The new "Octopus-SDM-1" for the Airborne Forces will go on state tests in the 2019 year

The Russian Defense Ministry will conduct state tests of the modernized Sprut-SDM-1 self-propelled anti-tank gun next year, they are included in the planned activities for the 2019 year, according to the information department of the Russian Defense Ministry.

According to the plans of the Russian military, tests of the new self-propelled gun, created in the interests of the Airborne Forces, will be conducted at several test sites of the Ministry of Defense. It is stated that the Sprut-SDM-1 will significantly increase the firepower of the landing force, thereby increasing the survivability of the landing units in combat.

The new 2C25М Sprut-SDM1 self-propelled gun is equipped with a new engine, a new reservation has been applied, a new fire control system, sighting equipment and communications equipment have been installed. The machine is integrated into a single tactical management system.

- Said the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation.

The new machine has already passed the factory preliminary tests, for the time being, the design of the machine is being modified and the shortcomings identified in the preliminary tests are being eliminated.

The new modernized gun will replace the previous modification of the Sprut-SD in the artillery units of the Airborne Forces.

Comments

[The leader of the Redskins]

Always happy with the emergence of new armored vehicles. Himself tanker in the past. Keep it up, tank builders!

[Samaritan]

Always rejoice in the advent of new armored vehicles

With all due respect:
Self-propelled anti-tank gun 2С25 "Sprut-SD" was created in the early 90-s. on the extended (two rollers) base of the BMD-3 airborne combat vehicle by the Volgograd Tractor Plant Joint-Stock Company, and the artillery unit to it - at the N9 artillery plant (Yekaterinburg). In contrast to the Sprut-B towed artillery system, the new ACS was given the name Sprut-SD (self-propelled, landed).
One of her first presentations was 8 in May on 2001 at the Prudboy tank training ground of the North Caucasus Military District for representatives of the power ministries of Russia and the foreign military diplomatic corps from 14 of foreign states of Southeast Asia, the Middle East, Africa and South America.

The first mention on the "Military Review" on June 25, 2010 ...

[210ox]

How effective are anti-tank guns against modern tanks?

[Samaritan]

How effective are anti-tank guns against modern tanks?

The gun is not all, the Airborne Forces has long required support ...
The artillery shells used for firing after a shot can be aimed at the target by a laser beam using the commander’s sight. Real-time target data is generated by the gunner’s laser rangefinder and delivered to the ballistic computer. The main weapon of the SPTP is a smooth-bore tank gun, the prototype of which was the 2A46 gun used to arm the main battle tanks of Russia. Since the SPTP chassis is much lighter than a tank, a number of major changes were made to the design of the gun. An ejector, a new recoil device, and a thermal insulation casing were installed. The muzzle brake is missing. The gun is structurally stabilized in two planes and is designed to fire any type of ammunition of 125 mm caliber, relating to shots with separate shell loading. Laser-guided projectiles are capable of hitting armored targets at ranges up to 4 km. The maximum rate of fire is 7 rds / min. The gun is charged using a horizontal automatic loader, which is installed behind the artillery tower. The machine is equipped with 22 artillery rounds, completely ready for immediate use. If the machine fails, the gun can be charged manually. The PKT machine gun (SPTP auxiliary weapon) is paired with a cannon. For protection, a smoke grenade launcher is used.



Features:
Combat weight, t: 18;
Layout scheme: classic;
Crew, pers .: 3;
Case Length, mm: 7085;
Length with gun forward, mm: 9770;
Case Width, mm: 3152;
Height, mm: 3050;
Base, mm: 4225;
Track, mm: 2744;
Ground clearance, mm: 100 ... 500;
Type of armor: bulletproof;
Caliber and brand of gun: 125 mm 2A75;
Gun type: smoothbore gun;
Barrel length, calibres: 48;
Gun ammunition: 40;
Angles VN, city .: –5 ... + 15;
Corners GN, city .: 360;
Прицелы: 1А40-1М, ТО1-КО1Р, 1К13-3С;
Machine guns: 1 x 7,62 mm PKTM;
Engine Type: 2V-06-2C;
Engine power, l s .: 510;
Speed ​​on the highway, km / h: 70;
Cross country speed, km / h: 45-50, 9 afloat;
Cruising on the highway, km: 500;
Cruising cross country, km: 350;
Specific Power, l s / t: 28,3;
Suspension type: individual hydropneumatic;
Specific ground pressure, kg / cm²: 0,36-0,53;
Gradeability, city .: 35;
The overcome wall, m: 0,8;
The overcome ditch, m: 2,8;
Fording, m: floats.

[cordon332]

Samaritan! Those performance characteristics that YOU have led have nothing to do with "Sprut-SDM1, because" Sprut-SDM1, in terms of the chassis, of course, is developed on the basis of the BMD-4M, which in turn is developed on the basis of the BMP-3, and This means that the engine, the transmission, and practically everything, except maybe air springs, are borrowed from the BMP-3 chassis, which is reflected externally. Look carefully at the photo from the article and you will understand what it is about.

[Observer2014]

210ox (Dmitriy)

How effective are anti-tank guns against modern tanks?

That's why they are anti-tank guns. To crush tanks. It is clear not only tanks. Especially that's what is on the Octopus. All the ammunition from the T90 is suitable. And there are guided missiles. Here in the steppe, for example, try another approach to this handsome man. He will hit that "Abrams" with a rocket and will not have time to drive up to his shot.

[maykl8]

How effective are anti-tank guns against modern tanks?

At a cost cheaper than half the tank, the gun is the same as the tank. Has a specialization: firing from a place from a previously occupied line i.e. attack no-no. It should be part of the anti-tank reserve of the division (ATGM), up to 9 units of guns. ATGMs are used in defense when breaking through enemy tanks to the depth of our first-tier battalions (2-3 km), and in the offensive when repulsing an enemy counterattack from 2- 3 km further into the enemy defense. Something like this.

[Fox]

That is, is it a landing tank suitable exclusively for defense?
And how will it help to fulfill the main task of the landing - to destroy and capture objects behind enemy lines?

[maykl8]

That is, is it a landing tank suitable exclusively for defense? wassat
And how will it help to fulfill the main task of the landing - to destroy and capture objects behind enemy lines?

It should not capture. This is not a tank. Its task is to destroy enemy tanks at a range of 5 km with missiles and 2,7 km with shells from a standstill.

[Red_Baron]

It can also capture, due to its mobility and huge firepower, easily. But this does not mean that he must act alone.

[Red_Baron]

For example, so that it is essentially the only anti-tank weapon with such a range and power of fire. It can also provide penetration of fortifications with its cannon.
At the same time, it has high mobility, and, accordingly, the ability to quickly complete a combat mission or redeploy for attack or defense in the most favorable conditions.
And the tasks of the landing are not only these. But also retention until the arrival of the main forces, to combat the same landing or breakthroughs. Where his demand is even higher. I would even say incomparably.

[Lord of the Sith]

I would also add a video.

[Per se.]

Quote: Samaritan

Self-propelled anti-tank gun 2S25 "Sprut-SD" was created in the early 90s. on an extended (two rollers) base of the BMD-3 airborne combat vehicle

It would be more correct that for "Sprut-SD" the base of object 934 ("Judge") was used.

[venik]

Quote: Samaritan

With all due respect:
Self-propelled anti-tank gun 2S25 "Sprut-SD" was created in the early 90s.

=========
Excuse me, Andrey! And with what, you actually DO NOT AGREE ??? Maybe DO NOT NEED to produce ?? Yes, late development ... BUT! Is it OUT OF DATE ???

[URAL72]

It would be nice to have at least a platoon of amphibious tanks in every tank battalion, this will seriously increase the mobility of the fur brigades and facilitate the forcing of water obstacles. Firepower will also increase.

[Red_Baron]

Quote: URAL72

It would be nice to have at least a platoon of amphibious tanks in every tank battalion

What's the point? Add equipment to the tank battalion that is essentially not a tank. Overcoming water obstacles in battle means an action with a margin from the rest, against which enemy?
And in the remaining 80% of cases, they will act together with MBT, and since they do not have their characteristics, the possibility of a fatal outcome will be extremely high.

Quote: URAL72

this will seriously increase the mobility of the fur brigades and facilitate the forcing of water barriers.

Of course not. For the rest of the technique, boosting will not make it any easier, and it will also expect its crossing in most cases.

Quote: URAL72

Firepower will also increase.

How? That means will be used, with exactly the same gun, but not protected?

[URAL72]

The pontoon crossing still needs to be brought in. What will you hold the other shore with? BMP? The reconnaissance of the tank battalion uses armored personnel carriers and armored personnel carriers - light armor, firepower is not always sufficient. Himself in the intelligence of SMEs. Firepower will increase due to the increase in the number of trunks. In battle, tanks operate in conjunction with infantry fighting vehicles, the same armor, but somehow fighting. If we had such cars when crossing the Dnieper during the Kiev operation, there would be less loss. And there were many such operations. A light tank does not have to be thrown into battle along with a heavy one - it is better to use it as a reserve or for a flank attack when the enemy breaks through. No one canceled tank ambushes. Jews claim that the main merit in forcing the Suez Canal is the captured PT-76. Today we are fighting in Syria, and tomorrow again we may find ourselves in the swamps of Angola. A light tank is needed, there is work for it, and throwing it through the air is much easier. The octopus can even carry off the Mi-26.

[Henderson]

It would be interesting to learn something about a unified tactical management system.

[Observer2014]

"Octopus" is perhaps the best light tank in the world. Although it is called a self-propelled anti-tank gun. This is a light tank. With a modernized cannon from the main tank. There is no armor. But water barriers are nothing. In general, this device is not for conscripts. Here you need an alloy exclusively professionals. From the commander of the squadrons "Octopus". To the soldiers who manage these machines. Here then. Yes.

[ver_]

..Katyusha entered the stage and left, and so several times, there was no applause ..

[garri-lin]

This unit requires a good and well-thought-out KAZ. There is no armor from the word at all. Typical and easy target for grenade launcher.

[Red_Baron]

And what are the chances of attacking him with a grenade launcher? If you look at the main tasks of the Octopus, then the appearance of grenade throwers there is not very likely.
And KAZ planned Arena, if I’m not mistaken, it all depends on its need and the capabilities of the customer.

[garri-lin]

Just the same, acting behind enemy lines, you can run into "counter-landing" troops of increased mobility and a high level of training, quickly deployed to eliminate our landing. And there Karl Gustav and Javelin are present in abundance. Better insure yourself.

[max702]

Quote: Red_Baron

And what are the chances of attacking him with a grenade launcher? If you look at the main tasks of the Octopus, then the appearance of grenade throwers there is not very likely.
And KAZ planned Arena, if I’m not mistaken, it all depends on its need and the capabilities of the customer.

The fact of the matter is that the Octopus will not be used as planned, but since the Airborne Forces have been used for the last 70 years, that is, as a light mobile infantry, albeit with a high level of training, but with equipment for these tasks is not suitable, respectively, and the losses, both human and material .. The arena is expensive and the troops will not have it .. As for me, but the ACS "Vienna" for the Airborne Forces would be an order of magnitude more useful .. The fight against BT equipment of the enemy, unlike the Second World War, is not relevant today .. Although, in principle, the standard BMD- 4 will cope with the entire spectrum of tasks more efficiently than the highly specialized PT tool Octopus .. It's just that some want money, others want big long guns ..

[Red_Baron]

Quote: max702

The fact of the matter is that they will not use Octopus as intended, but since they have been using the Airborne Forces of the last 70 years, that is, as light mobile infantry, albeit with a high level of preparation of BUTs with equipment that is not suitable for these tasks, respectively, and both human and material losses .

Yes, but about an absolutely inappropriate technique, I would not be so categorical. What is the difference between BMP-3 and BMD-4? In addition to dimensions and chassis? Almost none. And as our colleague noted earlier, that the landing party is already equipped with more suitable equipment, such as motorized riflemen. That is, it already exists and is already underway. But some kind of reserve with airborne landing equipment will surely remain.

Quote: max702

The arena is expensive and it will not be in the troops.

All a matter of time. As there will be saturation in the troops of the technology itself, so will its re-equipment. Now in general there is no tendency in the world to equip KAZ light equipment. While it is expensive for everyone.

Quote: max702

As for me, but the ACS "Vienna" for the Airborne Forces would be an order of magnitude more useful.

Here I can not say anything to the landing troops I have nothing to do. Vienna, like Nona, is magnificent, but this is completely different. Octopus is precisely for the struggle with heavy equipment, against which there is nothing. Although now on the updated equipment put launchers for ATGMs.

Quote: max702

Although, in principle, the standard BMD-4 will cope with the whole spectrum of tasks more efficiently than the highly specialized PT means Octopus.

Yes, what are you. BMD-4 can not use a blank, which is enough for light vehicles, which means expensive ATGMs. Against heavy equipment is even worse. The brass knuckles launched through the barrel are no longer sufficient for modern technology and they have no prospect. And still they and their system are more expensive.

[max702]

Quote: Red_Baron

Yes, what are you. BMD-4 can not use a blank, which is enough for light vehicles, which means expensive ATGMs. Against heavy equipment is even worse. The brass knuckles launched through the barrel are no longer sufficient for modern technology and they have no prospect. And still they and their system are expensive

Speak more expensive? Are ATGMs for a tank gun cheaper? Or the complex of a tank gun + SLA + shell will be cheaper? And note that the resource will not be so hot at the barrel, and the aiming angles will not allow you to work on various targets, but what about the possibility of firing along a hinged path? Doesn’t this make the SPrut Octopus too expensive and a highly specialized complex? I repeat BT goals a long time ago was no longer the main threat on the modern battlefield, today it’s not the Second World War when the only means of defeating them was a high-speed disc of a preferably large caliber, do you think that even if a 100mm OFS would fly Abrams or Leclercu into battle after that? What will happen to the guidance devices? With antennas? All kinds of sensors? Yes, it is possible that the crew will suffer especially, but the tank will not be combat-ready and will not pose a threat in the near future, as a complicated and expensive repair is needed .. What is the meaning of the discs? Again preparing for the past war? Today, the infantry (and the tank, and all BT equipment is infantry support), first of all, a powerful OB need to influence Syria, Chechnya, Iraq on the enemy perfectly confirms this ..
RS: I have nothing against replacing the BMD-4 with the BMP-3 because I understand that there will be no parachute landing in a real conflict ..

[Red_Baron]

Quote: max702

do you speak? Are ATGMs for a tank gun cheaper?

No, about the same.

Quote: max702

Or the complex of a tank gun + SLA + shell will be cheaper?

BMD-4 has 2 guns. The SLA seems to be no worse. And yes, the shell will be much cheaper.
100mm tank guns from tanks of past generations can be a lot, and even free.

Quote: max702

And note that the resource will not be so hot at the barrel, and the aiming angles will not allow you to work on a variety of purposes, but what about the possibility of firing along a mounted trajectory?

Just the resource will be normal, aiming angles allow you to work on completely different targets, and even MBTs can shoot along the hinged path if necessary.

And then I didn’t understand anything, you mixed everything that is possible in a heap. The question is why.
------------

Quote: max702

Doesn’t this make the SPrut Octopus too expensive and a highly specialized complex?

Too expensive compared to what? No does not, highly specialized? Regarding what? BMD-4? They have different tasks. But Octopus is needed exactly in the form it is. That is, an amphibious anti-tank gun. If you have other suggestions, then ok, why did you choose this option, by the way, as everywhere is mentioned, the development was in cooperation with the airborne troops. Perhaps they understand a little more what they need.

Quote: max702

I repeat BT goals have long been no longer the main threat in the modern battlefield

YES and where does it all. You again swapped everything. The question is not about who is threatening anyone on the battlefield. The question is what kind of fire weapon the landing party needs. And only then what will be his goals and objectives. The fact that he is an anti-tank self-propelled gun does not mean that the targets are only tanks. This can be seen in his BC. In this regard, it is universal enough, no matter how you try to distort it.

Quote: max702

do you think even if the OFS 100mm flies in the forehead to Abrams or Leclerc will he be combat-ready after that?

It will be natural. Actually they are built to counter this.

Quote: max702

What will happen to the guidance devices? With antennas? All kinds of sensors?

Functionality may be reduced. And maybe it will fail, as luck is, where it gets. Only the BMD shooter will be destroyed much earlier with greater accuracy and a chance of defeat.

Quote: max702

Yes, it is possible that the crew will suffer especially, but the tank will not be combat-ready and will not pose a threat in the near future, as a complicated and expensive repair is needed ..

Well then, everyone would shoot HE shells and not take a steam bath. And without the antennas, the tank will fight well, you won’t be able to output all of its monitoring devices like this again, maybe you won’t remove the SLA as well.

Quote: max702

The meaning of the discs?

: D: D: D The military are stupid and did not know that they had already found a more effective means. And they are stirring something up there with their ATGMs, BB. Fools: D: D: D. By the way, if the blinding of the tank is still relevant, then with the large introduction of data transfer and this will become of little relevance, the goal can be indicated remotely and it will not be necessary to direct directly through the main tank guidance devices.
You look at the trajectory and flight speed of the HE projectile especially from 2a70.
Regarding firing with such a trajectory at a distance, regarding firing from a closed position, you read how much is considered the norm of artillery shells per tank. Just your PF as you wanted.

Quote: max702

Today, the infantry (and the tank, and all BT equipment is infantry support), first of all, a powerful OB need to influence Syria, Chechnya, Iraq on the enemy perfectly confirms this ..

How is this? HE shells were always needed for tanks and no one disputes their excellent use. Only in a tank duel will he have no chance. By the way, look for the sake of interest in the same Abrams how many HE shells in the BC. Especially if you do not take special for their own purposes.

Quote: max702

The meaning of the discs? Again preparing for the past war?

Yes, the whole world is preparing for it. That's why BOPSs and cumulative ATGMs will improve. And not OF. The whole world is crazy.
No offense, you are not the first with whom I argue with a similar approach. Already at the forum I came across people who had some idea in their heads. Or she drew herself during a dispute and they didn’t want to see anything, in any case they bent their idea, and when something disproved it, they simply did not notice or came up with their own conditions.
I immediately realized this wedging when you piled everything together. And Octopus and Ptury and 125mm in the Octopus and 100mm tank guns and 100mm low ballistic guns. HE shells instead of BB. Etc.
How are you going to get to the distance of the BOPS OF ammunition. I dont know.

[Red_Baron]

Quote: Observer2014

The Octopus is perhaps the best light tank in the world.

Than

Quote: Observer2014

Here in the steppe, for example, try another approach to this handsome man. He will hit that "Abrams" with a rocket and will not have time to drive up to his shot.

For example, what rocket?

[Observer2014]

Red_Baron (Andrei)

For example, what rocket?

For example "Reflex"

[Red_Baron]

Quote: Observer2014

"Octopus" is perhaps the best light tank in the world. Although it is called a self-propelled anti-tank gun. It is a light tank. With a modernized main tank cannon. No armor. But water barriers do not matter.

To be honest, I didn’t quite understand you here either. And why is Octopus a light tank and even the best in the world? What you described is precisely a self-propelled tank gun.
There is its light carrier, in terms of mass and dimensions, suitable for various landings and under its own power can force many obstacles. And there is a powerful gun that he delivers. on the battlefield. in fact, what the landing party needs, which it lacks is the ability to attack and destroy MBTs at a normal tank distance. Naturally, this is primarily from ambushes, fortified positions, and the like, but if necessary, a clear field.
To defeat light infantry, such a gun is redundant, to defeat light targets, it is also redundant. The armor is not enough. For a light tank, a 100-105mm cannon would be more typical, which allows the BC to carry more and have more variety. It is also easier to install and cheaper, and also cheaper to operate.

[Observer2014]

Red_Baron (Andrei)

And why is Octopus a light tank and even the best in the world?

A cannon, running and mobile capabilities. What is one light tank that can compete with it? And at the expense of excess in the power of the guns. You won’t spoil the porridge with butter. This gun surpasses not only everything that is in the light weight of all tanks, but also better than all the main ones. If it’s not the best gun for today. We are silent about 140 and 152 mm with us and it’s not in the series yet.

[Red_Baron]

Well, in general there are not so many light tanks and I personally do not see why they should appear more. Except in poor countries, as a replacement for the more expensive and difficult to manufacture heavy. Although I could be wrong.
But, for example, the American M8 can compete, which again attracted the interest of the US Ministry of Defense, I don’t know where this will lead. It is also landing, the running performance is not lower, but in some ways higher, but I do not think that this is important. The guns on it are used different from 105mm, to modern 120mm. There are also light tanks from our friends from Poland and Sweden, and quite famous ones, although they don’t have very good airdrop capabilities. These are Anders and CV90 respectively. And so I'm not sure who is more suitable for the title of not a self-propelled anti-tank gun, namely a light tank. The same Octopus is still a compromise. But to act autonomously, for a sufficiently long time, while ensuring good working conditions for the crew, as the tank should be, including the light one, I’m not at all sure. And it is non-airborne for this much more features.

But that is not all. There is a rather large niche of wheeled self-propelled units. Which are also self-propelled anti-tank guns. This and our close colleagues from Italy and France with Kentaro and AMX-10RC, Americans with Stryker 1128, China, several models, South Africa. And these are the famous ones that they are talking about.

Quote: Observer2014

And at the expense of excess in the power of the guns. You won’t spoil the porridge with butter.

I’m talking about this first of all. For anti-tank installation yes! here you are absolutely right. But for a light tank, everything is not so clear. Even if you leave some design issues, including the great complexity and high cost of stabilization, control. But purely physically this is a smaller BK, a larger and more complex AZ.

Quote: Observer2014

This gun surpasses not only everything that is in the light weight of all tanks, but also better than all the main ones. If it’s not the best gun for today. We are silent about 140 and 152 mm with us and it’s not in the series yet.

Not so simple and simple again.
A gun is a gun and its capabilities are very good, but, unfortunately, this is only one component. The gun complex is a cannon + ammunition. I would also add guidance tools. But this is somewhat separate. So for ammunition - let's not hide that the latest ammunition for western 120mm guns have better characteristics than ours. And despite the fact that our guns have the best features, they still need to be realized. To my great regret, it is not yet possible to implement and put into series. Well, 140 and 152mm are very large calibers, 130mm from the same Rheinmetal, for example, may look more realistic.

And a little more about light tanks. In any comparison, Octopus will lose, not because I do not like our equipment, on the contrary, I love it very much, but it is clamped primarily by its framework - the landing, floating equipment. This is a very important point, a colleague from VO pointed me at it for some time.
If you do it without reference to this, how much it is needed without reference to this is another matter. Then you can design a housing with the necessary features. Use rational angles of armor not like on BMPs in general, but those that will allow you to have maximum armor with a minimum of mass, well, and take into account the internal arrangement of nodes and crew. You can also pre-calculate and install spaced armor, possibly somewhere combined. Naturally rely on the installation of remote sensing.
Which for the most part is not so necessary for a self-propelled anti-tank gun.

[Setrac]

Quote: Red_Baron

What you described is precisely a self-propelled tank gun.

Self-propelled guns have rifled guns for firing at a long distance. Smoothbore gun is designed for direct fire. In terms of protection, the Octopus-SDM is a light tank, although the classification is conditional in any case. And why do you need modern self-propelled guns - not tanks?

[Red_Baron]

Quote: Setrac

Self-propelled guns have rifled guns for firing at a long distance.

AND? You can stabilize the projectile not only that.

Quote: Setrac

Smoothbore gun is designed for direct fire.

Not necessary. There are plenty of smooth trunks for shooting on a hinged path.
But still I don’t understand where does it come from?

Quote: Setrac

In terms of protection, the Octopus-SDM is a light tank, although the classification is conditional in any case. And why do you need modern self-propelled guns - not tanks?

In principle, yes, conditional, but looking at some of the nuances here and there appearing it becomes visible a great disposition to something.
The main goal for a light tank, logically, should be lightly armored vehicles and manpower. For other tasks, other types of equipment are better suited. If he would have to fight against light vehicles, it would be logical if he could withstand the return fire. And if it will operate quite autonomously then repeatedly. Extra protection against heavier hits. For example, the Octopus has such a design that it is impossible to place a DZ to cover the side, only part of it. The tower is also not so strong. Shelling from a heavy machine gun can be fatal, from a grenade launcher too. These are all design costs. For an amphibious self-propelled anti-tank gun, this is normal. But for a light tank, this is already quite critical. What can he do. Anyway, why is it better than the old AMX-13 with a 90/105 mm cannon and the Baby complex, which at one time pretty much settled in South America, I don’t remember the details of the countries offhand.

[Setrac]

Quote: Red_Baron

AND? You can stabilize the projectile not only that.

Yes, it is possible to stabilize in different ways, but they do so.

Quote: Red_Baron

Not necessary. There are plenty of smooth trunks for shooting on a hinged path.

For short distances.

[max702]

Quote: Red_Baron

For a light tank, a 100-105mm cannon would be more typical, which allows the BC to carry more and have more variety. It is also easier to install and cheaper, and also cheaper to operate.

You just described BMD-4 she has all this, and even much more ..

[Red_Baron]

No, unfortunately the BMD-4 is not quite right. You may be confused by the 2a70 gun, which is 100mm. Do not confuse this low-ballistic gun, that is, something close to a mortar, capable of launching containers with ATGM and HE shells. Kinetic BB and the like cannot. And that means using against light equipment will be many times more expensive and have fewer capabilities.

[max702]

Quote: Red_Baron

No, unfortunately the BMD-4 is not quite right. You may be confused by the 2a70 gun, which is 100mm. Do not confuse this low-ballistic gun, that is, something close to a mortar, capable of launching containers with ATGM and HE shells. Kinetic BB and the like cannot. And that means using against light equipment will be many times more expensive and have fewer capabilities.

Nothing bothers you, kinetic discs today are not relevant anyway they will not pierce (see the armor penetration of these) onboard and ATGM will be enough, and since the same SPRING must act from ambushes (and onboard), the BMD / BMP will do the same with this .. And light armored vehicles are enough for 30mm, not to mention 100mm OFS ..

[Red_Baron]

You understand what it is, you write abstract things. This is from the category of whether I will meet a dinosaur on the street today. 50 to 50 or a meeting or not.

Quote: max702

Nothing confuses, kinetic pigs are not relevant today

What did you decide? On the basis of what did you put forward such a thesis?

Quote: max702

they still won’t penetrate the forehead (look at the armor penetration of these)

Why did you decide this?
Well, I looked, and although you pointed it out you didn’t look.
The penetration rate of modern BOPS under 1000 mm and promising up to 1200.
The armor of modern tanks is somewhere 900+ tower, 800+ hull
Just a puzzle for a land mine!

Quote: max702

it’s exactly the same BMD \ BMP cope with this

This must be urgently sent to the General Staff! what would they know at least. whom to use in ambush on MBT.

Quote: max702

And even 30mm is enough for light armored vehicles, not to mention 100mm OFS ..

Well, most light armored vehicles in the forehead are protected from 30 mm or more of armor. And to plan that you will like to peel everyone in the film and they will stand at least naively.
About OFS already said - how lucky. If you fit the caterpillars, then they can still open fire at you. And if the distance is close then you’ll undermine yourself. The tank then can withstand these 2kg centuries, but the BMP / BMD is definitely not.

[max702]

Quote: Red_Baron

And to plan that you will like to peel everyone in the film and they will stand at least naively.

And how are you going to work from an ambush? Or do you still have a head-on battle looming MBT and PT SPG Octopus? It was standing in ambush unnoticed to fire the first shot and tick after that! Hit perfectly! They didn’t make it. Look for the possibility of an ambush again .. And again, the BMD \ BMP in the event of a miss due to the 30mm gun has a chance to survive (read about the tests of shooting the tank with 1,5km in the forehead) the Octopus has no chance at all, tank biathlon as if hints at not 100% shooting ..

Quote: Red_Baron

About OFS already said - how lucky. If you caterpillars, then you can still open fire at you

Well, by God, the modern tank is not iron boxes with slots for observing the battlefield, there are sights with a good bucket, antennas, sensors, thermal imagers and much more fragile equipment, read about the application, abrams, leklerkov at the database, what problems they all caused this machinery even without enemy fire, all alas, it works on landfills and sometimes it’s not always, and that’s why the T-72 and other rarities are valued. Do you seriously think that a 100mm land mine will scratch the paint on the tank and that's it ?.
Regarding the armor penetration of discs

TTX table of the main shots used for firing from 2S25 self-propelled guns [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22]
Shot index Projectile index Charge index Shot mass, kg Projectile mass, kg Charge mass, kg Armor penetration, mm/deg[sn 3]
Armor-piercing ammunition shells
3ВБМ3 3БМ9/3БМ10 4Ж40 19,6 5,67 5,0/5,0+3,4 140/60°
3ВБМ6 3БМ12/3БМ13 4Ж40 19,6 5,67 5,0/5,0+3,4 150/60°
3ВБМ7 3БМ15/3БМ16 4Ж40 20,0 5,9 5,0/5,0+3,4 150/60°
3ВБМ8 3БМ17/3БМ18 4Ж40 20,0 5,9 5,0/5,0+3,4 150/60°
3ВБМ9 3БМ22/3БМ23 4Ж40 20,2 6,55 5,0/5,0+3,4 170/60°
3ВБМ11 3БМ26/3БМ27 4Ж63 20,43 7,05 5,3/5,3+2,9 200/60°
3ВБМ12 3БМ29/3БМ30 210/60°
3ВБМ13 3БМ32/3БМ38 4Ж63 20,55 7,05 5,3/5,3+2,9 250/60°
3ВБМ17 3БМ42/3БМ44 4Ж63 20,4 7,05 5,3/5,3+2,9 230/60
Where is 1000-1200 mm? https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/2С25

[Red_Baron]

Quote: max702

Or do you still have a head-on battle looming MBT and PT SPG Octopus?

Yes, it is possible. From an ambush it’s not necessary to hit it aboard. The technique can be disguised, located in the caponier, not for nothing that the air suspension allows you to change the height.

Quote: max702

It was standing in ambush unnoticed to fire the first shot and tick after that! Hit perfectly! Don't hit Search for an ambush again

Uh, are you serious? So you attacked the enemy and then look for an opportunity to ambush again? Do not expect that there will be and they will not apply all measures so that this does not happen again. Yes, and which hit and tick. Here is holding a certain point, or vice versa, a breakthrough in a certain place - what are there running around and looking for an ambush? He dug in, dug in the cars, disguised what was possible and accepted the battle until the main forces came up or until this territory was to be held. And here the disclosure of the BMD position means her death from the first or subsequent attacks. A Octopus at the expense of the range on an equal footing, and due to the ATGM it may exceed the range of the attackers.

Quote: max702

And again, BMD \ BMP in the event of a miss due to the 30mm gun there is a chance to survive (read about the tests of shooting a tank with 1,5 km in the forehead), Octopus has no chance at all, tank biathlon as if hints at not 100 % shooting ..

Just the opposite, I wrote why above. The tale of shooting at a tank from 1,5 km and then I swam later. This was dealt with a lot, including in another forum, where it was said that it was a fairy tale. That, judging by the accuracy and hits, the autocannon was almost point blank on the machine. Due to the large accuracy and strikes on a small area, the armor was broken, I don’t remember at the seam or something else. On the old tank. Look at least a photo of the IS-3 Arab after firing from 105mm guns of Pattons and Centurions. And you say 30 mm. In modern infantry fighting vehicles, the armor can withstand shelling of 30mm guns. look at the thickness and configuration of the armor of the latest models of the same Bradley, other BMPs and armored personnel carriers initially have armor that protects against 30mm shells, or it is placed if necessary armor type - MEXAS or AMAP.
And you say a tank. In modern tanks, the sides are covered with screens, DZ, ceramic and other types of armor, in addition to the side itself.

What are you going to punch on board with 30 mm?

[Red_Baron]

Quote: max702

Well, by God, the modern tank is not iron boxes with slots for observing the battlefield, there are sights with a good bucket, antennas, sensors, thermal imagers and much more fragile equipment

Yeah, which is designed to resist even fragments.

Quote: max702

antennas, sensors, thermal imagers and much more fragile equipment, read about the application, abrams, leklerk when DB

Even without them, he will be able to shoot and unleash the same dead-ass BMP.

Quote: max702

read about the use of abrams and leklerkers in the database, what problems all of these machinery caused them even without enemy fire, all that alas, works at the training grounds and sometimes not always, and that’s why the T-72 and other rarities are valued.

Don’t repeat these tales once again about a 30mm cannon in the tank’s forehead.
Where did you read about the database with the participation of the Leclerc and about their operation? Given that there is very little information on them and they only have 2 armies in service - France and the Saudis.
And the fact that sophisticated electronics require a lot of trouble is yes, only some defective ones will go into battle without extreme necessity, but quite serviceable. For example, everyone’s beloved Abrams went through the entire Middle East and somehow managed. Yes, there were losses, but in general, they proved to be excellent. Where are the t-72s valued? Could you name the country? T-72s are now being bought for 2 reasons - either as modernized as possible or because the country has been using them for a long time, there is everything - craftsmen, workshops, spare parts, and supply contracts have been established. people have been exploiting them for years and are used to it. And it’s not at all a matter of some super-operational qualities of the T-72. This is said by the cheers-patriots to flatter themselves. T-72 is an excellent tank, but not at all modern.

Quote: max702

Do you seriously think that a 100mm landmine will scratch the paint on the tank and that’s it?

It depends on where and how it gets. I will not definitely say until I see or read it myself. Just for some reason, to destroy the Abrams, they use jihad mobiles or install a mine from several artillery shells.

Quote: max702

Regarding the armor penetration of discs

Quote: max702

TTX table of the main shots used for firing from 2S25 self-propelled guns

No, it's you all in a bunch again for some reason. I spoke and always emphasized that I was talking about BOPS.
And you said that kinetic shells are out of date and do not pierce anything. Why now it turned out that only what is used in the Octopus? Your colleague wrote earlier by the way that he can use all the ammunition that the T-90, I did not find a rebuttal to this.
Your TTX table is outdated a little more than completely. There are completely sites where the data is indicated, at least the approximate modern BOPS. You can also find sample data of import type DM53 if I do not confuse the index.
Your table shows the ZBM-44, but its modification 3BM-44M punches 600-650mm
Similarly, in addition to Lead, there is Lead - 2 with much greater penetration, as well as different cores for it, including those from tungsten or depleted uranium, which have a breakdown of up to 1000 mm.
Moreover, the armor I wrote is already given, with all possible improvements in the thickest places, rounding to the maximum level. Because there is no exact data.
M-829A3 - 930+
DM-53 / L55 - 810
L27CHARM-3-700
All data of terry years and approximate, all data on modern or secret or simply not published. But in any case, everyone will be lured from the benefit in one direction or another.

[bratchanin3]

The design is cool, beautiful car! If she also knows how to shoot ATGM, then she has no price. I think so!

[Ros 56]

Oddly enough, refinement sometimes requires no less time than the creation of the structure itself.

[Red_Baron]

This, I would even say, is no longer strange, but necessary. This is essentially a new type of technology for us. So to say, not very plowed virgin :)

[Red_Baron]

Quote: Observer2014

For example "Reflex"

There is no such rocket.
The Reflex complex uses the Invar rocket. actually the only one for 125mm with us.
The maximum penetration is no longer enough to overcome modern MBT with protection against cumulative ammunition greater than 1000 mm.
I didn’t just ask. Personally, it seems to me that such means are not suitable for a tank duel, and if you do not ensure a guaranteed defeat from 1-2 shots, then the machine can be destroyed by return fire, and from 1 shot. It is more efficient to use external launchers with 152mm ATGMs. the maximum penetration of which is 1100-1300mm. That can guarantee breaking with 1 shot the most modern MBT. Little of. Then it will be possible to launch several ATGMs in the mode of overcoming KAZ. That through the gun is not possible. Naturally, this is unnecessary equipment on the roof, which can be unmasked more and can be extremely uncomfortable during transportation and so on. But I'm talking about efficiency.

[garri-lin]

For installation on equipment, vertical launchers have long been asking for themselves in the stern with a 200 mm caliber. A missile through the barrel is a bygone age.

[Red_Baron]

Yes, I am writing about this. The only thing I would not be so categorical. Not all equipment is convenient or even possible to install separate launchers.
And that rockets through the barrel is the last century. It still depends on the goals. And if a heavy tank withstands getting hit from the ATGM barrel in the forehead, does not mean that it can withstand the side or roof. To do this, the ATGM guidance system and the algorithm for its flight to the target should simply be changed. And in this case, their power and capabilities will be more than enough.

[garri-lin]

Recently, KAZ has become more widespread. ATGM time to equip means of overcoming. TPK with a dimension of 200 mm by 1800 mm can easily be positioned aft of almost any equipment except for obsolete BMP1 / 2.
I can’t believe that with the widespread use of "roof-fighters", the kaz will not work for interception.
Shooting through the barrel limits the ammunition size. Based on them, you can make high-precision ammunition to defeat important targets. Replacing warhead with armor-piercing on the OB or anti-bunker.

[Red_Baron]

Yes, but it is still a matter of the future.

[Red_Baron]

Quote: URAL72

The pontoon crossing still needs to be brought in.

It also needs to be brought. And this is planned in advance. Tanks can be transported not only by pontoon crossing.

Quote: URAL72

What will you hold the other shore with?

The landing party? Artillery? Attack helicopters? Yes, anything, and what better matches this.

Quote: URAL72

anger power will increase due to an increase in the number of trunks.

Oo And so it was possible? Then, of course, it is better to increase the number of MBT trunks.

Quote: URAL72

In battle, tanks operate in conjunction with infantry fighting vehicles, the same armor, but somehow fighting.

So the tasks are different, and the BMP is somehow not with tanks in the forefront. If BMP can be dispensed with, then why a light tank?

Quote: URAL72

If we had such cars when crossing the Dnieper during the Kiev operation, there would be less loss.

What did you decide? Are you a military man? Serve now? You just kill me. Here are such fantastic ideas. Well, probably if we had such cars then, we would use means in defense that would allow us to fight them. Or do you think on that side were completely fools? Is this some kind of new military principle? To expect that the enemy is extremely stupid and does not understand anything?
Well, about what they would be. And instead of what would be engaged in their development? Instead of IP and IS2? Would be engaged in production instead of what? The same IS or T-34? We then had an excess of production capacity and the engineers had nothing to do? At least I have not heard of this. And do not tell me how the roof of the same Octopus is armored? And this is a modern car. Most likely a heavy machine gun is able to overcome? Do not even talk about the distance and other things, but it will be 2 times smaller, only they will not shoot from the moving and swinging unit. And they will shoot in bursts. I'm not talking about small-caliber automatic guns.
How you cunningly took and cited an example that is completely unsuitable, from a completely different opera, and most importantly, that does not show or prove anything. And if .... And if by artillery or a rzso that shore would work out so that there would be no one to resist? What if aviation? And if ... Well, you understand.
Well, to seize the other shore and hold it while others are crossing it is more a matter of landing, which the Octopus is just designed for. And what about tank brigades? You are again mistaken, I'm not saying that Octopus or a similar car is not needed. I say that it is not needed in tank brigades.

Quote: URAL72

A light tank does not have to be thrown into battle along with a heavy one - it is better to use it as a reserve or for a flank attack when the enemy breaks through.

And then what is it better than MBT? That's just what? Yes, even in mobility, modern MBTs are not inferior to him.

Quote: URAL72

No one canceled tank ambushes.

Well, here he is definitely worse than a heavy MBT.

Quote: URAL72

Jews claim that the main merit in forcing the Suez Canal is the captured PT-76.

Well, considering what the PT-76 was, it could be replaced by an IFV in such a case. Not only that. Well, let the airborne units and marines force them, who else can do this? Tank brigades then what?

Quote: URAL72

Today we are fighting in Syria, and tomorrow again we may find ourselves in the swamps of Angola. A light tank is needed, there is work for it, and throwing it through the air is much easier. The octopus can even carry off the Mi-26.

Look! But this is a completely different matter. Although I do not agree that Octopus is a light tank, we still don’t have anything closer to a light tank. But this is really another matter and work will be found. And I never said that such a machine is not needed.
I disagree with only one thing that light tanks or Octopus vehicles should appear in the tank brigade. I do not see a single moment where it was better than MBT. It is in these troops.

[UltraRed]

Division "Octopus" in the brigade of the Marine Corps - would not hurt!