. Oops, again a tank instead of a tram ....
    4. Maz
      Maz 13 March 2018 10: 16
      +2
      The author of the article does not chop in the battlefield. I would like a couple of these on the flanks
  2. Torsion
    Torsion 12 March 2018 08: 00
    0
    With such a scientific and technological development, it makes no sense to do anything compact at all. Any object is visible by a robot, which is stuffed with modern detection tools, for tens of kilometers. Ambush tactics are not suitable for fights between vehicles.
  3. san4es
    san4es 12 March 2018 09: 02
    +1
    The armored tracked vehicle "Companion" is designed for reconnaissance and relaying, patrolling and guarding territories and important facilities, mine clearing and barrage. The complex can be used as a fire support vehicle or military intelligence, as well as for the transport of ammunition and fuel, evacuation of wounded and sentry guards.
    The complex has secure means and communication systems, and technical vision. Able to work in passive mode for up to 10 days and detect targets at a distance of up to 2500 meters.
    The complex, whose weight does not exceed 7000 kg, is capable of speeds up to 40 km / h, with a range of up to 400 km. With remote control and direct radio visibility, the radius of the machine is up to 10 km. The machine control panels can be installed in any equipment. In addition, a small, fully functional, portable control panel is provided.


    Video from field trials of the "Companion" robotic complex provided in Syria by specialists of the Special Operations Forces was provided. soldier
    Posted: 19 Jan 2018
  4. Simargl
    Simargl 12 March 2018 09: 27
    +2
    Quote: Dmitry Verkhoturov
    Secondly, the main part of the reserved volume is occupied by the engine. Most likely, this is something common, for example, the UTD-20S diesel engine from BMP-2.
    Let's compare: BMP-2 - 220 kW / 14t = 65 km / h, then the Companion will be capable of 100 km / h. Rather, there is something up to 100 kW. And if there is also a hybrid (then it is very economical in passive mode, and even quiet).
    Quote: Dmitry Verkhoturov
    We will approximately calculate the reservation area (it turned out to be about 15,5 square meters), and determine what weight falls on this square meter. Counting gives 258 kg of steel per square meter. meter. If you look at the table of standards for rolled steel, then such a weight per square meter. a meter of steel sheet corresponds to a thickness of 33 mm.
    The photo shows that the frontal sheet is 10-12 mm. I will assume that either a mistake with the mass (up to 3 tons, rather), or the armor is differentiated and then there are from 5-8 to 50-60 mm, or the batteries are heavy.
  5. KVU-NSVD
    KVU-NSVD 12 March 2018 09: 29
    +9
    A ground-based drone to cover the attacking infantry with fire and armor is a necessary thing and is better than risking the crew of the same batter for the same purpose ... About booking - it covers the infantry no worse than any light armored vehicles for me, destroying a robot is no easier than an armored personnel carrier, but rather even more difficult because of the smaller size .. To read the author, so he needs an unmanned armata with dimensions "lower than the grass" .. While they created this, and then something better will appear ... The normal process and pleases that it goes ..
  6. Wilderness
    Wilderness 12 March 2018 09: 30
    +6
    A damp construction, only suitable for lawn and level landfills. In my amateurish opinion, a lot of flaws, some of the article's author mentioned:
    1_ Weak chassis (bullets, stretch marks immobilize it).
    2_Bad stability. It will drive into an invisible operator’s rut, trench, pit and lie on its side.
    3_No protection for antennas, optics, weapons. Do not forget the rule: “hit the observation devices, hit the gun’s barrel, hit the chassis”))). If the dangling antennas manage to shoot, then there is generally expanse.
    Conclusion: it is needed only against single, slightly armed terrorugs. Although some smart dogs are better against them in some kind of reservation.
    This device needs wheels that are driven and driven to the maximum (so as not to completely lose mobility when damaged), a variable clearance (adapt to the terrain), a well-armored body (like a tortoise’s shell, with equipment completely retractable into it), the ability to be fully autonomous (according to program) movements without operator intervention, smoke equipment, some kind of buckshot / shrapnel, additional optics on a retractable bar (peeking out from the folds of the terrain or from around the corner.
    Something like this. Now it’s just a machine gun with a motor.
    1. alstr
      alstr 12 March 2018 12: 00
      +3
      In fact, it is enough to read the tasks (see the post above), it immediately becomes clear that protecting it is enough. Because his main task is reconnaissance and patrol, then he does not need more.
      Recall the war: on what did the Germans conduct reconnaissance at the beginning of the war? Right on motorcycles or armored personnel carriers. Those. completely without protection or minimal from bullets.
      Everything is the same here.
      If you let him into the guard (and as you know, they destroy him first), then the machine has every right to exist, because saves the lives of fighters.
      The same thing about a perimeter guard. Sentinels and patrols are the first targets for destruction. Here the main signal is to send and the destruction or incapacitation of the robot - this will be the signal. In addition, they must be changed more than once every two hours.
      And of course, you can send it to tanks, but only it will be small and it will turn out expensive. Therefore, it is possible, but not worth it.

      Threat Just need to understand that ANY technique has its limits of application (which often do not understand). Even one tank in the same city is not a good idea, because can be easily destroyed.

      It's like somewhere in the alternative they asked: who will defeat a tank or a commando with a knife? And the answer depends on various conditions.
      1. Wilderness
        Wilderness 12 March 2018 13: 15
        +4
        Well then, I’m sorry, maybe I misunderstood the tactics of application (what can you do, the academies did not finish and did not study the general (((). I thought it was an assault machine to be on the cutting edge (the picture was misleading, where he is surrounded by special forces ), take fire damage on yourself, take care of the lives of your fighters (and take the lives of villains), get closer to the enemy in a shooting area, prohibit him from conducting aimed fire (in other words, conduct reconnaissance in battle, and for this to live and function as possible longer).
        But it turns out to be just a mechanical healer. It will rumble around the warehouse instead of a coughing and annoying senior citizen with a carbine. Then the name is clear - "companion" of Grandfather Petrovich with SCS (well, at least not a "drinking buddy").
        Not very good for reconnaissance either - patency and stability are poor (it won’t pass everywhere).
  7. SerB60
    SerB60 12 March 2018 09: 36
    0
    "Companion" is the normal name for a combat robot, but in the second title, who wanted to perpetuate themselves? The first line of the article.
    1. Nikolaevich I
      Nikolaevich I 12 March 2018 11: 24
      +1
      Quote: SerB60
      here in the second title, who wanted to perpetuate themselves? The first line of the article.

      The "second name" is an experimental platform ... waiting for its "conceptual" idea ...
    2. SerB60
      SerB60 12 March 2018 20: 25
      0
      I’ll get better, what should be read - in the first sentence of the article.
  8. AshiSolo
    AshiSolo 12 March 2018 10: 09
    0
    Quote: Wilderness
    A damp construction, only suitable for lawn and level landfills. In my amateurish opinion, a lot of flaws, some of the article's author mentioned:
    1_ Weak chassis (bullets, stretch marks immobilize it).
    2_Bad stability. It will drive into an invisible operator’s rut, trench, pit and lie on its side.
    3_No protection for antennas, optics, weapons. Do not forget the rule: “hit the observation devices, hit the gun’s barrel, hit the chassis”))). If the dangling antennas manage to shoot, then there is generally expanse.
    Conclusion: it is needed only against single, slightly armed terrorugs. Although some smart dogs are better against them in some kind of reservation.
    This device needs wheels that are driven and driven to the maximum (so as not to completely lose mobility when damaged), a variable clearance (adapt to the terrain), a well-armored body (like a tortoise’s shell, with equipment completely retractable into it), the ability to be fully autonomous (according to program) movements without operator intervention, smoke equipment, some kind of buckshot / shrapnel, additional optics on a retractable bar (peeking out from the folds of the terrain or from around the corner.
    Something like this. Now it’s just a machine gun with a motor.

    All three points can be safely applied to any modern tank =) Only a little rude. But this does not mean that the machine is bad. As noted above - the question is in application.

    PS: Vidos with a sound from RA3 delivers =) Let them be afraid of the empire =) And the car is cool. Need more.
  9. BAI
    BAI 12 March 2018 10: 11
    +2
    On vulnerabilities - it is necessary to drive into Syria and check there.
    I'm more interested in who comes up with the names? That "Punisher", then "Freeloader". Obviously, we should expect the appearance of the “Executioner” and “Alphonse”?
    1. Paranoid50
      Paranoid50 13 March 2018 02: 15
      +1
      Quote: BAI
      That "Punisher", then "Freeloader". should we expect the appearance of the “Executioner” and “Alphonse”?

      Duc, it will become ours. laughing Again, what will be bad, for example, “Dushegub” and “Scam” (although the second is more suitable for the electronic warfare complex). And, by the way, the author didn’t at all pay attention to the "freebie", request (in the photo - to the left of the "Companion").
  10. Strashila
    Strashila 12 March 2018 11: 30
    0
    Everything stated in the article can be ... although the developers had to study the history of Russian tank building ... from the light ones, this is the second world war to complete with the history of the creation of BMP ... many protection elements have already been worked out ... unification should be ... there will always be in life grenades of the wrong system.
  11. Belimbai
    Belimbai 12 March 2018 12: 18
    0
    // Why not make the combat robot as flat as possible, and install weapons on the rising arm? Flat, with a small height (about a meter or a little more than that), the car will disguise disguise much better than this armored turret. Good camouflage and sudden fire are already half the battle success. // This machine is therefore high, which would cover the special forces with armor .... and put a machine gun at the higher ...
    1. Dedall
      Dedall 12 March 2018 20: 29
      +2
      Dear Belimbai, about the height value for protection, I would like to talk about my observations of RPG firing. It was a division gathering of specialists. Initially, the old BMP was used as a target and shot from 200 meters to the side projection. About 70% fell and about 5% gave rebounds. Then the anti-aircraft gunners demolished the target tower and it became lower. The result immediately decreased to 40-50%, and when the target was deployed in direct projection, 10-15% began to fall, and ricochets started somewhere around 20%. That is, if you rephrase the words of Napoleon, then "If lower, then more whole."
      But actually, by and large, in these robots there is something Freudian. Like, the embodiment of a childhood dream of a toy that parents did not give due to poverty.
  12. DimerVladimer
    DimerVladimer 12 March 2018 13: 40
    +1
    "Why not make the combat robot as flat as possible, and install weapons on the rising arm?"

    Correctly noted - I think that the high position of the weapon on the robot is made to fire over the heads of its infantry in order to avoid casualties from friendly fire.
    But why it was structurally necessary to make it so high is not clear. The portable platform under the weapon - suggests itself.

    With a weight of 7t - I think an exaggeration - no more than 3500-5000 kg.

    As for RPGs - without a doubt this is a sufficient tool, but for temporary removal from standing, it is enough to hit / close the optics (with sniper fire, a coloring agent.
    A fairly simple barricade will stop the progress of the robot, since the chassis has a height limit for overcoming the escarp, it is not equipped with a blade - unlike a tank, it will not be able to destroy the barricade with a direct shot. Those. it begs equipping the complex with means to overcome and destroy barriers, such as a barricade. Otherwise, for urban combat, it will not be effective.
  13. DimerVladimer
    DimerVladimer 12 March 2018 13: 51
    +2
    Judging by the frames of the video, the weapon is not stable.
    Shooting in motion is not the hobby of this complex.
    1. Tarikxnumx
      Tarikxnumx 12 March 2018 19: 57
      +1
      Yes, it’s just from the video that it is seen that stabilization is present in the target tracking mode. Moreover, two-plane. But the fact that infantry monoculars are used on top of the lens as night vision devices is PPC. Three quarters of the operator’s screen is occupied by the shadow of the eyecup ... Sensation that you are looking at the polygon through the door peephole. wassat
  14. kunstkammer
    kunstkammer 12 March 2018 15: 18
    -1
    "Companion" and "Freeloader"

    The freeloader ??? Who is this ... m-ya ... did they come up with it?
    As you call a “ship” - so it will sail.
    Py.Sy. This sample is not accidentally designed for Ukrainian warriors? How will the third machine gun at Popandopulo - will shoot at his own?
  15. Xscorpion
    Xscorpion 13 March 2018 13: 29
    +1
    I can’t understand, if you don’t have an idea what it is about, then why write any nonsense? The author’s knowledge of the use of military vehicles at an amazing level, and his ability to present positive data and voice it as negative is admirable laughing For example, a very decent booking of the robot is indicated, much better than normal BMPs, but no, it's bad, it's not a tank! But the fact that the tank weighs 10 times more is not taken into account. Seriously, despite the vulnerable booking, although I repeat, it is very good for a vehicle of this size, there is no crew in this vehicle. And the main goal for the enemy who fires at BMPs is is the crew and the assault force inside. Most of the shells for guns and grenade launchers are designed to defeat or disable the crew inside the BM.And setting fire to the car or detonating the ammunition is secondary. Because it is quite difficult to do without the use of incendiary ammunition. Either the ammunition should be very large .For example, if you shoot a BMP board 30 times with a heavy machine gun in the landing area, the car will not be damaged, only the landing force will be damaged, if there is one. And one successful shot in the forehead that will damage the driver’s drive, together with it will also damage the car. Tales that with the help of a machine gun it is possible to disable the engine, which is also on the brink of fantasy under armor. it’s not an easy task to break through fuel tanks that are under armor. In addition, to set fire to a car, you will need to additionally fire incendiary ammunition after breaking through tanks. Or use immediately armor-piercing - incendiary ammunition for heavy machine guns and automatic guns. Direct hit by a mortar? fool Well, if the whole battery shoots at once on one robot, then it is possible, in principle, after a flow of 20-30 minutes, there is a possibility it cannot be ruled out. But only such a hit will disable any light armored vehicles and it will be very unpleasant for tankers. But again because of the fact that they have a crew. Therefore, it is not a fact that the robot will suffer greatly from this. Optics and communications and control equipment can be damaged, I do not argue. As for the incapacitation of optics with small arms, watch less films. For this you need concentrated fire at least a platoon for several minutes. And that is not a fact.
  16. Xscorpion
    Xscorpion 13 March 2018 14: 00
    +1
    Quote: DimerVladimer
    "Why not make the combat robot as flat as possible, and install weapons on the rising arm?"

    Correctly noted - I think that the high position of the weapon on the robot is made to fire over the heads of its infantry in order to avoid casualties from friendly fire.
    But why it was structurally necessary to make it so high is not clear. The portable platform under the weapon - suggests itself.

    With a weight of 7 tons - I think it’s an exaggeration - no more than 3500-5000 kg. Regarding RPGs, this is without a doubt a sufficient means, and for temporary removal from standing, it is enough to hit / close the optics (with sniper fire, a coloring agent.
    A fairly simple barricade will stop the progress of the robot, since the chassis has a height limit for overcoming the escarp, it is not equipped with a blade - unlike a tank, it will not be able to destroy the barricade with a direct shot. Those. it begs equipping the complex with means to overcome and destroy barriers, such as a barricade. Otherwise, for urban combat, it will not be effective.


    A high profile is just for a larger shelling sector for a robot. The higher the weapon, the better the visibility and, accordingly, the more targeted shooting. About RPGs. In the first, the dimensions of this robot are much smaller than those of an infantry fighting vehicle, it’s more difficult to hit, and about the effectiveness of shelling this robot, I already wrote above. In Georgia, our BMPs got from the RPG to the stern area, it’s good that there was no one inside, everyone was sitting on the armor, jumped in advance. The BMP started to burn, there is fuel in the landing doors, if anyone does not know, the crew also left the car without casualties, the gunner though AKSU forgot to pick up a spearpug laughing In general, they even tried to extinguish it, threw it with earth, but to no avail, then they started to explode the ammunition inside the landing, there were zinc with vogs and cartridges, they had to move away. After a couple of minutes then this car was pushed off a cliff with the help of another BMP. Five minutes later only the BC detonated in the tower. Everything was beautifully scattered, it was a pity it was, there were a lot of grub and ammunition insidecrying
    What am I talking about, in general, even a direct hit by an RPG grenade does not necessarily destroy the car. If several fire extinguishers quickly extinguished the fire, they could have saved. It was just that they were not at hand, and there was no time to look, they were afraid of re-shelling, you wouldn’t run around in such a situation.
    PS By the way, we later found the gunner’s AKSU, or rather, the skeleton was burnt without a forearm and a gun winked But the store joined normally, the cartridge went into the chamber and a shot was fired into the air. Kalash is a force good
  17. sib.ataman
    sib.ataman 13 March 2018 14: 48
    +1
    But with my eyes the author is a typical couch expert. Farther than to the bakery around the corner, there is no walker, at best, in the summer to the barbecue cottage. But if, at least at the training ground a couple of times, the mud was stuck or the snot froze, while practicing the unit’s interaction in various types of combat, together with equipment, it is unlikely that they would spread their “brains” into the network. The Nazis, crossing our border in the 41st, were also on wedges, not to mention France and Belgium. Our home-grown “Napoleons” before the war also threatened to throw them with their budenkov even on the way to the border, however, then they competed with these wedges in cross-country running, fleeing from them, despite the fact that they also had cardboard armor (only without fairy tales about T-III, IV, tigers, panthers and other menagerie). The army likes to repeat in such cases, it was smooth on paper, but they forgot about the ravines (and in the light of current trends, they scored on the ravines). Given that this direction is new and promising, both elements of tactics and design are being worked out so far. If robots, sooner or later, prove their least minimal effectiveness, then the process of their improvement will be endless.
  18. Moon reflection
    Moon reflection 14 March 2018 05: 10
    0
    Making a tower on a bracket is an interesting idea! So the robot can only “peep out” from the tower because of the corners of houses in street battles, without substituting the body.
  19. Oleg78
    Oleg78 14 March 2018 10: 07
    0
    The article is country, it seems that the author is a sofa expert !!! It’s difficult to get to the battlefield by BMP because only when you lean out of the grenade launchers you will get a bullet and it will be 10 times harder to get into this target. The author does not understand the main purpose of these machines .. This is not an offensive on the field and you sit and shoot like a dash and cover soldiers or reconnaissance
  20. Wilderness
    Wilderness 14 March 2018 11: 42
    0
    Quote: sib.ataman
    But with my eyes the author is a typical couch expert. Farther than to the bakery around the corner, there is no walker, at best, in the summer to the barbecue cottage. But if, at least at the training ground a couple of times, the mud was stuck or the snot froze, while practicing the unit’s interaction in various types of combat, together with equipment, it is unlikely that they would spread their “brains” into the network. The Nazis, crossing our border in the 41st, were also on wedges, not to mention France and Belgium. Our home-grown “Napoleons” before the war also threatened to throw them with their budenkov even on the way to the border, however, then they competed with these wedges in cross-country running, fleeing from them, despite the fact that they also had cardboard armor (only without fairy tales about T-III, IV, tigers, panthers and other menagerie). The army likes to repeat in such cases, it was smooth on paper, but they forgot about the ravines (and in the light of current trends, they scored on the ravines). Given that this direction is new and promising, both elements of tactics and design are being worked out so far. If robots, sooner or later, prove their least minimal effectiveness, then the process of their improvement will be endless.

    1. The author does not question the effectiveness of robots and does not express their uselessness, no need to ascribe this to him.
    2. The comparison with the 41 year is incorrect, the Germans made a truly brilliant discovery in the creation of their motorized troops, as a result, not only our "Napoleons", but also the British (pioneers of tanks) and the French (the most powerful European army of that time) fled from them.
    3. In the matter of mixing dirt and freezing snots, this pepelats, excuse me, will not help in any way, I briefly described this above. I repeat again: a) low survivability of the chassis; b) no cross; c) the insecurity of optics, weapons, communications.
    If it was just a model for working out a radio control system, this could be reconciled. But now neither for reconnaissance, nor for patrol, nor for assault (especially as part of army units) is now suitable. And even learning tactics on it is not possible in the conditions of a "pentball" terrain.
  21. sds127
    sds127 16 March 2018 22: 31
    0
    “If you throw a few grenades, aiming so that the grenade hits the top of the tower or explodes above it” (c) at this point I stopped reading. The author urgently joins the army to study such concepts as unit interaction, fire support and other initial wisdom.
    1. wehr
      17 March 2018 13: 38
      0
      And what did they teach you to throw grenades without looking where? laughing
  22. The comment was deleted.
  23. The comment was deleted.