Military Review

We are not ready to fight over the river

45
If we consider the state of our army, weapons and military equipment in the context of a big war, that is, a war with a numerous, well-armed and experienced adversary, then it soon turns out that we are not ready for very many sides of this hypothetical war.


I would not say that this is a favorite topic for readers of military analytics. I judge this from the experience of my previous articles, which touched on a similar issue (for example, will we have enough cartridges for a rifle weapons or what is best to fight in the swamps and impassable mud). Not everyone likes reasoning like that. However, military issues are matters that are far from personal taste. In my opinion, it is better to be unpleasant for readers than to be defeated. In addition, more recently began to write on this topic.

Here is another point in which the Russian army is not ready for a big war - fighting over rivers. This refers not to small rivers, but to large water arteries, such as the Dnieper, Don, Volga, and so on. Of the most likely theaters, of course, the first place is currently occupied by the Dnieper and Don, especially the first. Regarding current events, I want to emphasize that for all possible political twists, we have the right to theoretically examine this theater of operations, study the conditions for conducting hostilities on it, raise questions and look for answers to them.

We are not ready to fight over the river

Dnieper is not a small-caliber river. This is a view of the river near Dnepropetrovsk (now the Dnieper), the width of the river within the city ranges from 700 to 3500 meters

Well, if not useful. But for me personally, a long study of the experience of the Second World War convinced me that it was necessary to consider even the most incredible options so that later I would not be completely unprepared for them. For the mistakes of theorists, then, in the event of war, will be generously paid in blood.

So, large rivers. Here are the most common tasks associated with rivers, judging by the experience of the Second World War and partly the war in Vietnam.

Forcing (in two versions: in offensive and retreating), transport and fire support of the ferried parts, retention and expansion of the bridgehead, transfer of large units across the river with guidance of crossings, fighting on the fairway (mainly a breakthrough along the river with the landing and support of the landing force) , the use of the river to bypass, reach and encircle the enemy (mainly to prohibit him from leaving the river).

Now the Russian army is most prepared only for crossings. Yes, pontoon crossings are conducted. But they are largely conditional and are carried out with little or no consideration for the resistance of the enemy or with imitation of this resistance.


Here is an example of such an imitation in pontoon crossings. Do you really believe that everything will be like that?

A review of the available equipment (floating conveyors PTS-2, PTS-3 and the latest PTS-4, self-propelled ferries PMM-2, PMM-2M and PDP) quite clearly shows that they are all specialized for the transport of heavy equipment: tanks, automobiles, and also specialized in the motorization of ferries and the mechanization of building temporary bridges, as well as for the transport of heavy equipment. For infantry there are floating armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles. Previously, there was also a very good amphibious tank PT-76, which pretty well fought and is now still in service with a number of countries.


Self-propelled ferry PMM-2M - a very good thing. But, firstly, specialized for the transport of equipment, and not cargo (for example, ammunition) or people; secondly, with low seaworthiness

It seems to be quite enough if we keep in mind only the task of forcing the river in conditions of a rather weak resistance of the enemy and possibly the most rapid transfer of troops with heavy equipment across the river.

In the context of a big war with an experienced adversary, who perfectly understands the significance of a large river as an important milestone, such greenhouse conditions are unlikely to be for crossing. If you put yourself in the place of the enemy, then what can be opposed to such a mechanized crossing? Firstly, aviation blows. Just a few F-35Bs with guided bombs and other high-precision weapons are quite able to disrupt such a crossing. Helicopters and attack drones will perform well in this role, especially if the enemy has a high coast with hills. Secondly, it is possible to clarify the point at which self-propelled ferries with tanks approach the shore, wait until they swim 50-100 meters to the shore, and cover this place in one gulp from the MLRS. Thirdly, even partisans, if they have enough mortars and RPGs, will be able to repel an attempt to ferry ferries with tanks. All this applies not only to ferries, but also to floating armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles.


Do not exaggerate the reliability of pontoon bridges. The pontoon bridge and without the help of the enemy is quite able to sink, burst or swim with the flow. The salute of the MLRS on the pontoon bridge will undoubtedly lead to its destruction. The combination of the MLRS and reconnaissance drone makes pontoon crossings extremely vulnerable

That is why, most likely, a crossing that looks great on the exercises in the conditions of a real and big war will simply not work. The situation with the forcing of a large river will return to the typical situation of the times of the Great Patriotic War. It will be necessary first of all to cross, with a relatively small infantry detachment, if possible covertly, to capture a bridgehead of sufficient width and depth to secure the crossing point, and only after that to launch self-propelled ferries and build a pontoon bridge. Before aiming the crossing on the bridgehead, there will be stubborn battles in which it will be necessary to transfer reinforcements, deliver ammunition and food across the river, take out the wounded. Here for this transport work, very complex and dangerous, there is nothing suitable available.

The armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles are not very suitable for the transport role, besides it is not advisable to use armored vehicles as an improvised river vessel. Each unit of armored vehicles, that is, each cannon and machine gun, is very valuable on the bridgehead, and their withdrawal from battle will significantly weaken the forces engaged in holding and expanding the bridgehead.


BMP afloat. Lack of transportation of people, lack of cargo space and rather poor seaworthiness; the wave will be a serious obstacle for the BMP

Even when self-propelled ferries operate and a pontoon bridge is put in, there is still a great need for auxiliary vehicles, since the capacity of any temporary ferry is very limited and the whole traffic cannot accommodate. But the more power and technology is concentrated on the bridgehead, the greater the volume of cargo they need to deliver and as soon as possible. Finally, the battle is also being fought, the enemy will undoubtedly try to destroy the pontoon bridge with artillery fire or air raids. If he succeeded, then here without auxiliary vehicles, troops on the bridgehead can be defeated.

We need a full-fledged riverboat, rather fast, fairly seaworthy (able to swim at high waves and go to the mouths of rivers, estuaries and act along the sea coast), well-armed enough and at the same time suitable for transport operations.

Among the prototypes of a possible solution, I would put in the first place one very ingenious fascist German idea - a Siebelfähre barge. It was designed by the aviation engineer Fritz Siebel for a landing campaign in Britain. This vessel was built of two bridge pontoons connected by steel beams to a catamaran. On top of the beams was built platform for placing tools or cargo, as well as a superstructure for the bridge. The barge was equipped with four engines. Despite its simplicity, the barge had good characteristics: displacement up to 170 tons, carrying capacity up to 100 tons, speed of 11 knots (20 km / h) and cruising range up to 300 nautical miles. Four Flak 8.8 cm could be installed on it, which turned it into a powerful floating battery, comparable in power to a destroyer. Zibel-type barge was disassembled and could be transported by truck or rail, and then assembled and lowered into the water.


Siebel-type barge with two 88-mm anti-aircraft guns - general view


Zibel-type barges on Lake Ladoga

The second very good idea is already domestic: Ladoga tender. Such tenders were built for shipping on Ladoga during the Siege of Leningrad. It was the simplest self-propelled barge 10,5 meter long, 3,6 meter wide, equipped with an engine from ZIS-5. Its speed was 5 nodes (9 km / h), but after a small upgrade the speed increased to 12 nodes (22,2 km / h). Management was tiller, sometimes set the steering wheel. Navigation equipment was limited to boat compass. Tenders were sometimes armed with a light or heavy machine gun, but its main advantage was a roomy hold around the cube 30. meters, containing 12-15 tons of cargo and up to 75 people. It was very simple in design, it was assembled from sections, and there was a case when such a tender was built in just three days. It was something like an iron boat, which nevertheless had phenomenal seaworthiness and successfully sailed in the most stormy and dangerous part of Ladoga, including in difficult ice conditions. Such ships participated in the Battle of Stalingrad and in the attack on the Crimea.


This is how the tender looked like - the iron boat of the Second World War. Such inconspicuous ships took 250 from Leningrad thousands of people and brought thousands of tons of food and ammunition to the city of 100.

In a country that has a huge number of rivers, the weakness of river forces and the almost complete absence of river warships are amazingly surprising. But with this we need to do something. In view of our weakness in general, in order to produce something, I would suggest starting with the simplest and most useful - with a tender.

First, the construction of such an iron boat will cope not only with any shipbuilding or ship repair plant, but generally with any workshop in which you can cut the metal and weld the hull of this self-propelled barge. Including improvised workshop. 118 Ladoga tenders were built in this way, in a hastily created workshop on the unequipped shore of Lake Ladoga.

Secondly, to equip the tender, you can take the engine more powerful. If the original model had an 73 horsepower engine, then the now widely used KAMAZ-740.63-400 diesel engine has an 400 horsepower.

Thirdly, for loading and unloading goods, it is advisable to install a hydraulic manipulator of the same types that are now widely used to equip trucks.

Fourth, the armament of the tender. It is best to take large-caliber machine guns "cliff" or "cord". Although the tender is generally intended for the carriage of goods, it can be used for amphibious operations in which you may need to fire at targets ashore.

In general, a relatively small river ship is produced that can be used on almost any river and on almost any lake (except for the smallest and with marshy shores), where there is enough depth for it and there is a place for a truck to transport an iron boat overland. The sides of the tender are quite high, which provides it with good seaworthiness and allows its use in the coastal waters of the Azov, Black and Baltic Seas. In general, the Black and Baltic Seas are the most optimal sea area for ships of this type. An important advantage of the tender over special river ships of greater displacement is that the tender does not need bases and backwaters equipped for wintering. It is enough to pull the winch ashore and cover in a hangar or just under a canvas canopy.

Finally, a tender can (and in my opinion) should also have civilian use - as a small but omnipresent vessel, suitable for cargo transportation on rivers, lakes, for road operations. Tenders can be produced in large series (immediately with a turret for a machine gun) and have on all the rivers so that in the event of war they can be mobilized into the army.
Author:
45 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Free wind
    Free wind 18 December 2018 06: 04
    0
    Chulym? In Achinsk
    1. wehr
      18 December 2018 18: 59
      +1
      What Chulym in Achinsk? wink
  2. Same lech
    Same lech 18 December 2018 06: 41
    0
    Dmitry raised an important topic ... of course, in a full-scale war, the movement of large masses of troops without normal crossings is impossible ... I hope our General Staff calculated all the risks associated with this issue.
  3. alstr
    alstr 18 December 2018 07: 32
    +14
    From my amateur point of view, it is necessary to take into account several facts.
    1. Successful use of pantone parks in Syria in the context of hostilities (though without counteraction from aviation)
    2. The range of hand-held anti-tank weapons is several kilometers.
    3. Crossing sites are actually a limited number.
    4. A significant part of the armored vehicles is floating (unlike the Second World War).

    From this all the following conclusions follow.
    1. Our military all the same take into account opposition to crossing.
    2. Conducting ANY crossing requires the suppression of the enemy on the other side. And serious cover in principle.
    3. Booking a ferry is too much useless.
    1. antivirus
      antivirus 18 December 2018 10: 42
      +11
      Firstly, air strikes. Only a few F-35Bs with guided bombs and other high-precision weapons are quite able to disrupt
      -------------- without dominance in the air --- where to climb forward? first VKS - then artillery, and in last place - pl wed
      1. alstr
        alstr 18 December 2018 17: 54
        +3
        Do not forget that air defense and aviation will be allocated to protect the crossing. Accordingly, the F35, too, will still have to fly to the reset point.
    2. svp67
      svp67 18 December 2018 10: 54
      +3
      Quote: alstr
      A significant part of the armored vehicles is floating (unlike the Second World War).

      And tanks have the ability to overcome water barriers with a depth of 5..7 m, depending on the modification, along the bottom, after not long preparation
      1. Ross xnumx
        Ross xnumx 19 December 2018 13: 40
        +2
        And with the help of missile and artillery weapons, you can clear out the bridgehead on the opposite bank for several tens of kilometers. Although, crossing troops through water barriers involves holding (capturing) territory for some reason. Question: it is necessary to us?
        After all, you can wait until they "die of hunger ... or weaken" there. The Russian army knows how to establish crossings in a peaceful environment:
        1. svp67
          svp67 19 December 2018 20: 32
          +1
          Quote: ROSS 42
          And with the help of missile and artillery weapons, you can clear out the bridgehead on the opposite bank for several tens of kilometers.

          Not to clean, but only to suppress for a while, since 100% to clean / even a nuclear explosion is not within the force, they learned to resist him
          Quote: ROSS 42
          Although, crossing troops through water barriers involves holding (capturing) territory for some reason.

          The ability to quickly overcome water obstacles can be useful to us on our territory, when repelling an attack by "probable partners", since any major bridge or dam is a target in the list for destruction number 1 and we must be able to do without them
          1. ty60
            ty60 20 December 2018 20: 19
            +1
            I agree. Even the infantry will not always provide 100% mopping-residual small groups are always present and, depending on training and weapons, are capable of creating problems
  4. Alex_59
    Alex_59 18 December 2018 07: 49
    +21
    The situation with the forcing of a large river will return to the typical situation of the Great Patriotic War. First, with relatively small infantry units, it will be necessary to cross, if possible secretly, to seize a bridgehead of sufficient width and depth to secure the crossing, and only after that launch self-propelled ferries and build a pontoon bridge.
    This phrase of the author looks very strange against the background of a proposal to return to the production of "Siebel" and "Tenders" during the same war, the return of which, it seems, scares the author. By the way, since the Second World War, the laws of physics have really not changed, as have the conditions for successful landings. In all cases, the success of the landing depends on the ability of the landing party to protect the landing zone from direct enemy fire. So either the pontoon bridge is built where there is no enemy defense, or before that this defense is destroyed and the enemy is squeezed out of the water to such a distance that he cannot fire at the crossing.
    But there are also pleasant changes since the Second World War. Such a useful thing as a "tender" has long been replaced by more useful things like a landing craft. What the author apparently does not know about, but we have such boats, thank God, still in abundance. These are boats of projects 306, 1176, type T-4, 1785. The "Siebel" itself has long been realized in the form of a more mobile machine - a self-propelled ferry GSP consisting of two semi-ferries. And if we remember the Second World War, then the German amphibious assault ships of the MFP type were much more dangerous and effective, which we built after the war according to the project 106 and 106K - some of them are still in service. And it’s absolutely impossible to say that we do not pay attention to this topic - only in recent years we have established the production of two types of assault boats, pr. 02510 and pr. 02800, boats BK-10 and something else on the little things. A new RPS ferry was created. If we compare this entire economy with the equipment that NATO armies have, it becomes clear that in this matter they are up to us as to the moon. At least in some ways we are doing them in full.
    1. svp67
      svp67 18 December 2018 10: 56
      +9
      Quote: Alex_59
      This phrase of the author looks very strange against the background of a proposal to return to the production of "Siebel" and "Tenders" during the same war, the return of which, it seems, scares the author.

      And the author specified HOW to transfer them to the desired site, using magic? And are they not very good goals, and priority ones, for the same F-35s
  5. Moore
    Moore 18 December 2018 08: 04
    +12
    Firstly, air strikes. Only a few F-35Bs with guided bombs and other high-precision weapons are quite able to disrupt such a crossing.

    Whether the proposed galoshes are the case - no one will get into them ...
    Volley MLRS on the pontoon bridge, no doubt, will lead to its destruction.

    I dare to assume that a volley of MLRS will lead to the destruction of anything (if it hits, of course).
    Need a full river ship,

    Dear author, why do not you like self-propelled barges?
    1. Vladimirets
      Vladimirets 18 December 2018 08: 47
      +5
      Quote: Moore
      Whether the proposed galoshes are the case - no one will get into them ...

      The author generally begins to confuse warm with soft. request
      "The self-propelled ferry PMM-2M is a very good thing. But, firstly, specialized for the transportation of equipment, and not cargo (for example, ammunition) or people; secondly, with low seaworthiness"
      For high "seaworthiness" there are landing craft, which, in principle, the author talks about below. Only the comparison of the ferry with landing barges and ships looks somehow strange. And another question, what, in essence, is the difference between a ferry equipped for the carriage of goods and a ferry for equipment? what Well, except for the manipulator, which, in principle, is installed quickly and without problems on any pelvis?
      "In a country with a huge number of rivers, the weakness of the river forces and the almost complete absence of river warships are amazingly amazing."

      You are sorry, but at the present time any river ship is an excellent target for the ground forces, which can be struck by a wide range of weapons. And for large water arteries, a whole series of ships of the Baltic Fleet and the Caspian Flotilla are suitable, which are easily transported along inland waterways.
    2. LeonidL
      LeonidL 19 December 2018 05: 02
      +1
      The author believes that a guided (?) Bomb simply will not notice a rusty self-propelled pontoon and fly by! Such a good article, laughed a lot!
  6. lopuhan2006
    lopuhan2006 18 December 2018 08: 16
    +6
    Well here, uh, as it were, an important article and nothing! What does the PT-76 have to do with it, if any BMP-2 exceeds it in terms of firepower (and also BMP-3, SPRUT), of course there will be no crossings with greenhouse conditions, where will you hold these tenders? (they will rust in the crap), but you can weld them in any bus station, there would be welding, but after capturing the bridgehead (this is what the Airborne Forces need to be developed for!) and such complex equipment as bridges will be needed. Here are the bridges and we need more, here they must be stored in reserve.
  7. EvilLion
    EvilLion 18 December 2018 09: 20
    +5
    The question is, what is more important, to build a modern fighter, which, when it’s ready, it will be too late to develop and produce, or additional boats and sets of bridges, which if necessary can be built in large quantities in months?

    Again, the discussion about the weakness of the crossing facilities is meaningless without taking into account their real consumption if you force the Dnieper, as in the 1943, so that the crossings are destroyed immediately after construction, because the enemy is strong, or when you go deep beyond 100 everything is suppressed by aviation and crossings work in relative safety, these are slightly different things.
  8. BAI
    BAI 18 December 2018 09: 47
    +1
    The situation with the forcing of a large river will return to the typical situation of the Great Patriotic War. First, with relatively small infantry units, it will be necessary to cross, if possible secretly, to seize a bridgehead of sufficient width and depth to secure the crossing, and only after that launch self-propelled ferries and build a pontoon bridge.

    In my opinion, this is obvious. No one will sit back and watch how the enemy directs a crossing before his eyes. However, the author does not consider the actions of the landing force to capture bridges and bridgeheads.
    And so - of course we are not ready for war. Because she needs 3 things: money, money, and again money.
    1. antivirus
      antivirus 18 December 2018 10: 46
      +1
      ... and there are no field toilets yet.
      Putin is to blame
    2. LeonidL
      LeonidL 19 December 2018 05: 01
      0
      Are you not ready for war? You may, but the wisdom of the country's leadership is precisely that, in order to prevent the war, to prevent it, to ward off all potential aggressors the desire to attack. Listen to Lusha Putin why the latest weapons are being created, and not the ravings of couch strategists about thousands of rusty pontoons with compasses from boats and turrets for Maxim!
  9. slavaseven
    slavaseven 18 December 2018 09: 48
    +2
    You still have to capture the bridgehead, without this, setting up the crossing is unthinkable.
    The tender, of course, is good .. was .. 70 years ago. He is replaced by landing hovercraft
    http://новости-россии.ru-an.info/новости/россия-возобновляет-производство-гигантов-на-воздушной-подушке-зубров-и-мурен/
    1. LeonidL
      LeonidL 19 December 2018 04: 58
      0
      Thank you for reminding me - the author apparently does not know about them.
  10. Andrey VOV
    Andrey VOV 18 December 2018 09: 50
    +9
    omnidirectional ..... every year they cross the Oka river and equipment goes along them and the river crosses elegantly and coolly .... in Lebanon our bridge was completely restored in a matter of weeks, in other places .... stop snot and drool smear
    1. thinker
      thinker 18 December 2018 10: 43
      +6
      This is such a device of the brain, the whole article in one phrase negative
      In view of our general weakness in producing something ...
  11. spektr9
    spektr9 18 December 2018 11: 24
    +3
    That's what the latter will be necessary in the context of the great war, this is a means of overcoming water barriers ....
    What the Russian Federation really needs as air is the fleet, aviation and strategic weapons ... Given all these comparisons, no one in their right mind will unleash a big war with Russia. And for local conflicts, those floats will be enough. funds that are available
  12. Blue fox
    Blue fox 18 December 2018 11: 57
    +4
    Thanks to the author for his views on the situation with overcoming water obstacles with examples. However, the devil is in the details. Let's start with the fact that the organization of crossing a water barrier during the Second World War and in modern warfare has huge differences, as colleagues have rightly noted. Without going into details, the first wave will include amphibious equipment and equipment capable of overcoming water obstacles along the bottom to seize a bridgehead, not to mention tactical helicopter assault forces, etc. Those. By the time the time comes for the construction of a pontoon crossing or ferries in the second wave, the enemy will lose the ability to conduct direct fire at the crossing, aviation will cover it from the air and air defense systems from the ground. Therefore, the armament of the ferries (by the way, the Zibels, which were built for the landing in England, initially for the most part carried only light anti-aircraft weapons and only some of them had artillery weapons to the detriment of the capacity for the landing force and cargo, this later, after the plans to land in England they began to be armed and re-equipped with more and more effective artillery installations and anti-aircraft weapons) in itself is not a panacea in modern warfare, or the possibility of firing or the possibility of transporting troops and cargo. Pontoners will have enough of their direct responsibilities, and they simply will not have time to fire from MANPADS or small-caliber gun mounts. But does it make sense if modern bombers and attack aircraft in their mass will strike at the crossing without entering the effective fire zone of these means, and the installation of something more on ferries gives rise to some kind of "wunderwaffe"?
    As for the Ladoga tenders, the author gave an interesting example, but he himself answered the need for such funds in the army. Since such a tender can be built in 3 days, I do not think that there will be a problem with their construction if necessary, but for now there are enough regular funds, not to mention warehouse arsenals in the open air, where the once rich pontoon-bridge "property" is stored at one time from the GSVG. It is on him, his revision and repair, that should be paid attention first of all.
    1. wehr
      18 December 2018 19: 18
      -3
      Yes, the devil is in the details.
      Here is the story of the Ladoga tender shows what problems arise if necessary. The project of such a tender appeared even before the war, in 1940, even a couple were built. But when the need arose, they could not find either prototypes or their drawings. The ships were sent only ... a photograph of the tender, according to which they made their project and a set of drawings.
      They did it. But you will not argue with the fact that this is a stupid approach? You are now proposing the same thing: let's say, we put the idea under the cloth, so that later we simply cannot find it at the right moment.
      1. LeonidL
        LeonidL 19 December 2018 04: 57
        +1
        You are confusing times and countries - 41 and 2018 in the yard, the USSR and the Russian Federation, socialism and capitalism .... Manilovism! Do what you know.
  13. Tektor
    Tektor 18 December 2018 14: 22
    +1
    I don’t even know how to comment ... PTS-4M
    1. Tektor
      Tektor 18 December 2018 14: 41
      +3
      Payload 18 t. Enough for infantry with ammunition.
  14. Decimam
    Decimam 18 December 2018 14: 46
    +7
    I strongly recommend to the author - before taking on the coverage of some issue, big or small - it doesn't matter, you should familiarize yourself with this very issue. In this case, at least in the scope of the course for "jackets" - "Special purpose vehicles". This will allow, firstly, to significantly reduce the author's pessimism and the volume of tears emitted, and secondly, to understand that in understanding the issue, it is very far from the level that allows you to write articles of the "global level" in this matter.

    To understand the level of publication, just look at the photo. Above in the photo is the tender-die proposed by the author for reincarnation, who worked under the blockade on Lake Ladoga. Below - PTS-2 - a medium-sized floating conveyor, which has been in service with the Soviet army since 1973 and the existence of which the author does not seem to suspect. Maybe the author will also propose reincarnating the H2P pontoon park?
    1. Decimam
      Decimam 18 December 2018 14: 54
      +1
      As for the maxim "We need a full-fledged river ship, fast enough, seaworthy enough (capable of sailing in high waves and going out to river estuaries, estuaries and operating along the sea coast), well armed and at the same time suitable for transport operations," then I suggest right away turn to the country of wild monkeys - Brazil. There is complete order with this.

      River Patrol Ships Type Pedro Teixeira
      WATER DISPLACEMENT: 600
      DIMENSIONS (METERS): 63,3 X 9,7 X 1,7
      SPEED (KNOTS): 16
      STOCK (MILES): 6.800 AT 13 NODES
      CREW: 60 PEOPLE
      WEAPONS: 1 ART. BOFORS 40 MM .; 6 machine guns 12,7 MM .; 2 BOMBOTS 81 MM .; 1 HELICOPTER UH-12 ESQUILO
      1. Katanikotael
        Katanikotael 18 December 2018 18: 58
        +1
        We have almost all new river-sea class ships.
        Multipurpose prodigies ala gantraq are good only in guerrilla warfare. A pair of KVPs such as the Bison or Muren will do more than a fleet of antediluvian barges with a bunch of mounted weapons.
    2. wehr
      18 December 2018 19: 11
      -1
      I will offer. And for what reason.
      You argue as a consumer: this is better for me, and not this. You PTS-2 seems better. He really is better.
      But!!! From the point of view of production, for PTS-2, a machine-building plant is needed, whereas the Ladoga tender can be made virtually of scrap metal, manually and on a completely unequipped site. Actually, they were built in such a way, and for such a style, the buildings were designed.
      Hence, the most important consequence is that any army, not to mention the front, is able to build as many tenders as they need for crossings and according to the conditions of the theater, using their own transportation means, which are very convenient, lifting and maneuverable.
      The tender is much better than a hastily raft, log or assorted boats. Transporting fighters at the tender is better than on the same raft, not to mention sailing by swimming.

      PTS-2 may not be given to your connection. But the tender is such a thing that can be given down to the battalion or even the company.
      You may not understand this. It's okay - pohlebaete some water at the crossing, then you will understand everything. :))))
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. alstr
        alstr 19 December 2018 00: 08
        +2
        Rafts have long been no longer needed. This time has passed and all armored vehicles in one form or another can independently cross the water obstacles.
        There is an armored personnel carrier, there is a BMP. They have seaworthiness - 3 points. Violators and 5 went. Enough (even wide) for crossing rivers.
        And tanks can overcome the bottom up to 1 km at a depth of 5-6 meters.
        This is enough for rivers. Moreover, all rivers are already drained by tanks along the bottom. (the same was about it).

        And in this sense, it is not necessary to invent something new (although this will not always hurt), but how much it is simple to train this type of combat work because it requires serious training of the crews.
      3. LeonidL
        LeonidL 19 December 2018 04: 52
        +1
        Give each company a tender riveted from waste, but with an engine from ... Zaporozhets? And, most importantly, with a turret for the PKK and a boat compass !!!! ... My dear, and who will pay for this recyclable army? In the courtyard, look out of the window, capitalism, after all ... loots can be sprayed unduly, of course, to no avail, only who will give it to you? Shoigu doesn't look like a complete eccentric.
  15. Operator
    Operator 18 December 2018 16: 42
    0
    The pontoon crossing is induced after thermonuclear burning of the enemy on the other side (suddenly).

    Therefore, the technology of pontoon ferry guidance being practiced during the exercises is 100% realistic - the Zippel ferries are resting.
  16. LeonidL
    LeonidL 19 December 2018 04: 49
    0
    1. The author seems to have forgotten about the existence of air defense of the ground forces, which is obliged to cover the crossings. 2. Well, the Dnieper, although very unlikely, is understandable. But then where and why? During WWII, the Red Army marched across Europe and crossed rivers along the offensive with the noble purpose of liberation from Nazism, therefore, in most cases the population was at least neutral and there were practically no cases of sabotage, large-scale guerrilla war, etc. Where and why will the Russian Army go and what rivers is going to force, freeing Europe from the EU? What kind of manilovsch urgently rivet self-propelled pantons and store them on the rivers - on the Yenisei, Ob, maybe the Moscow River? Yes shche with turrets for manual !!!!! machine guns !!! Against which such hordes? No, it’s interesting to read science fiction, but within reasonable limits.
  17. AllXVahhaB
    AllXVahhaB 19 December 2018 08: 01
    0
    In the context of a big war with an experienced adversary, who perfectly understands the significance of a large river as an important milestone, such greenhouse conditions are unlikely to be for crossing.
    Then I would like, for a comparative analysis, how things are going with this in the armies of a potential enemy ...
  18. Е2 - Е4
    Е2 - Е4 19 December 2018 13: 40
    0
    The article is written by an amateur. BMP, BMD and armored personnel carriers immediately force these rivers. I note in the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation it’s not amateurs who sit, they all calculate many moves ahead. There are also such parts as the Airborne Forces, Sea Pass, Special Forces of the GRU, including the capture and retention of bridges. The English Channel tanks force the T80 at tremendous speed on captured bridges and hold it.
  19. Jurgens
    Jurgens 19 December 2018 17: 21
    0
    "It is better to be an unpleasant author for the readers than to be defeated later" - oh, how! Military genius! Everyone is afraid and envious! A cleverness, a cleverness! Reincarnation of Gergiy-Konstantinich, no less! From the Ministry of Defense, how? write? ask for advice, go, worthless ?? And, alas, there is still no medicine ...
  20. combat192
    combat192 20 December 2018 02: 48
    +1
    Something tells me that the author is confusing forcing and forwarding.
  21. AK1972
    AK1972 20 December 2018 15: 59
    0
    Before stating that the army was not ready to force water barriers, it would not hurt the author to familiarize himself with the weapons and tactics of the engineering forces, in particular, the airborne assault companies and battalions. These units are equipped with the necessary weapons and equipment to capture and hold bridgeheads, transport l / s and cargo.
    1. wehr
      20 December 2018 18: 47
      0
      I believe that both are more suitable for teaching, for "ballet", and not for real war.
      If you do not understand this - do not worry: you drink water at the crossing - you will immediately understand everything. laughing
    2. north west
      north west 15 May 2022 15: 19
      0
      They are equipped with equipment, although not very well, but there are NO headquarters brains!