XM104 Self-Propelled Artillery (USA)

The combat effectiveness and survivability of a self-propelled artillery installation directly depends on its mobility and mobility. A noticeable increase in efficiency can be obtained by ensuring the transfer of equipment through the air with landing or parachute landing. Similar issues were actively studied in the past, but the absence of high-capacity aircraft and helicopters imposed certain limitations. Given the needs of the army and the limitations of the military transport aviation In the USA, a light self-propelled gun project called XM104 was developed.

By the mid-fifties, the US armed forces managed to master the helicopters and understand their high potential. Helicopter landings showed their best side, however, the existing aircraft technology allowed to transfer only personnel and light weapons. Tanks and self-propelled guns needed by the landing, did not fit into the limitations of military transport aircraft. In this regard, a program was launched to create promising aircraft transportable artillery installations.

One of the mockup XM104. Photo Ftr.wot-news.com

The study of the new issue was launched in 1955 year and was carried out by specialists of the US Army Ordnance Tank Automotive Command (OTAC). They had to determine the optimal technical appearance of the self-propelled artillery installation with minimal dimensions and weight, corresponding to the limitations of aviation, but capable of carrying an 105 caliber mm. It was planned to create a self-propelled howitzer self-propelled, capable of firing from closed positions, and this had a serious impact on the outcome of the program.

A promising project of air transportable and landed ACS received the working designation XM104. The number for the project was chosen "in order." The fact is that on this self-propelled one it was planned to use the XM103 gun - a modified version of the existing experienced towed XM102. Thus, the names of various modifications of the howitzer and self-propelled gun under it indicated a definite connection between several projects in the field of artillery.

The first theoretical and practical work on the XM104 project took several years. By the beginning of the sixties began technical design. In this case, the project was implemented in two stages. As part of the first plan to develop, build and test a simplified prototype model self-propelled guns. According to the results of his checks, it was necessary to modify the initial project and build improved machines. After the second stage, the XM104 had every chance to go into service.

One of the prototypes in full configuration. Photo "Sheridan. A history of the American Light Tank Volume 2"

In 1960-61, Ordnance Tank Automotive Command and the Detroit Arsenal built two prototypes with the common name Test Rig and different numbers. They were lightweight tracked chassis with a complete set of units of the power plant and chassis. Shells are simplified and built from structural steel. Instead of a full-fledged gun mount, a mass-dimensional mock-up was used imitating the XM103 product. In addition, some other aggregates were missing on the mockup samples. For example, they did not receive a full set of crew seats, a full-fledged ammunition, etc.

By the time the prototypes were built, OTAC decided on the main features of the future ACS. The XM104 machine was supposed to have a length of no more than 4-4,5 m and a combat weight of the order of 6400 pounds (2900 kg). She was supposed to reach speeds of about 35 miles per hour (about 56 km / h) and overcome various obstacles; water barriers should cross the water. Due to its small size and weight, the XM104 could be transported on modern and advanced military transport aircraft and helicopters of various types. Provided landing and parachute landing.

He's a top view. Photo "Sheridan. A history of the American Light Tank Volume 2"

Model samples No.1 and No.2 passed the tests and showed the real possibilities of the new chassis. Taking into account the experience of their tests, OTAC engineers finalized the initial project, and soon a full-fledged prototype with the required configuration was built on it. This machine is very seriously different from the model products, both in terms of appearance, and its equipment.

In the project XM104, the reduction of mass and dimensions was put in the forefront. To achieve the desired weight reduction, the structure had to abandon any protection. The crew was asked to be in the open area of ​​the hull, without any protection. However, the lack of booking was not considered a critical shortcoming. The self-propelled gun had to work in closed positions at a safe distance from the front edge, which reduced the risks of shelling and reduced the need for armor.

For SAU developed the original body of structural steel, characterized by a dense layout. The case was structurally divided into two volumes. The lower "bath" was intended for the installation of the power unit. She had a curved frontal sheet and vertical sides. In the center of this part of the body was the engine, in the front part - the transmission. On top of the bath was a box that formed a kind of habitable compartment. It differed a little more length and increased width. At the expense of the latter, fenders were formed, which provided additional volume for mounting various devices.

Experienced self-propelled gun in motion. Photo US Army

The basis of the power plant was the petrol engine Ford M151, borrowed from the car MUTT. Engine power 66 HP through a dry clutch, connected to a Model 540 gearbox, providing four forward speeds and one reverse. The front drive wheels received torque from the transmission type Model GS-100-3.

On each side of the hull on the torsion bar was installed on four track rollers. The rear pair of rollers served as guide wheels lying on the ground. The drive wheel of small diameter was located in the nose of the side and was raised above the ground. The entire upper part of the undercarriage and the caterpillar was covered with small metal shields and continuous long rubber screens. Each caterpillar included an 72 track 14 inch wide (355 mm).

According to calculations, the SAU suspension could not withstand the return of the 105-mm howitzer. In this regard, the machine is equipped with a lowered opener. Actually, the coulter was mounted on swinging longitudinal beams. Above on the beams and the opener, a site was provided that simplified access to the howitzer breech.

The machine is in a combat position. Photo Ftr.wot-news.com

For the XM104 ACS, an XM105 103-mm howitzer was offered. In the aft chassis there was a reinforced section with a seat for the upper machine tool. The gun mount was designed using existing ideas and solutions. Directly on the body there was a rotating device, on which was placed the swinging part with the barrel. The installation design provided horizontal guidance in a sector of width 45 °. Vertical guidance is from -5 ° to + 75 °.

The XM103 howitzer was created by the Rock Island arsenal based on the existing XM102 towed gun. A rifled 105-mm gun with a vertical wedge gate was offered. Different howitzer prototypes were tested with and without a muzzle brake. In the design of hydropneumatic recoil devices, some new solutions and components were used, which later became widespread. XM103 could use all standard 105 caliber mm projectiles and showed firing characteristics at the level of other weapons of its class. At the same time, it was noticeably lighter than its counterparts.

XM104 is ready for firing. Photo "Sheridan. A history of the American Light Tank Volume 2"

In the stern of the ACS XM104 managed to place a compact packing on 10 unitary shots. It is curious that the maximum rate of fire of the gun during the work of a trained calculation should have reached 10 rounds per minute. Thus, the entire portable ammunition could be spent in a minimum time, after which the self-propelled gun needed the help of the carrier carrier.

Any additional weapons were not provided. One of the reasons for this was the lack of a closed body suitable for mounting a machine-gun installation. The place to install the open turret also could not be found. As a result, the crew had to use personal weapon.

The crew of the self-propelled gun consisted of four people. When moving, they should have been located on their own seats at the sides of the hull. In front of the left was the driver; in front of his place were the instrument panel, the steering wheel, and the control levers. To the right of the gun was the second seat. Two more places for the crew were located directly behind the front; they were offered to ride backwards. On the sides of the seats were provided low shields, preventing falling overboard.

Experienced SAU XM104 in the museum. Photo of US Army / army.mil

Side panels and four seats in pairs (two on each side) were mounted on folding panels. In the stowed position, these panels lay on the roof of the hull and allowed the crew to take their seats. When translating the self-propelled guns into the combat position, the panels folded back to the 180 °. Due to this, the seats were removed outside the sector of the gun guidance, and additional platforms were formed on the sides of the hull.

SAU XM104 turned out to be very compact and easy. The length of the machine, taking into account the implement and the opener, did not exceed 4,1 m. The width was 1,75 m, the height in the stowed position was 1,75 m. The combat weight was determined at the level of 8600 pounds (3,9 t). In the configuration for transportation by air - without fuel, ammunition and crew, but with some other devices - the weight was reduced to 7200 pounds (3270 kg). Driving characteristics consistent with the calculated. The car could move overland at speeds up to 35 miles per hour and swim water obstacles.

According to known data, the first full-scale prototype of the XM104 self-propelled gun with a full set of units was built and was put to the test in the 1962 year. Then five more cars were built with some differences. Due to this, from the beginning of 1963, six experimental machines were simultaneously tested at the Aberdeen Proving Ground. Thus, OTAC had the opportunity to evaluate different variants of equipment and choose the most successful one. First of all, the differences affected the gun installation and howitzer design.

Museum sample, front view. Photo The Carouselambra Kid / flickr.com

The trials of the six experienced XM104 continued until the 1965 year and ended with mixed results. First of all, the desired opportunities were obtained in the context of strategic mobility. The presented vehicles met the limitations of military transport aviation; they could be transported without difficulty by existing and prospective aircraft and helicopters. In the future, it was necessary to develop a parachute system for landing such a technique. Thus, the main task of the project was successfully solved.

However, the possibility of transportation by air and landing had an unacceptably high price. The car had a number of drawbacks directly related to the reduction of its dimensions and mass. It was impossible to put up with some problems, since they directly influenced the fighting qualities and vitality on the battlefield. As a result, they did not allow the effective use of the proposed equipment in a real conflict.

View from a different angle. Photo The Carouselambra Kid / flickr.com

First of all, the reason for criticism was the absence of any protection of the crew and its own machine units. Lightweight housing had to be built from relatively thin structural steel, which is why he could not withstand the shelling. The crew was located on the open top platform and was actually covered only with side flaps of a limited area. Moreover, their replacement by armor parts would hardly have significantly increased the level of protection. The open installation of the gun without shield cover also did not increase the survivability of the ACS. To all this, the car in the proposed configuration could not be equipped with even an awning covering people from the sun and rain. The cover was relied only on a howitzer.

A compact chassis with a relatively heavy 105-mm howitzer had an unsuccessful balance. The machine had a high center of gravity, due to the gun installation. This could hardly worsen the longitudinal stability, but worsened the transverse. A roll of more than 20-25 ° could result in the vehicle tipping over. The absence of a closed cabin at the same time could lead, at a minimum, to injuries among the crew.

Left side. Photo The Carouselambra Kid / flickr.com

Thus, the promising self-propelled artillery XM104 conformed to a number of requirements and could show the required fighting qualities. However, a number of characteristic features of this machine led to unjustified risks for the crew. In the proposed form self-propelled gun was not of interest to the army. The Army Command did not wish to continue the work, and the US Army Ordnance Tank Automotive Command closed the project due to lack of prospects.

Almost all of the prototype ACS built, including a couple of the first Test Rig machines, were disassembled as superfluous. Only one vehicle with the tail number 12T431 was saved. Now it is in the Fort Sill Armored Museum (Oklahoma) and is shown alongside other unique samples of its era.

The XM104 SAU project was based on the requirement to reduce the weight and size of the combat vehicle in accordance with the limitations of military transport aviation. This task was successfully solved, but the finished sample was not entirely successful. For some opportunities and qualities had to sacrifice others. The resulting sample had an unfavorable ratio of positive and negative qualities, which is why it did not leave the test stage.

Based on:
http://ftr.wot-news.com/
https://army.mil/
http://dtic.mil/
http://sill-www.army.mil/
Hunnicutt, RP Sheridan. A history of the American Light Tank Volume 2. Navato, CA: Presidio Press, 1995.
Chateau LA Lightweight 105-mm Howitzer // Artillery Trends, August 1961.
Howitzer, light, self-propelled, 105-mm, XM104. Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland. May 1963.

Comments

[Viknt]

Ha ha ha Gee-gee-gee. What teaches us, so to speak, if not family and school, then at least examples of military equipment. To begin with, they are determined with TTT. TTTs are not taken from the ceiling, are usually repelled, proceed from the achieved level, adding to it a dozen, one and a half percent of efficiency. Without pretending to be the ultimate truth, and solely from my own idea of ​​what and how should, without any justification. Plus the American model of the distant past, compactness and low weight. Cons outlined, you can add low speed. In my opinion, the platform should be wheeled. The platform should be based on the armed with the landing tracked / wheeled vehicles. For example, a BMD shortened by a couple of rollers. The system should be as automated as possible, with the landing, every person counts. No need to try to shove the unwelcome. In service a long time and again recently adopted two-link. You can easily build a double link for the airborne. On one platform, a gun, on another calculation. Let it be not three tons, but six. Separate conversation is automation, say breech-loading mortars. In my opinion, the problem is not worth a damn, but there is no interest in communicating with the Moscow Region.

[Yarhann]

so there is such Nona 8 tons with fuel and lubricants and ammunition + crew on board

[Viknt]

And very good. So I’m somewhere in some way even a little bit right. We can add that now some kind of Lotus has appeared, as if to replace Nona. But besides 120 mm there are 82 mm and a lot of other things, self-propelled robotic platforms have appeared, and they need small platforms for operators. somewhere like that. The landing party now has some kind of ATVs or something similar, on a wheelbase, let's see what development of this or similar platform will follow. Separation of the fire and control platform in space is also relevant.

[Yarhann]

in Lotus, I think after modernization they will add BIUS and TIUS with a navigation and positioning system. That is, the equipment will be able to integrate into a modern combat network. Perhaps add BC and make a more reliable (resource) hodovka. In general, it would be nice for a landing to make Deshman mines or OFS with laser adjustment, and the laser either portable or a light UAV. That is, the WTO complex with reconnaissance and target designation tools for the near zone up to 10 km. But that is. In general, of course, for the Airborne Forces, inconspicuous means of aerial reconnaissance such as quadrocopters are needed, I have seen such aids in Amer marines.
And all that is smaller is more transport than a combat vehicle. Cars like sau Nona are good in that they can essentially be used to storm both the field and in the city and in the mountains, BC only needs more.

[Viknt]

Nona in the city as an attack aircraft will not live even a dozen minutes. Large elevation angles are certainly a plus. There is a rearmament, UAVs in the Airborne Forces are actively being mastered. But the first pancakes are more and more lumpy. They rejoice as children and devices are more like toys for adults, until everything is rubbed ...

[Yarhann]

Nona in Grozny and in general in the mountains (Chechnya, Afghanistan) was used perfectly, her task was to support the infantry with fire, which she did very well - this is a self-propelled gun, not a tank. And in frontal attack to go for this there are tanks

[Viknt]

I agree, but with all this, we note that these are not landing operations and Nonam has nothing to do there, but they hitched them out of hopelessness, the army has nothing else.

[Yarhann]

You are joking? And what let me know the task of the air assault brigades and divisions?
In my opinion, the assault and the fastest on the march were and will be the Airborne Forces - at least on land, at least in the sky, at least from the water - the entire armament of weapons was created for them to fully support the infantry. But when the attack aircraft took up positions, motorized rifles and armored troops are being pulled in - that is, all the heaviest and most powerful, that is, the same sau msta td and tp - it was also used both in Afghanistan and in Chechnya.
And one should not think that the landing should be necessarily dropped from the sky - the task of the airborne forces is to quickly complete the assigned task and prepare the conditions for the offensive of the main forces - and how this task will be solved is no longer essential. The landing party has no task to sit for a long time on the defensive (except when surrounded), which is why they are armed with virtually no heavy armored vehicles - their task is to quickly come where they say they will ruin everything and dump it.

[Viknt]

The theory you set out correctly. But the landing is an elite, special forces with significant restrictions, in relation to Nona it is only 8 tons against 46 for the tank. It’s the same as bare breasts on an embrasure. The usual army madhouse. A huge army, and as it came down to it, so sheer heroism from scratch and war with the superior forces of criminal gangs.

[Yarhann]

heroism is shown on TV, but in real life it’s a usual but complicated hard work. There is no elite in the airborne forces except that they are also propagandized on TV. The task of the Airborne Forces is to storm and destroy, which is why all of their equipment is highly mobile, light, relatively powerful, and at the same time has a large cruising range and ammunition. And holding positions, working at roadblocks, trenches, etc., and so on are all motorized rifles. Preparation of frontal clashes, an attack on the fortified areas of TD and TP - this is also the task of motorized rifle and armored forces. And the Airborne Forces are sent there where they will fight with such formations, be it the NBF in Chechnya or the Dushmans in Afghanistan, where it is necessary to quickly take a position, make an ambush, etc., etc. It was the Airborne Forces that often prevented the NBF fighters in Chechnya from returning to their rear — with small forces and an outnumbering enemy — but they ambushed and successfully completed the task. Who else can be quickly flown to anywhere other than the Airborne Forces?
And yes, the Airborne Forces do not have a task in the frontal drive to the embrasure - mobility allows troops to get in from where they are not expected to be hit, or quickly change their position and get out of the strike. Mobility, mobility and mobility again. And let the motorized rifle and tankers measure their mail.

[Viknt]

It is impossible to look at BMD in Afghanistan without tears. There, it was quite possible and necessary to transfer troops to army irons, and the same thing in Chechnya. A country’s war with gangs, when they constantly have superiority in theory is nonsense, and in life is obvious incredible. For this, each time with epaulettes, stars must fly, at least. You probably don’t know, in Afghanistan, while the generals weren’t banging on top for losses, they weren’t itching.
Mobility, ambushes and other tactics and operational art are only good when they bring results. If you, having superiority, constantly find yourself in the minority, then this is (military) stupidity.

[Yarhann]

that in Afghanistan, that in Chechnya there were never any problems with equipment, just like the Syrian Army in Syria. The whole problem was that our troops and Assad's troops tried to control the territory through checkpoints, garrisons, etc., etc. A highly mobile NBF armed with small arms mortars and grenade launchers constantly attacked all these stationary fortified areas - they essentially acted as airborne forces. Naturally, always knowing where the enemy will stand or pass to destroy his equipment will not be difficult, as was the case with our armored vehicles everywhere, as well as American in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as Turkish in Syria, and Israeli in the Gaza Strip.
The fact is that when the union entered Afghanistan it very quickly captured a large part of the country, but the losses went when motor riflemen started there to ensure the safety of stolers and others who did everything there necessary for life. There were big losses on the march, on guard - but you won’t put what you’ll do on every hill in the garrison.
And so, the results of the actions of the SA in Afghanistan are quite successful - given that the material and technical support of the dushmans was constant and uninterrupted from Pakistan, and with this approach, you can fight forever. In the same Syria, a turning point for Assad’s troops began when the intelligence of the Russian Federation and VKS according to intelligence worked out — when the rear support at the NBF ISIS began to melt before our eyes.
The sorties didn’t stop, of course, but the mobility and severity of lunges decreased significantly - which ultimately fettered the mobility of the NBF ISIS and a natural defeat.
In Chechen companies, everything is the same - the first is unsuccessful because it makes no sense to fight with an ever-wandering army that goes to Georgia to rest and replenish. The second Chechen put everything in its place, the logistics to neighboring states and republics were torn, there were problems with the material and technical support of the militants - as a result, defeat.

[Viknt]

Of course, the problem was resolved, but sad moments took place and there was no escape from them. The operation in Syria was carried out at a very high level, but it has not been completed and, as previous experience shows, will not be completed yet. There will be another change in tactics of confrontation.

[Yarhann]

guerrilla confrontation is not resolved by military methods. in Chechnya, after the end of the military campaign, a bunch of NBF wandered around the mountains to dales, for several years they milked local businessmen, either stealing their children or simply intimidating them. But in the end, the local authorities overcame these so-called rebels and carried out the right propaganda and operational measures, because they were no longer looking for militants in tanks, but field investigators were sent, and now local ones.
It was the same in Afghanistan when they took control of the territory and set up roadblocks, KGB operatives from the Vympel and Zenit units began operational work in the territory to find sympathizers, weapons depots and recreation centers for spirits.
In Syria, the situation is slightly different; there is no clear controlled territory about this so far no one has spoken about who the shaking part of Syria will be assigned to. The Turks want to finish off the Kurds and take control of the north, Assad has his own plans, Iran also has a desire to gain control of the mattresses, there is a desire to come up with another new democratic republic in those territories where there is a lot of oil. Therefore, the Syrian conflict will be resolved only when Syria is divided. After that, in the divided territories, operatives quickly enough eliminate all NBFs.
The main thing that would not be like on the border of Chechnya and Ingushetia was when the stingy local authorities of Ingushetia did nothing, when the NBF came to rest from combat sorties to Chechnya, as R. A. Kadyrov spoke about.
You can defeat the army. Kotolra has equipment that requires technical and logistical support - by destroying or cutting off the security, the war is won.
And the fight against partisans, bandits, rebels - whatever you want you can call them - these are already operational measures that are not decided by the military.

[Viknt]

Times are changing, forms, methods and the very concept of what war is are changing. Just the other day, it became hybrid and V O E N N Y E, in the same Syria, and earlier in Afghanistan, now they do not stupidly sit in trenches and press the trigger with all the foolishness, but they meet people, feed and others, and other. We need to understand the deep psychology of a predator, as one basmach said about the Afghan governor - who he is, I have several hundred sabers / bayonets, when I want him a sikirbashka. The military personification of power-power, and it is only with their presence that everything else will be frustrated.

[Yarhann]

The military is engaged in the military (the local leadership or a superior, possibly partially operational) sets military tasks for them), that in Afghanistan, in Syria and in Chechnya, the task of the military is to destroy everything that they are told. Operatives (cops) and local authorities are engaged in work (propaganda, bribery, development of an agent network) with the local population. There is no hybridity here - they always fought like this when the question was not about the total destruction of all living things, but about control of the territory with the population.

[Viknt]

All this is so, all this is so, but for now, to whom will the poor peasant go if the commander has settled in his house instead of the emir or there? I somehow forgot and gave the go-ahead with my hand along the way with a choke, just opposite the stall with dried fruits, so the elder now only calls the commander

[Yarhann]

In the transition period - when there is no power, the military prosecutor's office and the warriors monitor the order and legality - it will be so, but this is a transition period - it is usually very short.

[Viknt]

In Afghanistan, not to say that short. Neither the administration nor the operatives can and will not defend. Afghanistan is more and more. UN no faith.

[Yarhann]

When the USSR was in Afghanistan, there was local government special police and the army. They did most of the work. Although of course, and our troops dohrena stood at checkpoints and garrisons. There was a period of war when our leadership in Afghanistan agreed with the local resistance to armistice, and sorties practically stopped throughout our territory against our troops. But then the local administration complained to our supreme authority in Moscow that our Nichrome contingent heroically did not fight for their unwashed assholes, and as a result, the hot phase again began with military losses, etc.
Protect what from whom? There is no concept to protect - it is impossible to protect against nothing, even a condom does not give a 100% guarantee. Therefore, after any forceful action on the territory, local authorities are appointed or elected, all branches of power, etc., etc. are formed. This is exactly what the Americans are doing now in Iraq, just as the USSR did in Afghanistan.
There are no other ways. The army, whatever it is, will not protect anyone from guerrilla sorties - there have not yet been such cases in the history of mankind. The army is primarily a power system for the destruction or destruction of something.

[Viknt]

If we look at the history of mankind, look into the past, we will see Stenka Razin with Persian princesses, Novgorod ushkuiniks, hired "princely" squads ... The dashing nineties with lads in crimson jackets. And what about the 21st century Somali and Malaki pirates? The history of mankind is banditry - partisanship. After the disappearance of the USSR, the US Army reformatted its troops just for the war against the partisan. What has become the internal troops in Russia, consider the second army. If it goes on like this, the army will become smaller and smaller, and the number of "internal" VOJSK will increase.

[Yarhann]

they did not reformat anything - they do everything the same as the KGB of the USSR did through Vympel and the Kaskad and Omega detachments created on its basis.
The warriors are doing the same as the Soviet warriors, the CIA is doing the same thing as the KGB - they also support the local authorities, the basis of security there is not the US Army and special forces, but the local government, the army, police, etc., etc.
If you mean Rosguard then this is a power unit of the Ministry of Internal Affairs - that is, it is clear why they are and what their work is here, they even intersect somewhere with the FSB. Nothing has changed - it is these structures that are engaged in operational work.
You just get in the way in a heap, but in fact, the system of conquering territories is the same, the system of establishing local authority, etc. is already the same. But what the units and special services are called that do this, what structures they are subordinate to is not the point. The approach has been and will always be the same. And here that the USSR is in Afghanistan, that the USA follows the same path - and with the same end result - when they leave Afghanistan - the local authorities will be swept away sooner or later

[Viknt]

On the basics. There is a certain contradiction. The main work is undoubtedly performed by local people. But it turns out that the lazy Americans and the hard workers will immediately leave the khan.
The conquest of the territory also happens in very different ways, the United States does not seem to expand its territory due to wars. Colonies do not seem to be created either. And wars are ongoing all over the world. Now here are PMCs have appeared. The world is changing, they didn’t fight less, but they’re not fighting like that anymore.

[Yarhann]

PMCs are the NBF in only one country; they are legally in another outlaw. And mercenaries were always and everywhere. Why mercenaries are convenient - it’s much cheaper to use the army and other security forces - where there is no tough confrontation and only armed security is needed. An example is the Strait of Aden where they constantly pirate - there it’s normal for shipowners to hire detachments to protect ships - and this costs a penny squad work + weapons with BC. At the same time, protection from pirates through the US Navy, the Russian Federation and other countries in this bay is endlessly worthless and shipowners do not pay for it.
The United States has been engaged in colonization since the Second World War. You can call it neocolonization.
Look at the list of countries where they carried out this or that military operation and everything will become clear. The system simply and for a long time works either as revolutions and riots with material and technical support of the opposition, rebels, or direct intervention and the establishment of a new government. Now in the age of digital technology and total brain fouling through the media (including the Internet), it is even easier to raise uprisings and riots, especially in countries where central government is weak and state institutions do not work properly. Ukraine is also an example. Fuck with the coup that was in 2014, but where is the work of the SBU which was supposed to protect the state system from destruction and subordination to its external management, but it does not. As a result, such Papuan countries are included in the best at the moment, as for me the way of neocolonization is to work with international financial institutions such as the IMF. Under favorable conditions for IMF dealers, the manual government signs agreements and for many years drives the country and people into financial slavery - without development prospects, we get a purely resource base - that is, a colony.
The military operations waged by the United States around the world are just the tip of the iceberg - the most noticeable but insignificant. And it’s the operatives who do the main work - the warriors are stupid by nature and cannot do anything but destroy anything. And the process of colonization always implies creation - to make suckers believe that they need glass beads (dermacocracy and Western values) and change them to conditional gold (all kinds of resources) - this is a creative process just for the special forces and various special representatives.
And so then the war changes only visually - the weapon looks different.

[Viknt]

MDA agreed to handle. Russia differs from this only quantitatively, and not fundamentally. The elite is all there. Thanks for the educational program.

[Yarhann]

And that the Russian Federation is not a capitalist country and how should it differ? In our country, local capital is not an element of world capital, or else in which country is local capital not integrated into world capital? The capital of the whole world is fighting for the right to exploit the resource - human and natural, the state in this entire system is only a superstructure for solving certain problems and strengthening the positions of certain financial groups.
In the capitalist world, there is no ideology other than the accumulation of capital - because, as it were, the goals are defined by definition, and the ways to achieve them are just tactics.

[Viknt]

Political economy is, as it were, far from the topic of weapons. But note that the Soviet economy is also capitalist in the way of production, the so-called state capitalism. And only speculators and scammers scream that this is something unnatural. The economy of modern Russia, as they say, is seventy percent state-owned, but there is nothing like 70 percent of the USSR. But, for example, there are terrorism and the poor with outstretched hands. Capitalism as a mode of production does not necessarily have to, and there can only be one single color-species. We also note that such capitalism did not bring any prosperity to Russia, but to individual gentlemen, the worse the country, the better they personally are.

[Viknt]

The question is big and you said a lot, you can't answer everything at once. Let's start with the specialists. There were about two dozen large enterprises in the city. There was a shortage of staff everywhere. Now there is nothing left of these enterprises. These are tens of thousands of workers and specialists. Anyone and anything can talk about the lack of specialists. This is the result and direct consequence of the created system of destruction of the competitor's economy by "effective managers".
According to economic prospects, according to official forecasts, the year 19 will be worse than the 18th, ministers do not even promise the president any breakthrough, but it will be worse with a high probability. A great achievement will be if in the coming years it will be possible to at least remain at the achieved level.
Middle class. Dying out all over the world. Yesterday I was visiting, the businessman with small hands was pessimistic, plow from dawn to dawn, live in a mess.
I will reveal a terrible secret. With socio-economic progress, working hours are reduced, and the non-retirement age is reduced. In the country and the Western world, everything is exactly the opposite. And this is presented by the government as a normal phenomenon. This is an obvious and objective indicator of what the system is, the government and where we are heading. An increase in the pension is not a solution to the problem, it is only a postponement. There is one more (intermediate) stage of the permanent “pension reform” that has become permanent, there is no shortage of projects for regular cuts in pension payments. Enough for today.

[anzar]

An interesting machine, an example of a rational solution in hard-set parameters. The author should not have found fault with the shortcomings, but indicated the reason for not accepting weapons, and it is somewhat different. When the project parameters were set, these shortcomings were assumed and considered acceptable, and then the possibilities of transp. Aviation increased sharply and they reluctantly put up with it. They adopted the M551 Sheridan tank (16t) which is both armored and floating, and has a 152mm short barrel for support (in the USSR it is similar to 16t. 85mm self-propelled guns)

[Yarhann]

Yes, just for such mopeds, you still need a support vehicle with fuel and lubricants with the calculation, the same as the d30 + Ural as a tractor. Therefore, we went by cramming everything you need into one chassis of a light tank, so the Sheridan and Fri 76 you mentioned appeared - everything you need on board - the car is self-sufficient in certain time and space frames while being mobile and protected from bullets and arrows.

[Viknt]

The question is what will replace it? The Lotus appeared. A towed cannon is being made on the basis of the Coalition's gun !? Das ist fantastish! There are no words. But at the same time, this can be understood as the presence of an objective need for such an arrangement. The tractor is separate, the implement is separate. However, to do it at the level of the Second World War ....? As an alternative, there may just be an automated firing platform on the "tow" of the control platform. Especially for small calibers, for which 16 tons are fat.

[Yarhann]

Not Lotus is still an SPG for the Airborne Forces, but a floating tank is an Octopus. The towed coalition gun is the new generation of the MST-B weighing 7 tons. For comparison, the best British down in the world at the moment M777 weighs 4200 kg, M777ER about 5 tons - this is generally a high-tech modern artillery. And about 1000 of these fluffs are in service with the United States. I think ours should make a similar fluff. because 4 tons - it can be hung on mi8 and transported anywhere, and the appearance of such artillery anywhere is a pancake of power. You understand that self-propelled guns weighing 50-60 tons can not be thrown anywhere except by plane or self-propelled.
I think, nevertheless, in a towed howitzer 150+ gauge they will focus on low weight - it is her air mobility that is most important in this case, and if they do something like the MSTy-B in the same weight, then yes, it’s trampling on the spot.