What is good self-propelled mortar 2C41 "gorse"

210
Several years ago, the Petrel Research Institute for the first time presented a model of a promising self-propelled mortar 2C41 "Drok". At the recent exhibition "Army-2019" for the first time openly showed a full-fledged sample of such a combat vehicle. In the near future, Drok must pass all the necessary tests and enter the troops. It is expected that this combat vehicle will give the army some new opportunities directly related to the specifics of modern conflicts.


"Gorse" at the site




Technical appearance


Recall, the project 2C41 "Drok" provides for the construction of a self-propelled combat vehicle based on the wheel armored vehicle K-4386 "Typhoon Airborne." A two-axle armored car must carry combat modules with a mortar and a machine gun, ammunition and crew. "Gorse" has a fighting mass of 14 t and is operated by a crew of four.

The base armored vehicle has anti-bullet and anti-mine protection. It is also equipped with optical-electronic countermeasures to enemy weapons. The main weapon of Drok is the 82-mm smooth-bore mortar, which is a modified product of the 2B14 Tray. Auxiliary - 7,62-mm PKTM machine gun on the UAB.

The 2C41 is currently undergoing testing. Completion of all checks is scheduled for next year. At the same time, it is expected to be officially accepted for service and series production. The airborne troops will be the operator of the new mortars.

Positive features


The concept of a self-propelled mortar on a serial chassis is not new, but under current conditions its importance is increasing. The development of artillery systems and reconnaissance equipment increases the risks for mortar gunners. A wearable or towed mortar with traction and settlement may be the victim of a retaliatory strike, and therefore mortar gunners need a mobile and secure platform.

The armored car K-4386 shows high mobility characteristics on highways and off-road, which simplifies access to the position and departure from it. In addition, it was designed to meet the requirements of the Airborne Forces and it can be dropped with the use of a parachute system.

In addition, the car initially carries anti-bullet and fragmentation booking. The safety level of the crew has been increased due to the refusal to shoot through the open top hatch: the mortar is in the armored turret on the Drock. The system of the EIA and the joint-action department with a machine gun will allow you to fight off the enemy in a direct collision.

The mortar barrel is mounted on recoil devices in a turret with mechanized guidance drives. Also 2C41 is equipped with a modern fire control system that provides the calculation of data for firing. All operations to prepare for the shot are carried out from the fighting compartment, with some of the tasks assumed by automation. The maximum rate of fire reaches 12 rds / min. In the fighting compartment transported ammunition in 40 min.


And on "Army-2019"


An important feature of "Drok", which gives advantages in certain situations, is the possibility of dismantling the trunk. For this armored car carries the base plate and biped. However, the main mode of operation involves the use of the trunk on the installations of the tower.

In terms of missions performed, 2C41 does not differ from other domestic mortars of the 82 caliber mm. It is capable of hitting various targets and objects at distances from 100 m to 6 km in open areas or under building conditions. Perhaps the use of all existing mines of its caliber. At the same time, “Drok” differs from a number of other systems of its class by the increased efficiency of fire provided by a developed SLA.

Prospective self-propelled mortars will go into service with the Airborne Forces. Operation in these troops provides landing and parachute landing. Down on the ground, combat vehicles will be able to immediately be involved in the work and provide fire support for the landing. Self-propelled mortar on the basis of a modern armored car will be a good and necessary replacement for wearable or towed systems with similar characteristics.

Visible imperfections


However, the Drok project does not always receive only positive reviews. Already after the first demonstration of self-propelled mortar models, the first criticism sounded. Indeed, some features of the sample presented raise questions.

First of all, the criticism is related to the relative complexity of the project and the high cost of the combat vehicle. An armored car with a special turret and mortar is much more expensive than wearable and portable 82-mm systems with a different carrier - a truck or an unarmored car. However, in this case, the higher price is directly related to increasing survivability and combat qualities, simplifying the landing, etc.

You can complain about the selected chassis. Armored car K-4386 "Typhoon Airborne" has not yet passed all the necessary tests and has not yet entered the troops. However, the tests of this machine have already advanced far enough, and besides, it is considered as one of the foundations for the re-equipment of the airborne forces. On the basis of such a chassis, several new combat and auxiliary vehicles with various weapons were created, including self-propelled mortars. In the coming years, the landing part will receive a whole range of unified technology, which is still at the stage of development work.

A significant part of self-propelled mortars, including domestic ones, is equipped with barrels with a caliber 120 mm. As a result, they surpass the promising 2C41 in fire performance, and this could be considered as a disadvantage of the latter. However, it is necessary to take into account that the Airborne Forces need systems of different calibers, and the niche of the 120-mm artillery system in future re-equipment will be given to the 2-42 “Lotus” self-propelled gun with a universal weapon.

What is good self-propelled mortar 2C41 "gorse"
Mortar 2B14 "Tray"


Thus, the main visible shortcomings of the new domestic development only seem so. All the main provisions of the technical specifications for the "Drok" were developed to meet the requirements of the airborne troops and the specifics of their service.

Expected results


Prospective self-propelled mortar 2C41 "Drok" was developed in the framework of a large experimental design work "Sketch", and with it were created several other samples of self-propelled artillery. To date, all representatives of this ROC have come to the test, and in the near future they are expected to be put into service.

According to the latest data, “Gorod” can complete the checks and enter service as early as next year. The desired volume of purchases of such equipment and plans to re-equip specific parts have not yet been announced.

The appearance of serial machines 2С41 will have a positive effect on the combat capability of airborne mortar units. The arming of the landing forces consists of only one mortar of the caliber 82 mm - the product 2B14 in the original version. Such weapon, showing the required characteristics, has known disadvantages. Even a partial replacement of wearable mortars with self-propelled will give positive results.

Airborne troops will receive a modern means of fire support with the required combat performance, increased mobility and survivability. Deliveries of the serial "Drokov" will ensure the transfer of most of the landing artillery to the self-propelled chassis with known positive consequences. Perhaps in the future even be able to completely abandon wearable mortars that do not provide adequate protection for the fighters.

Thus, in the near future, our airborne troops expect new valuable acquisitions. It is important that we are talking not only about the 2C41 "Grock" self-propelled mortar. Other modern models of different classes and types will also have to be put into service.
210 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +11
    24 July 2019 05: 35
    Honestly a very strange car. A high plus is still a tower, and how does it affect its stability, as a platform for a mortar, after what time the oscillations after the shot are damped, is the rigidity of the roof and the whole hull sufficient to withstand such a dynamic impact? There are really a lot of questions.
    1. +10
      24 July 2019 05: 39
      Quote: svp67
      Honestly a very strange car. A high plus is still a tower, and how does it affect its stability, as a platform for a mortar, after what time the oscillations after the shot are damped, is the rigidity of the roof and the whole hull sufficient to withstand such a dynamic impact? There are really a lot of questions.

      Straight from the language removed!
      From myself I add, why “Sani”, and not an automatic “Cornflower”?
      1. +3
        24 July 2019 07: 47
        Quote: Kote pane Kohanka
        why “Sani” and not automatic “Cornflower”?

        Not "Sleigh", but "Tray". "Cornflower" has not been produced in our country for a long time, and the Hungarians, most likely, too (the main production was there).
        Judging by the photo, the breech-loading gun. I can't imagine how long it takes to remove the barrel and transfer it to the state of an ordinary "Tray", and the reverse process is probably generally dancing with tambourines.
        1. +5
          24 July 2019 08: 23
          Quote: Bad
          Judging by the photo, breech weapon. I can not imagine how much time it takes to remove the trunk

          Most likely nothing is being removed, but the "Tray", or rather 2B24 is stored in the car as a whole, that is, the barrel, plate, biped. sighting.

          The problem is not to "remove", the problem is to "put back" with a very complex alignment - after all, apparently there is an ASUNO available.
          1. +3
            24 July 2019 11: 56
            Can it be easier to carry another barrel? Given the total price, he will not play. And it is not necessary to dismantle anything, except in extreme cases.
            1. +7
              24 July 2019 17: 31
              Quote: Red_Baron
              Can it be easier to carry another barrel? Given the total price, he will not play. And it is not necessary to dismantle anything, except in extreme cases.

              I’m pretty sure that there’s nothing to dismantle. The journalists heard the ringing of a portable mortar, and for some reason decided that its barrel was sticking out in the tower. And I, to put it mildly, do not particularly imagine the breech-loading mortar on the stove and the bipod.
              1. +2
                24 July 2019 20: 29
                2B-23 Nona M1 - breech-loading mortar on the stove, 2007g adopted. True 120mm caliber, but 82mm principle I think the same. hi 160mm mortar arr. 1943g, 240mm mortar M-240 arr. 1950g - everything has long been invented.
                1. 0
                  24 July 2019 20: 38
                  Quote: cat Rusich
                  2B-23 Nona M1 - breech-loading mortar on the stove

                  And then the opposite situation. I have very little idea of ​​the scheme of loading from the treasury with a bursting barrel in the self-propelled gun tower.

                  Quote: cat Rusich
                  but the principle of 82mm is the same.

                  Why suffer if you can use a conventional wedge or piston valve?
                  1. +1
                    24 July 2019 20: 51
                    The question was about - "... breech-loading mortar on a plate and a biped ...". The answer is given. How is the gate of the gorse arranged? Perhaps like Nona ... (or Vienna, Lotus) means the self-propelled guns. hi
                    1. 0
                      25 July 2019 07: 52
                      Quote: cat Rusich
                      The question was about - "... breech-loading mortar on a plate and a biped ...". The answer is given.

                      You should have understood. What are we talking about? Trying to remove a breech-loading mortar from its place in the tower and put it on the stove with a tripod to say the least. stupid
      2. +4
        24 July 2019 08: 19
        Quote: Kote pane Kohanka
        and not an automatic "Cornflower"?

        Glitchy, complicated, expensive, very limited in the ability to "maneuver trajectories". severely limited in ammunition. Only two types of old-style fragmentation mines.
        "Gorse" is an order of magnitude more adequate.
        1. 0
          12 October 2019 09: 57
          with mass growth and it’s on the carrier that’s all solved with a bang and the carrier will drag the increased weight the same way, the cornflower is not interesting for a fire attack with one machine today, but with powerful direct fire, it’s a GUN, among other things, the gun is not flapper if you hit the FSE tank .. and the board practically any tank will surrender the cornflower from afar and at an angle through all the hinges of the suspension; jammers, etc.
    2. -1
      24 July 2019 11: 04
      But how does this mortar charge in the car?
      one of the key parameters - the rate of fire
  2. +4
    24 July 2019 07: 32
    If it is a gun for the Airborne Forces, then there is every loading place in the IL-76 worth its weight in gold. If the question arises what kind of gun to give the paratroopers to gain, what will they ask for, an armored car with an 82-mm mortar or a tracked SAO with an 120-mm gun? I think the choice is obvious. Then in what division can this mortar be used? In the helicopter you will not thrust it, you will not drag it into the mountains, without disassembly. Regular installation and disassembly of the barrel from the tower will certainly cause wild joy in the calculation. The armor is worse than the CAO, the permeability is worse. Price? 82-mm mortar is cheaper. CAO is a bit more expensive.
    In short IMHO cut the budget in its purest form.
    1. +2
      24 July 2019 08: 36
      Quote: Alex_59
      If the question arises what kind of weapon to give to the paratroopers in reinforcement, what will they ask for, an armored car with an 82-mm mortar

      What will they ask for, a car with a 82-mm mortar or an armored car-82-mm self-propelled mortar?

      Quote: Alex_59
      Armor is worse than CAO

      8))) Not a fact. "Nona" has anti-fragmentation, "Lotus". likely. similarly.

      And even more so the armor is more powerful than what "Draco" replaces - two-axle KamAZ

      Quote: Alex_59
      Then in what division can this mortar be used?

      Battalion mortar.

      Quote: Alex_59
      In the helicopter you will not thrust it, you will not drag it into the mountains, without disassembly.

      You can't put this one in too


      but the problem is easily solved: on machines of the company level a 60-mm mortar is included in the kit, on battalion machines the 81-mm mortar.
      1. +5
        24 July 2019 09: 13
        Quote: Spade
        What will they ask for, a car with a 82-mm mortar or an armored car-82-mm self-propelled mortar?

        I think the choice will be on a different plane. The task is to parachute an airborne battalion in one regimental sortie. The Il-76 air regiment is available for this task. Due to the fact that most of the aircraft are occupied by the equipment of the battalion's company, 2-3 Il-76s remain for the means of reinforcing the landing. The question is - what should be given to the airborne battalion with the condition that it has maximum firepower and mobility, but at the same time "fit" into these 2-3 Il-76s (these are 9 "standard" places in the cargo compartment)? I think that any paratrooper commander would prefer to have a battery of "Non" or "Lotos" for this, rather than "this". Because the mobility is higher, the permeability is higher, the firepower is higher.
        Is not a fact. "Nona" has anti-fragmentation, "Lotus". likely. similarly.
        If we assume that the security of the BMD (aka "Nona") is approximately equal to the BMP-1, then it holds a 20-mm projectile in the forehead. "Lotus" in theory should be protected a little better. Can the Drok withstand a 20-mm projectile in the forehead? I doubt it. An armor-piercing one will fly into the windshield - and hello.
        Quote: Spade
        Battalion mortar.
        Is there such a thing today? Remembering the OShS motorized riflemen on the BMP ... there was no such thing. On the APC too. The DShBR was on the UAZ. But the DShBR needs to fit into the helicopter, and the Drok does not fit. An 82-mm mortar on a UAZ with a folded awning climbed into the Mi-8. And on Mi-26 already "Nona" was going to be carried, in pairs on board.
        But maybe I do not know something ...
        1. +5
          24 July 2019 09: 25
          Quote: Alex_59
          I think the choice will be in a different plane. The task is to parachute the airborne battalion in parachute mode for one regimental aircraft departure.

          And or the mortars of this battalion will go on unarmored KamAZ. sitting on the capping with mines and leaning on the tank with add. charges.
          Or they will be in armored vehicles equipped to the same ASUNO

          Quote: Alex_59
          If we assume that the security of the BMD (aka "Nona") is approximately equal to the BMP-1

          Not. not equal. This is the ACS.

          Quote: Alex_59
          in the forehead holds a 20-mm projectile.

          BMP-1 "holds a 20-mm projectile in the forehead ?????
          You are confusing something.

          Quote: Alex_59
          Lotus "in theory should be protected a little better.

          Nobody will spend their reserves of weight on protecting the SPG. "Invest" in the artillery unit and transportable ammo.

          Quote: Alex_59
          Remembering the OSHS motorized infantry on the BMP ... there was no such.

          ??????????????????????
          I have never seen a staff of a motorized rifle battalion without a mortar battery.

          Quote: Alex_59
          DSRB had

          They had mortars in companies.
          1. 0
            24 July 2019 09: 39
            Quote: Spade
            And or the mortars of this battalion will go on unarmored KamAZ
            Why is an armored car with an 82-mm mortar better than a Lotus with a 120-mm gun?
            Quote: Spade
            Not. not equal. This is the ACS.
            I suppose that they have unification by corps in order to reduce the cost of production.
            Quote: Spade
            BMP-1 "holds a 20-mm projectile in the forehead ?????
            According to the terms of reference it was such a condition. Board and ass - no.
            Quote: Spade
            I have never seen a staff of a motorized rifle battalion without a mortar battery.

            So there 120-mm, not 82-mm.
            1. +1
              24 July 2019 09: 57
              Quote: Alex_59
              Why is an armored car with an 82-mm mortar better than a Lotus with a 120-mm gun?

              And the whale is better than a bear?
              Mortar - battalion level. "Lotus" from the shelf and above

              Quote: Alex_59
              I suppose that they have unification by corps in order to reduce the cost of production.

              Keep only geometry. Specials are made for all ACS. lightweight chassis. Except like "Vienna". but there is a separate story

              Quote: Alex_59
              So there 120-mm, not 82-mm.

              What's the difference? There were 6x120, there were 6x82, there were 6x82 plus three "Cornflowers" Depending on the tasks and terrain. The states of mortars are different. but they have always been
              1. +2
                24 July 2019 10: 11
                Quote: Spade
                Mortar - battalion level.
                So it seems strange to me to replace a 120-mm mortar in a battalion with an 82-mm one. Why lower your firepower? You say "armored car" instead of Kamaz is better. Okay - let's make an armored car with a 120mm mortar. Why do we need "it" in 82mm caliber?
                "Lotus" from the shelf and above
                This way is also a mystery to me. What non-solvable difficulties are there in the battalion, that it is possible to have a battery of 120-mm mortars in it, and an 120-mm SAO — cannot? Why can't a battalion have a battery 120-mm SAO? I guess of course why, but you can be more accurate.
                Quote: Spade
                What's the difference?

                Well, I did not put it that way. When we were taught, we had the 6x120mm in the battalion in the state, I, by analogy with the DSBR, suggested that you are talking about the presence of 82-mm in the mouths of the SME, in short the confusion. laughing
                Quote: Spade
                Retain only geometry.
                Well, if so, then okay. Although IMHO, as an engineer, this seems to be a violation of the laws of manufacturability.
                1. +3
                  24 July 2019 10: 38
                  Quote: Alex_59
                  So it seems strange to me to replace the 120-mm mortar in the battalion with an 82-mm.

                  no "replacement" The Airborne Forces have never had 120 at the battalion level.
                  Quote: Alex_59
                  Well - let's make an armored car with an 120-mm mortar.

                  Then you have to carry two b \ k. and 120 for self-propelled and 82 for portable. Airborne battalion does not pull this.

                  Quote: Alex_59
                  This way is also a mystery to me. What non-solvable difficulties are there in the battalion, that it is possible to have a battery of 120-mm mortars in it, and an 120-mm SAO — cannot?

                  Maybe the battalion battery was just 82-mm? Was the 120-mm battery regimental?

                  Quote: Alex_59
                  Well, if so, then okay. Although IMHO, as an engineer, this seems to be a violation of the laws of manufacturability.

                  On the contrary. By preserving the geometry, it is possible to preserve unification by nodes and aggregates.
                  1. 0
                    24 July 2019 11: 07
                    Quote: Spade
                    Airborne on the battalion level never had a 120.

                    In the Airborne, yes. I'm talking about motorized infantry already.
                    Quote: Spade
                    Was the 120-mm battery regimental?

                    The battalion has a battery of 120 mm mortars. The regimental was 122 mm 2S1 or D-30. Divisional 152-mm 2S3 or (what is there towed on the basis of the Akatsiya barrel?) It was served as a standard staff of motorized rifle units on BMP-1/2. He studied in the 90s at the military department. In fact, in my specialty, I had to prepare 8K14 for a nuclear strike at a technical position (refueling, docking of warheads, checking), but combined arms staff was also taught. They taught me to leave behind, but I remember it :-)
                    Quote: Spade
                    By preserving the geometry, it is possible to preserve unification by nodes and aggregates.
                    But you need two different sets of armor plates in thickness. Very frustrating technologists when the unification is complete on 99%, but the cherry on the cake - make it all the same, but from another rolled stock.
                    1. 0
                      24 July 2019 17: 35
                      The 120 motorized infantry. True, the ancients, like a mammoth guano. And guaranteed to lose in their abilities, even American.

                      Quote: Alex_59
                      In battalion battery 120-mm mortars

                      The paratroopers had a regimental battery 120-mm mortars. That it was replaced by self-propelled division 2С9

                      Quote: Alex_59
                      But you need two different sets of armor plates in thickness.

                      Well, what to do? SAU thing specific. Weight reserves prefer to invest in the artillery part and in the portable BC.
                      1. 0
                        17 March 2021 09: 21
                        82 mm is the right choice for such a wagon. Even the MTLB chassis from Khosta cannot withstand a 120 mm caliber. The criticism looks unfounded, and if placed outside the tower with an emphasis on the ground, this is a completely different machine, without the protection of the crew under the armor.
            2. +1
              24 July 2019 11: 58
              Quote: Alex_59
              So there 120-mm, not 82-mm.

              States are different, in my SME Minbath, for 1990, the year 3 re-armed.
              1. -3
                25 July 2019 13: 51
                Can you describe in more detail? I here, I know only two states for the Minibar MSB in the European part of the USSR: 8 120-mm M and on 82-mm (6 trays and 3 Cornflower).
                1. +1
                  26 July 2019 00: 17
                  Quote: Private-K
                  Can you describe in more detail?

                  First there were 8 "Non", then 6 "Vasilkov", after 8 "Sanya" that's all.
                  1. 0
                    26 July 2019 06: 57
                    The Soviet standard for European TV 1975-90 is 8 120-mm M. At the very end of 90-th - 91. began to replace 82-mm due to limitations on the CFE Treaty.
                    Where did Nona come from? Nona-SVK (on the chassis of the BTR-80)?
                    This should not have been what you described. But since In the CA everything could have been - please give the number of MSW / MSD.
                    1. +2
                      26 July 2019 10: 49
                      Oleg, if you operate with training staffs that do not always coincide with real ones, then you will be surprised a lot. Have you ever heard of such structures as separate army corps designed to operate as part of the OMG front? There were only two of them, in the KBVO (Uruche) and ZabVO (Kyakhta). I know about the Trans-Baikal Corps, according to rumors, it seems there was a divisional structure, and the Belarusian (5 guards. KLA) was a brigade. - 2 SELECT + 2 OmehBr + odshp + oap + ovpbu + Oreadn, well, a lot of parts of combat and rear support. The hull was deployed at the start of the 80-x based on the 120 guards MSD. At the end of 1989, the reverse process began, the corps was again reorganized into a division, the organ fever continued until the collapse of the USSR.
                      ps "Nones" were ordinary, on the basis of an armored personnel carrier, there were also 2 "Rheostats" in the battery, one for the commander and one for the SOB.
                      1. -2
                        26 July 2019 15: 34
                        In fact, it was enough for you to write 5 gv.OAK and I would understand everything. ;))
                        Yes, there really were special battalion states - significantly enhanced compared to regular state variations.
                        I will tell you more - until Sabatra with Nonami was Sabatra with 122-mm SG 2C1 Carnation.
                        Can I have a couple of questions? Did you have a BMP-1 and a BMP-2 in your battalion at the time of service? Do you know what was in the battalion reconnaissance unit?
                      2. +1
                        29 July 2019 08: 14
                        In the reconnaissance platoon there was a battalion BRM-1K and 3 units of infantry fighting vehicles, one of them is a combat training group, I came there in 1985, started with an MSR OTB, in the company there were 5 platoons: 3 MSV, GPV, and a mortar. only 16 infantry fighting vehicles. In the mechanized battalions at that time there were no longer mortar platoons in the MCR, they were brought together into batteries, it turned out in the battalion there were 2 batteries: a sabatr on "Nons", and a minabat on an infantry fighting vehicle with 82-mm mortars. I did not hear about the sabatr on 2S1, the brigades had one siege on 2S1, and one on the BM-21. My company received the BMP-2 in the summer of 1986., before that there were "short-nosed" BMP-1s but already with the index "P"
                      3. 0
                        29 July 2019 08: 35
                        Thank you very much!
                        Grenade launcher or rocket launcher? According to my information - rocket launcher (6 AGS-17).
                        Another clarification: What were the machine guns? on 1 RPK on mso and 1 PKS at the command line? Or on 1 PC in mso?
                      4. +1
                        29 July 2019 11: 52
                        It is the grenade-gun platoon, (platoon commanders are usually ensigns) 2 grenade launchers and 1 machine-guns, all 4 AGS and 3 PKSM. At the exercises usually machine gun calculations were given in MSW. In the mso 1 RPK, there was no PC. There was no PC in the platoon control, there was a sniper and a gunner-orderly.
                      5. 0
                        29 July 2019 11: 54
                        Thank you, gorgeous!
                        The castle was allocated, or at the same time the commander of the 1 Mso?
                        Night sights gave out?
                        What year is the data?
                      6. 0
                        29 July 2019 12: 04
                        In the peaceful state of the castle - KO1, in the platoon of 5 nightlights, 3 AK, 1 RPK and 1 RPG. Snipers only daily. GP-25 state was not (explained by the presence of AGS in companies). And if it was interesting, there were three platoons each in brigade reconnaissance, 2 on BMP / BRM and tank (4 T-72B), BRDM-2 were in commandant platoon.
          2. +1
            25 July 2019 13: 39
            BMP-1 "holds a 20-mm projectile in the forehead ?????

            Yes. As it turned out, the armor-raids from Bundes 20-mm cannons (Marder's) did not penetrate the frontal projection + \ - 30 hail. BMP-1 / -2. And more punchy and was not a con. Xnumx's.
            1. +1
              26 July 2019 06: 58
              The minus, as I understand it, was upset that they did not break through. ;))
              1. +4
                26 July 2019 13: 44
                Understand what it is. Actively minus it is easily excitable, often hysterical people. Many, by the way, have a complete set of abnormalities and dementia, but this is not about now. If we exclude some slogans, rudeness and so on. That minus just because you told them that. No one will understand what you wrote, even if it is true. Someone once told them something else and this is their data, and they are much more accurate than any others.
                I do not take a specific case, I really do not know who is right here, I personally read what you wrote, it seemed to me believable and I took note. If I need accuracy in this matter, I would pick up the literature and start digging.
                And the most interesting thing I have checked many times, though in other sections - active, indignant, with shaking hands, dropping foam call a hyena on the head who wrote and in general everyone in the world. And the hyena is up to 70 kg carcass, so nothing good :) And if you ask them specifically the facts, the rationale or proof of their opinion, who stole it, what it didn’t break through or didn’t buy, they basically can’t answer anything, just repeat old tales and hastily invented nonsense.
                Why I have written so much, again, I repeat that I speak in general and not specifically about your post. Often minus is not a big mind and mental health.
            2. +2
              26 July 2019 14: 15
              For the minus, as always not very friendly with the head. I will quote from one article in response to another article.
              "We quickly remember when the BMP-1 was developed. Without looking at the reference book, the mid-60s. What did it protect from? The armor of the BMP protects against what it was supposed to protect according to TZ-BP 20mm / 100m forehead and BZT 7,62mm / 100m . BMP-2 has similar armor protection. Now let's look, what year has it been in the yard? Almost 40 (!) Years have passed. "
              So, actually, everything is said right. I am glad that I was not mistaken in these people :)
        2. +2
          24 July 2019 11: 07
          Che, I do not understand, and what are the criteria for evaluating the machine?
          Gorse what, should in the style of the tank in the forehead to attack the fortifications?
          this car has a pronounced sabotage appointment
          1. +2
            24 July 2019 12: 09
            Oh, there are a lot of things and motorized riflemen got attached to the airborne forces and shouts about the cut and so on.
            This is a mortar, why should he shoot at least some kind of direct visibility. But on the other hand really. What if from the corner of the tank and right there in the lobovuha palnut.
            1. +3
              24 July 2019 18: 01
              Quote: Red_Baron
              This is a mortar, why should he shoot at least some kind of direct visibility.

              Strictly speaking. Not certainly in that way.
              First, firing mortar guns are usually within the combat order of a battalion, that is, close to the enemy.
              Secondly, it is about the Airborne Forces, the probability of a shortage of ammunition is very high. And when this happens, the mortar go to the half-direct tip. So they should be prepared for this. Although you are right, you should not get carried away, turning force majeure into the main method of combat use.
              Personally, I would equip the CM with a "ball" on a retractable bar. With laser rangefinder. and if not a thermal imager, then at least a normal night light. Then they would be able to shoot half-straight relatively safely. But the toad will crush these same commanders ...
              1. 0
                24 July 2019 18: 56
                Today he will crush, tomorrow is gone. It would be where to put. I think in addition to the financial side there is also a psychological one. Many things today seem to be not a top priority and overly progressive.
                1. +2
                  24 July 2019 20: 13
                  Quote: Red_Baron
                  Today he will crush, tomorrow is gone.

                  Come on ... Today it will "crush", and tomorrow it will be completely forgotten.
                  As for towed implements for almost 15 years, a set of automation equipment has been "put". That one had become out of date for a long time so that they even stopped taking them to exhibitions.
                  1. +2
                    24 July 2019 20: 51
                    Well, there is a certain tendency that they first of all order the funds themselves, and some additions on a residual basis or not yet ordered. With insufficient funds, this is the only way out. In a pinch, you can do something with means, albeit less effectively, and without them at all. Although of course I would like to. For example KAZ on tanks. As far as I understand, in Israel, they are put on most of the graduates, but they have different conditions, in fact, in wartime. In the US, the modernization program SEP3 is also set, although the program passes the percentage of 10-15 in the near future. But this is an objective necessity, no matter how cool and sooner or later it will be.
                    On the other hand, we still have a sea of ​​directions where, due to lack of funding, the horse did not roll. This is a military transport aircraft. About the fleet do not speak.
                    But when you constantly hear the statements of "Specialists" that the army budget is already too big, no one will attack us and no need to arm, then I am generally surprised that there are funds and for what there is. Again, no one canceled a certain bone of the customer either.
                    That is what you said, I flipping through photos for another person found on Panard Crab. Well, maybe not quite in that form.

                    their truth is also not particularly supplied to the army
                    1. +2
                      25 July 2019 07: 57
                      The American platoon of 120-mm towed mortars, due to their automation equipment, is much more efficient than the Russian mortar battery with "sleigh". And cheaper at the same time.

                      Similar to KAZ on tanks. On the contrary, they save money.
                      1. 0
                        12 October 2019 10: 01
                        fellow the main thing to believe was the case with the shooting of nona in Kosovo)) hit while the current JPS was induced
                    2. 0
                      25 July 2019 20: 16
                      Quote: Red_Baron
                      their truth is also not particularly supplied to the army

                      The French developed the CRAB concept in Scorpio and muddied the Jaguar BRM: the same Sphinx (offered to customers in parallel / in addition to CRAB) + new turret and weapons + advanced electronics. Our military, nevertheless, liked the idea of ​​CRAB (fortunately, it is not so flawed, if you look closely), and for the Airborne Forces they created an assault vehicle based on the Typhoon-Airborne Forces with a RCUM equipped with a 30 mm autocannon, and capable of carrying an entire squad.
                      1. +1
                        25 July 2019 22: 26
                        I did not consider the Crab to be particularly flawed. Excellent BRM, only the combat module in my opinion for such a technique is too powerful.
                    3. 0
                      18 February 2020 10: 28
                      It’s not quite right here. A remote-controlled combat module (DBM) is installed here, an uninhabited weapons platform equipped with a 25-mm automatic cannon and a 7,62-mm coaxial machine gun, with the ammunition placed inside the armored corps and mechanization equipment. And on the upper armor plate there is a guidance and target designation unit (BNITs). It provides target detection, targeting a weapon, and evaluating the results of target shooting.
        3. 0
          25 July 2019 20: 11
          Quote: Alex_59
          I think the choice will be in a different plane. The task is to parachute the airborne battalion in parachute mode for one regimental aircraft departure.

          I apologize, but we, if I am not mistaken, have only one parachute division, and the rest of the divisions and airborne brigades have air assault, i.e. rather airmobile. They have state-of-the-art BMD, BMP-2, and BRDM based on the BTR-80. Yes, and apply them as highly mobile reserve. So the radical attachment to the parachute landing is not quite correct.
          1. +1
            26 July 2019 15: 41
            You are mistaken. In DSH, there are two DSHPs. In the VDD two RAPs. The difference between PDP and DShP is as follows: in DShP - 1 pdb and 2 tshb; in the PDP - 2 pdb and 1 dshb. The organizational difference between pdp and dshb is insignificant. Grade weapons about identical. The main difference in combat training and forms of combat use: pdb is a parachute assault, and dshb - landing for the allied / captured airfield. And do not ask why all this is so peeped - no one knows.
    2. +8
      24 July 2019 09: 07
      What will they ask for, an armored car with a 82-mm mortar or a tracked CAO with a 120-mm gun?

      In the internal troops after the first Chechen refused to use 82 mm mortars. In service are only 120 mm.
      Maybe the army has its own specifics, but it seems to me to make a separate car for 82 mm impractical.
      1. +5
        24 July 2019 10: 43
        Quote: glory1974
        Maybe the army has its own specifics, but it seems to me to make a separate car for 82 mm impractical.

        CSKA CSKA discord. The 120 motorized infantry units, the mountain, marines and paratroopers are armed with 82.

        Quote: glory1974
        after the first Chechen refused to use 82 mm mortars.

        And with the beginning of the second Chechen, they begged them from the Russian Defense Ministry. Getting the ancient BM-37
        As it turned out, put 120 mm on each block for that. to "shine" - too curly. Yes, and it is inconvenient to carry such a word around the mountains.
        1. +2
          24 July 2019 11: 07
          with the beginning of the second Chechen, they begged them from the Russian Defense Ministry. Getting the ancient BM-37

          The ancients, 43, were first, then 120-ki went newer.
          put 120 mm on each block for that. to "shine" - too curly. Yes, and it is inconvenient to carry such a word around the mountains.

          82 mm leave portable, and 120 on the machine, then I agree.
          But 82 mm by car? Not bad idea. In the mountains and on the blocks is expensive and uncomfortable, and the power is not enough.
          1. 0
            24 July 2019 11: 09
            Quote: glory1974
            But 82 mm by car?

            To two BC does not carry.
            Quote: glory1974
            and the power is not enough.

            how to say it. New "long" mine close to the capabilities of 120 approached
          2. +2
            24 July 2019 11: 16
            Quote: glory1974
            But 82 mm by car? Not bad idea. In the mountains and on the blocks is expensive and uncomfortable, and the power is not enough.

            Here I am about the same. Leave 82-mm portable only and give to those parts that climb into such jungles, where 120-mm on an armored car will not fit, and 120-mm on a hump cannot be dragged. Those. these are mountains, forest-swamp, dshbr by helicopters. And make 120-mm like amers on the chassis of an armored personnel carrier in order to drive and shoot on the move, but if he pressed it, he took out the plate, the barrel and took it out of the armored personnel carrier. Leave the "Lotosy" with "Nona" in the Airborne Forces, and the 82-mm battery will not fit into the battalion anyway, because the capacity of the Il-76 regiment is designed strictly for the existing staff of the battalion and there are no extra places for transportation suddenly emerging in the state battery of "drock".
    3. 0
      12 October 2019 09: 58
      2 and logically sho very different
  3. +3
    24 July 2019 08: 04
    Perhaps in the future even be able to completely abandon wearable mortars that do not provide adequate protection for the fighters.

    This will never happen.
    If only because it is far from being possible or advisable to use the technique for all types of operations and situevin. The same "Gall" was developed for a reason.
    1. 0
      25 July 2019 13: 41
      This one is for special forces.
      although, theoretically, for mountain rifle subunits in the conditions of high mountains would also be useful.
      1. 0
        25 July 2019 13: 44
        It is useful EVERYWHERE. Because the wildest is light, 13 kg of weight. All 2 man is enough - one carries a mortar, the other ammunition.
        Not a single "Gorse" will ever replace such a thing. And to have, even if not a very long-range mortar and not to have it, is something that often decides to survive or die.
        1. -2
          25 July 2019 13: 49
          Do not get carried away. ;))
          For motorized infantry where is it needed? They have 30-mm AGSs in their hands, 100-mm BMP guns, 120-mm mortars and a large 152-mm artwork. There is no 82-mm space there.
          In the parachute and assault battalions at BMD, why is it needed? They have BMD, 120-mm guns, 82-mm full mortars.
          Who is left? Those about whom I wrote.
          1. 0
            25 July 2019 13: 51
            Quote: Private-K
            Do not get carried away. ;))
            For motorized infantry where is it needed? They have 30-mm AGSs in their hands, 100-mm BMP guns, 120-mm mortars and a large 152-mm artwork. There is no 82-mm space there.

            Well, I confess, I kept the LDNR militia more in mind. Here they would be simply irreplaceable to them (noiselessness is in general invaluable). Should we look for practical application? And what is not the current practice, as though sluggish, but still a real WAR in the Donbass?
  4. +4
    24 July 2019 08: 17
    An important feature of "Drok", which gives advantages in certain situations, is the possibility of dismantling the trunk. For this armored car carries the base plate and biped.

    With a probability of 100 percent, there is no "possibility of removing the trunk". The barrel of the "Tray" is so cheap that putting it into the car will be much more economical. than trying to play games with a removable barrel.
  5. 0
    24 July 2019 08: 41
    Some craze armored cars.
    1. +3
      24 July 2019 08: 53
      Well, it's natural. To haul mortars and mines To KAMAZ 43501 (replaces GAZ-66) is a painful thing

      And the BTR-MDM "Shell" is too expensive.
      1. +1
        24 July 2019 08: 59
        "Shell" will be cheaper than the armored car K-4386 "Typhoon-VDV"
        1. +2
          24 July 2019 08: 59
          Quote: YOUR
          "Shell" will be cheaper

          More than sure that more.
      2. +1
        24 July 2019 09: 17
        Quote: Spade
        To haul mortars and mines To KAMAZ 43501 (replaces GAZ-66) is a painful thing
        So here it is to carry. And "Drok" is a type of SAO - a weapon in the tower. To pull it out, you need some kind of "circus" with a file and electrical tape to arrange (judging by the description). There was also a "transportable" mortar based on MT-LB. And potential friends do the same, not in the tower.
        1. +1
          24 July 2019 10: 03
          Quote: Alex_59
          So here it is to carry. And "Drok" is a type of SAO - a weapon in the tower.

          Exactly.
          This is the first. greatly reduces vulnerability. And not only thanks to armor. Such a battery can be used in a dispersed battle order, much less vulnerable to the counter battery. In addition, it is possible to carry out counter-maneuver after short fire strikes.
          Secondly, it greatly reduces the time of opening fire on the target, especially from the march. Well, significantly reduces the likelihood of error.

          Quote: Alex_59
          To pull him out

          More than confident that the talk of pulling the barrel out of the tower of fantasy did not understand journalists. it is economically inexpedient, it is easier and cheaper to put a portable mortar in the car entirely.
    2. 0
      25 July 2019 20: 23
      Better an armored car than a truck, vulnerable to everything from mines to machine guns. And in the conditions of modern asymmetric wars (although it is difficult to call a "modern" phenomenon, which has become a regularity since the second half of the twentieth century), unprotected vehicles are deadly for l / s. And the resource of wheeled vehicles is more than good even in comparison with the BTR-82A, not to mention tracked armored combat vehicles. In addition, tracked vehicles, with some superiority in cross-country ability, are absolutely vulnerable to mines: even the BTR-80 give an order of magnitude more chances for the crew and landing force to survive than any light-medium tracked armored vehicle. And with a large-scale release, the price is reduced. So not everything is so simple.
  6. 0
    24 July 2019 09: 07
    Interestingly, it is indicated that the ammunition in the 40 fighting compartment is min, but it is not indicated whether it is a full BC, is it then protected by the BC armor outside the fighting compartment? And if all the same BCs are the same 40 mines, then there is a big difference with a portable Car Tray, I hope that ASUNO and others will be able to compensate for this, although, of course, not for every task.
    1. 0
      25 July 2019 13: 44
      Such a big machine and only 40 vyst.? Few. Very little. Unacceptable. GRAU is not miss: by the standards, 82-mm mortar must go equipped with 120 vyst. To supplement the battery Drokov also truck? It looks irrational. 14-tonnaya machine with a roomy cuzom is obliged to take a full BK in itself.
  7. The comment was deleted.
  8. 0
    24 July 2019 10: 04
    Sounded the right questions in the discussion, and Vasilek? It is thought that Cornflower installed industrially on any base of the landing tracked vehicle would be the very thing. Its use since the days of Afgan and Chechnya has shown its effectiveness.
    1. +1
      24 July 2019 10: 13
      Quote: Strashila
      and cornflower?

      Again. He is very complicated. because expensive and buggy. He, because of his ammunition, is severely limited in capabilities.
      1. 0
        24 July 2019 11: 09
        He is very complicated. because expensive and buggy.

        In Chechnya, the militants did not use them for precisely this reason — difficult. stupidly did not know how to shoot from it.
        1. 0
          24 July 2019 11: 16
          Quote: glory1974
          In Chechnya, the militants did not use them for precisely this reason — difficult. stupidly did not know how to shoot from it.

          It's not about skill. The point is in the delays in shooting. They couldn't do that. And when there are three of them, and even 6 "Trays", and even three freelance 120s ..... you can use "Cornflower".
  9. +3
    24 July 2019 10: 15
    Indeed, strange.

    By itself, a mortar and 40 min is less than 200 kg.

    Why transport a car in 14 tons for its transportation? Why doesn't it contain at least hundreds of 2-3 mines, since the carrying capacity allows?

    How much does the OMS accelerate aiming in comparison with a portable ballistic calculator (at least in the phone) and a gunner person?
  10. +2
    24 July 2019 10: 16
    Quote: Spade
    it is easier and cheaper to put the whole portable mortar into the car.


    And here you strongly underestimate the uproarness of military bureaucrats ..
    1. -1
      24 July 2019 10: 22
      Quote: Sancho_SP
      And here you strongly underestimate the uproarness of military bureaucrats ..

      And here bureaucrats ???
      They do not develop self-propelled mortars
      1. +1
        24 July 2019 10: 33
        Given that then there will be TWO mortars in the car. And on the "spare" one must keep the forms, be responsible for its safety, not to lose it by accident (and this is a tribunal, unlike a plate or legs) ...
        1. 0
          24 July 2019 11: 08
          Quote: Sancho_SP
          With that, then the mortars in the car will be TWO.

          So what?
          Quote: Sancho_SP
          And on the "spare" it is necessary to keep the forms, to be responsible for its safety, not to lose by accident

          There and so a bunch of forms. plus one to ten, not scary.
  11. +1
    24 July 2019 10: 36
    For this price, you can buy pieces of 100 conventional wearable mortars. I wonder what people choose to be responsible for purchases in the army?
    1. +2
      24 July 2019 11: 12
      For this price, you can buy pieces of 100 conventional wearable mortars.

      Or for the same price you can buy 2 thousands of bows with arrows wassat
      This is an accountant guided by price. And we must look at efficiency first of all.
      If in battle the crew of the vehicle remains to live and fulfills the task, and the crew of the portable dies, then the choice should be clear.
      1. +2
        24 July 2019 12: 17
        The controversial thesis, the car is large, noticeable, expensive, and the mortar is only one and only 82 mm. Wearable mortar can be thrown into the back of any vehicle, and if necessary, and handles move. Disguise again easier.
        1. +1
          24 July 2019 13: 26
          Noticeable for what? This is a mortar, I do not think that it will carry out exploration. One mortar is probably a minus, for better rate of fire, 2 is better and, as described above, one was written in the body for being able to be transferred and used separately.
          About the wearable - any vehicle should be, why not one that not only takes but also protects the crew. The possibility of return fire and destruction by shrapnel, and in some situations it may be a light rifle is not excluded. You can disguise anything. For example, in a caponier, a relief or something else suitable.
          The portable must still be brought, collected. This is the time before the discovery of fire. BC will also be extremely limited. Although sometimes manually transfer the only option for all other cases, the installation on the equipment.
  12. +4
    24 July 2019 10: 57
    The car turned out to be complicated and expensive. Plus the range is only 6 km. It will be difficult to mask. It will be difficult to move unnoticed. The decision with a tower on a high hull is controversial. Yakriy is an example of the phrase "The best is the enemy of the good." For a 120 mm mortar, this size and such ammunition is acceptable. For 82 is redundant.
    1. +1
      24 July 2019 12: 33
      And what are the options? so that the mortars would be protected and the device itself, so that it would be possible to quickly take a position, a short time before the opening of fire, and so on. What is cheaper and comparable in size and relatively modern? BRDM2?
      1. +1
        24 July 2019 12: 45
        For 82 mm? And for 40 min? Army buggy with crew in 3 man. And the height 150cm looks more logical. 6 km is almost a direct visibility in an open theater. It will be difficult and dangerous to camouflage and secretly move the crew of Drock. Installation dimensions should be minimal, especially height.
        1. +1
          24 July 2019 13: 03
          Yes, 40 mines are nonsense, for sure it is connected with something purely technically, they can be transported more. What else buggy. There armor zero. Then you can take any cheap civilian car and carry on it. Not sure by the way that with BUGGI it will be possible to open fire and take away a 3 man, a mortar set-up and 40 mines 82mm.
          Why disguise and secretly move. This is a mortar. He just needs to go to a given position, which is pre-explored and indicated, and firing from there according to the data. What is still open theater, you have a desert or what? In European theaters, direct visibility is considered to be about 2,5 km.
          1. 0
            24 July 2019 13: 15
            2,5 is with binoculars. If the enemy even slightly differs from the slippers, then he observes behind the nearest rear areas. To identify such large machines at the deployment stage will not be a problem. Even before the shooting. About BUGGY I exaggerate. But the car should be much more compact. Ideally, GAZ 46 MAV but with armor, perhaps triaxial but low. In the new incarnation. OMS in our time is just a small box, a huge platform is not needed for it. And the LMS is the whole highlight of the gorse
            1. +1
              24 July 2019 13: 20
              I understand what you mean. Perhaps you are right in their own way. Compact agree. But I really do not see the finished car carrier with such a reservation.
              Height, etc. I do not think that plays a big role. The whole point of such an installation is to reach the position, make a certain number of shots and get away from a possible return fire. Do not stand for a long time with the possibility of being noticed. And after the opening of the fire, any car will be discovered if it was standing in the open. So the roles of 20-30 see, which can be won due to the convenience of the crew and spaciousness, do not play. And if used for defense, then surely it will fire from a ready-made caponier or other protective structures.
              Simply, if there is no need to be disguised for a long time, then all the issues with detection are not very significant. Well, naturally within reasonable limits.
              1. +1
                24 July 2019 14: 10
                Ready caponier for Airborne is from the category of fiction. Mobility is more important for them. The fact that the finished car is not agree. But the proposed option does not fit into the concept.
                1. 0
                  24 July 2019 14: 23
                  Why fiction? I threw off the task of the Airborne Forces but not you, now I will copy.

                  "In peacetime - conducting independently peacekeeping operations or participating in multilateral actions to maintain (establish) peace by the decision of the UN, CIS in accordance with the international obligations of the Russian Federation.
                  In the period of danger, reinforcement of the troops covering the state border, participation in ensuring the operational deployment of groups of troops in threatened areas, dropping parachute assault forces into hard-to-reach areas; strengthening the protection and defense of important state facilities; fighting with special forces of the enemy; assistance to other troops and security agencies in the fight against terrorism and in other actions to ensure the national security of the Russian Federation.
                  In the course of hostilities - the landing of airborne assault forces of various composition and purpose and the conduct of hostilities behind enemy lines to capture and hold, disable or destroy important objects, participate in the defeat or blocking of enemy groupings that broke into the operational depth of our troops, as well as in blocking and destroying airborne assault forces. "

                  For many of these tasks, digging up caponiers is the first thing. And so they constantly do.
                  As for the chassis, I really like the Vodnik GAZ-3937, but it is too large and poorly armored. And the Tiger, in my opinion is too small.
                  1. 0
                    24 July 2019 14: 44
                    Thanks for the task. Read with pleasure. Perhaps with kaponirami got excited. Until now, I perceive the Airborne Forces as only landing troops. Tobish operational deployment on the ground with a quick entry into battle. I just do not understand what they are doing with airborne troops lately. Tanks attached, non-floating technology also a lot. And according to the Tigris, with a tower on the roof, he obviously can not. But if you make a lowered platform in the feed, then it should be pulled.
                    1. 0
                      24 July 2019 15: 49
                      Yes, not at all.
                      Quote: garri-lin
                      Until now, I perceive the Airborne Forces as only landing troops. Tobish operational deployment on the ground with a quick entry into battle.

                      Incidentally, I, too. But then I remember that I read more and try to look differently.
                      Quote: garri-lin
                      I just do not understand what they are doing with airborne troops lately. Tanks attached, non-floating technology also a lot.

                      I am not an expert and I can be mistaken, but it seems to me that the airborne forces are oriented primarily as a rapid reaction force. Not necessarily landed in one form or another. As I was told earlier, even BMDs are partially replaced by BMPs. In general, I would certainly like to read a specialist on this issue. In my opinion, the creation of various types of rapid reaction forces would be logical where the airborne forces would occupy their niche.
                      1. +1
                        24 July 2019 16: 08
                        So that's just the point. VDV narrow specialist of a wide profile. Rapid reaction forces are something else nowadays. A modern army should be mobile. Rapid reaction troops must live 24/7 on "suitcases" in which a sheepskin coat, flippers, an alpenstock and arafatka lie side by side. And the Airborne Forces should remain Airborne. not as fast as VBR but much larger and larger.
        2. 0
          24 July 2019 18: 04
          Quote: garri-lin
          Army buggy

          Do not pull a little bit adequate BC
          1. 0
            24 July 2019 19: 10
            But why. Modern western designs have a weight of about 2 tons and a load capacity above a ton. Having at the same time high speed and passability along the river bank. 1000 minus 350 per crew. Minus 100 on LMS. Minus 150 on a mortar with pointing drives. 400 remains on ammunition and fragmentation armor. Modern mine weighs 5kg +, -. 40 min is 200 kg. Remains 200kg on armor. The same parameters as Drock but not in 14 tons and in 3 tons. This is of course on the knee far-fetched but looks more logical than to fence a heavy wardrobe for a fortune and with small possibilities.
            1. 0
              24 July 2019 20: 20
              Quote: garri-lin
              Modern western designs have a weight of about 2 tons and a load capacity above a ton.

              Example.
              1. 0
                24 July 2019 20: 43
                Flyer ALSV. Weight 2 tonnes 1.3 lifting capacity t 4 crew of a person in gear. Diesel with a power reserve under 1000km. They wrote about him in IN a couple of years ago.
                1. +1
                  25 July 2019 08: 00
                  Quote: garri-lin
                  Flyer alsv

                  Put armor on it, put artillery piece and ammo pack, leave enough space for combat work to calculate. ...
                  And you get "Typhoon-VDV" 8)))
                  1. 0
                    25 July 2019 11: 52
                    Typhoon Airborne, its size is good for 120 mm. Doya 82mm it is redundant. Plus a funny rate of fire in 12 min per minute. 14 tone and anti-bullet armor. 40 min ammo packs. Either the whole infa about him is wrong and the real characteristics are higher or something naughty has turned out. Why is there a 4 human crew? Yes, the same BMD1 is 2 times lighter and will not yield to the sew.
                    1. 0
                      25 July 2019 20: 15
                      Quote: garri-lin
                      Typhoon Airborne, its size is good for 120 mm. Doya 82mm it is redundant.

                      Can you give examples of such an installation, its dimensions and so on? Look at analogs, for example CARDOM. What technique it is installed on and how it is used. I can only AMOS give an example for which there is data. But there really is a larger chassis and the installation weighs 4,5 tons by itself. And so look RAK. This is 120mm. Normal for Airborne? About 40 min written in the fighting compartment. Perhaps this is something like the first-order BC. And maybe the whole BC.
                      1. 0
                        25 July 2019 20: 38
                        Well, the first thing that comes to mind is Nona SVK. Same weight. Approximately comparable armor is much more passable. And a decent caliber. OMS in our time is 100 box with electronic filling. This time. Tafun 11 tone Drok 14 tone. Hence the mortar part of the 3 ton is all taken together with the firing set. Put it all on the chassis of the ancient BMD and will not be worse. But after Nona it will look ridiculous. 82mm.
            2. 0
              24 July 2019 20: 21
              I saw a buggy with a mortar, but purely as a carrier. With the installation of the automatic can not imagine. It seems to me such an installation will weigh with non-150 kg drives. and 200kg for armor is nothing. And it has more minuses than pluses much. Although theoretically it is possible.
              And the disadvantages are that no one will mess with it. OMS, surveillance systems will most likely cost more than a chassis. At the same time, there are some difficulties - on 200 + kg you will not be able to book enough space to cover the chassis nodes, crew members, installation, BC. Moreover, by default, the buggy has little internal space, we subtract the amount of installation, automatic loader, BC, at least 3 people in equipment, personal weapons. This all just does not fit. And you also need a defensive installation, so as not to be just a target in some kind of situation. It's impossible. It is nowhere to place and protect, so as not to send equipment to nowhere will be nothing.
              The maximum is just a portable mortar, without some kind of automation, for shooting it will have to be removed, installed and fired. And this is not the same.
              For adequate mobility you will most likely need a more powerful engine, and not a resourceful one, but of sufficient volume. I have never seen such a buggy. because the load will be constantly higher than the maximum. Comfort for the crew will not only be minimal, but so eerie that, apart from firing from the machine, I think they will not be able to immediately after the trip. Not only is the buggy the simplest design ... of everything. Perhaps an adequate exhaust system, another suspension, a larger fuel reserve will be needed, because it will become concrete, and so on. In the end, you still come to a fairly large size, but instead of an excellent base you will have a terrible amateur. In weight, you will surely win, but those who will exploit it will want to find you :)))
              1. +1
                24 July 2019 20: 53
                Well, try to shoot with 14 tonnage armor 82 mm by mines. It’s somehow illogical. How much can you shoot before changing positions? 1 minute? 1,5? Judging by the information, the MSA should implement one curious mode. Shooting in motion with short stops. Ie in fact there will be no fire position. There will be a patrol route. The request came, it stopped, shot a few pieces, shifted to 100-200 meters and a few more pieces to the target. And so at least until the end of ammunition. This is the only thing in the gang really in the subject. To work the old fashioned way, the gorse is heavy and expensive. For 120, mm is acceptable but for 82 is redundant.
                1. 0
                  24 July 2019 21: 05
                  Well, we came higher than the opinion that the platform could be different. :)
                  And about shooting, I see a slightly different use.
                  Waiting for reconnaissance data, then taking a position rather quickly, shooting for 1,5 minutes of the order of 15-20 minutes, destroying what was necessary and withdrawing there. Or shooting in manpower, then the time spent in a position can be longer and shooting with a change in aiming point. That is, the machine is not gleaming anything and nowhere. And performing actions as necessary. No patrols and other things. Any encounter with technology for her can be fatal.
                  Its whole task, dimensions and possibilities for only one thing - to release as many mines as possible on targets - goals in less time. Well, I see it myself.
                  1. 0
                    24 July 2019 21: 17
                    If the enemy is not a slipper and not bargains, the coordinates of the position will be known already by the second mine. Firing range6 km. To cover at least as much as a wide sector, a gorse will have to be located closer than 6 km from the enemy. I think the real distance will be 4,5 km from the enemy. Its elementary ATGM can be obtained if found. And they will find it. At such a distance from the enemy, the BM should be either heavily armored or light, fast and inconspicuous.
                    1. 0
                      24 July 2019 21: 22
                      Quote: garri-lin
                      It is elementary to get an ATURON ...

                      Yep In the forest, for example ... how does a mortar shoot, remind, or remember?
                      1. 0
                        24 July 2019 21: 26
                        And we will only fight in the forest? Or for the steppes create a special kind of troops? Plus, right now there are ATGMs with a gsn tv. Such a calm will get.
                      2. +1
                        24 July 2019 21: 37
                        Um ... Mortar can shoot from a closed position. ATGM - no.

                        Quote: garri-lin
                        Already now there are ATGMs with tv gsn. Such a calm will get

                        Well, yes, yes ... of course laughing
                      3. 0
                        25 July 2019 00: 47
                        The distance from Drok to the enemy is minimal. About 5 km. It will of course be hidden in the folds of the metal by all possible means. But! And the Israeli Spike and even the notorious Javelin can attack targets behind obstacles. The main thing to see them in the IR range. And Spike just do has a version with a TV head and the operator suggests what he wants. Do not just forget about the UAV kamikaze so popular now. With the level of protection, Drac is enough for him.
                      4. 0
                        25 July 2019 03: 29
                        So what's the point of sending a DROC to bomb a target if kamikaze drones graze it from above and firing around it in the IR range. Just to lose the technique? Perhaps it is better to conduct artillery preparation there and attack obviously not a company of the Airborne Forces.
                        I do not understand. You argued with me for several hours, and now with another person for the same reason. That it will be necessary to bomb something with the help of DROCK, and there, as in the film, because of each bush, a grenade launcher and a squadron of Greyndiser in the sky. And when I try to tell you that each vehicle for its task in the first place and no one will send such equipment to the correct death, but mortars can shoot not only direct fire. It does not bother you. You are again repeating your version of the destruction of a wedder, sometimes changing heroes.
                        The meaning of this? YES in the war, I heard even tanks blown up, and a lot. In one film, the Death Star was destroyed.
                      5. +1
                        25 July 2019 11: 45
                        ATGM and compact UAV are the platoon level in our time. Why make a technique that cannot be used for its intended purpose due to enemy opposition at the platoon level? Military equipment should be as effective as possible in the face of opposition. And the most important thing. If the motorized riflemen need cover for pocket artillery, what should the Gorse crew do? Leave the position or make excuses "they are targeting us there"? Why create a technique that can hardly be used for its intended purpose?
                      6. 0
                        25 July 2019 20: 00
                        Quote: garri-lin
                        compact UAV is a platoon level in our time

                        Of course not.
                        Quote: garri-lin
                        If motorized riflemen are covered in pocket artillery, what should the Drock crew do?

                        What other motorized riflemen, you 2 of the day write every day a dozen posts that it is planned for the Airborne Forces. I mentioned them in the past, but again you pretended not to notice.
                        Quote: garri-lin
                        Why create a technique that can hardly be used for its intended purpose?

                        Well, during this dispute, I realized that DROC can perfectly be used for its intended purpose.
                        This dispute is completely useless. And this is no longer a dispute. I do not want to swear, but for you it is already a game. Come up with another fairy tale more and more fantastic justifying your opinion. But surprisingly NEVER in essence, your opinion was not correct. First, they wrote to you a lot of times that this is a mortar and basically it doesn’t fire directly. But you forget it through the post. Then they remind you about the Airborne Forces, that they have their own tasks and with light armament they will not be sent to death, they have their own tasks And you also forget about it through the post. Then this crazy buggy, a structure that you don’t seem to imagine, where three people can barely fit with a weapon, where the amount of space is extremely small, as is the stock of carrying capacity. But you propose there to shove another installation with drives, suo, BC, a loading system, to sheathe it with armor and what would be enough space under it for the work of the calculation. And new, new insane notions. That kamikaze drones circling like a crow, then what sore jump up.
                        You are absolutely not touched by the realism and the frequency of such situations. You are also not touched by the stupidity of many statements.
                        Quote: garri-lin
                        Why make a technique that can not be used for its intended purpose because of the opposition of the enemy at the platoon level?

                        I only wrote in a previous post that a platoon has the means to destroy a tank, so it’s not to release and use tanks? Well, at least a little bit think about what to write. And nothing that mortars are towed or generally portable. When the calculation transfers - they are used and used. Only there is almost no mobility, the installation time before shooting is great, there is no BC, no security, there is no opportunity to leave the position immediately after the shooting, and so on. And nothing is used.
                        And you know what the VDVshniki did not know, but you surely open their eyes to them. To protect their BMD and other equipment. Which can be destroyed at the level of a platoon and which therefore should not be used. Like new to do.
                        I have no words.
                      7. 0
                        25 July 2019 20: 25
                        Well, on points. 1, Look at what level in the modern conflict is used weapons such as ATGM. Stubbornly moving toward ever smaller units.
                        2, there are two answers. What is the difference airborne or motorized infantry. The guys in the business and they need to cover their artillery. But alas, the 14 ton coffin alone can run away. And the second answer. The practice of using the Airborne Forces shows that they, as the elite, are most often thrown at the embrasure. Type you elite vvitsya handle. Without thinking about a seyest they need teznika or not.
                        3, on the level of protection and mobility Typhoon Airborne Forces are under-BMD. But BMD weighs two times lighter and one and a half times smaller in size. Plus can belly falls on the ground. It had to be perverted so that in 14 tons of thrust 82 mm mortar with half the rate of fire. There only current MSA and then if they put the one that was rendered.
                        4, range 6 km. For a mortar, this is not a direct lead, because of shelter or wrinkling. But here the enemy can answer this kind of direct fire.
                      8. 0
                        25 July 2019 22: 39
                        Almost everything you wrote is not true. And so rude that it is again a fantasy.
                      9. 0
                        25 July 2019 22: 46
                        Compare the good old Nona on weight and size characteristics. And compare with Gorse. And the difference for the better is only in 100 kg of electronics. The rest of the cons. Let's wait for the troops to go and see what the exploiters say.
                      10. 0
                        26 July 2019 01: 18
                        Nona is completely different. It is weaker protected, generally not protected from mines, has a much worse review. Worse mobility including strategic. Nona has no means of additional self-defense, especially those working in the dead zone.
                        These are completely different types of technology.
                        And you can hear it much more than wheeled vehicles.
                      11. 0
                        26 July 2019 01: 41
                        Sewn weaker? And what does the Typhoon hold? 7,62 BB in a circle? About mines this is 50 on 50 depending on which mine. Continue to fight can hardly. Worse mobility is almost a gem. About strategic especially. What can Typhoon on muddy ground? 14 tone on 4 wheels. And what is easier to transport 8 tons or 14 tons? Nona is ancient as an arquebus. And she certainly has no buns that have appeared in the last 5 years. But what prevents to deliver? On Typhoon same set. And with all of this there caliber 120. I do not propose to revive antiquity. I ask why a smaller caliber without substantial improvements in parameters requires a huge weight gain in fact weighs two times more than antiquity. 82 mm mortar weighs 50 kg and is capable of injecting 30 35 min per minute. Think about why for such an instrument 14 tons of absurdity.
                      12. 0
                        26 July 2019 13: 13
                        Here again, you wrote a bunch of fairy tales, without even bothering to understand what it was about.
                        Quote: garri-lin
                        And what does the Typhoon hold? 7,62 BB in a circle?

                        At least yes, the typhoon has modifications and is protected against 12,7 and 14,5. Nona is Sau, she has a weak defense.
                        Quote: garri-lin
                        About mines this is 50 on 50 depending on which mine.

                        That's bullshit. You at least read what is mine under the light tracked technology, the old and. And what is the modern construction of the bottom with protection from mines 6-8 kg.
                        Quote: garri-lin
                        Worse mobility is almost a gem. What can Typhoon on muddy ground?

                        No, this is not your understanding of the issue. Is this a competition or something? Who has better permeability? If you think that caterpillars are a panacea for any conditions - then it is not. More yes. As a wheeled vehicle moves and fights, and with the exception of completely impassable conditions much better tracked. Generally open the secret. There is a reconnaissance vehicle. BRDM, do not believe it is also wheel. Intelligence.
                        Quote: garri-lin
                        About strategic especially. And what is easier to transport 8 tons or 14 tons?
                        The joke is that the typhoon can reach it. And almost anywhere. And in Nona, they generally note the weak survivability of the suspension. Behind her all the time to carry a tractor? I think he will be pleased to know that he is lucky that it is easier :)

                        Quote: garri-lin
                        Nona is ancient as an arquebus. And she certainly has no buns that have appeared in the last 5 years. But what prevents to deliver?

                        Have you even seen her in the photo? What prevents? Layout, volume, capacity and so on.
                        Quote: garri-lin
                        And with all of this there caliber 120.

                        yeah, with the BC - 25 min. The rate of fire is 2 times lower than that of DROK. The conditions for the crew in Nona are the same, both transportation and work. You probably have not heard with what "warmth" people about the BMD troop compartment.
                        Quote: garri-lin
                        I do not propose to revive antiquity, I ask why a smaller caliber without significant improvements in parameters

                        This is a pure lie. With significant improvements in parameters. The whole point of the mortar with a sufficiently high rate of fire and automatic control is that it can implement various programs for throwing mines.
                        Quote: garri-lin
                        82 mm mortar weighs 50 kg and is capable of injecting 30 35 min per minute.

                        It's funny. You again "accidentally" forgot what you wrote many times before. And about the fact that from the first mine they will find and the fact that in the sky a kamikaze UAV and so on. And the machine is capable of releasing 700-800 bullets per minute. Why do we need machine guns then. You see how easily you change the readings depending on what is more profitable for you.
                        Here above Lopatov wrote that
                        "The American platoon of 120 mm towed mortars is much more efficient than the Russian mortar battery due to its automation equipment."
                        I repeat, you probably will not read. At the expense of automation. And where will the BC take the 82 mm capable mortar? Will the truck bring? Or a company of soldiers with packs?
                        Quote: garri-lin
                        Think about why for such an instrument 14 tons of absurdity.

                        Well, actually the typhoon weighs 11 tons. The rest is on the equipment and possibly BK. And the more you come up with ridiculous tales and twist the facts, the more I understand the success of the idea, both in the battle version and in the experienced one.
                      13. +1
                        26 July 2019 14: 03
                        One. Smy essential question. What does Drok shoot with? Good old mines as old as the gray hair of their ancestors. With bags. And modern mines. But also with bags. And that says it all. Breech-loading something with a funny rate of fire of 12 minutes !!! Twelve. Despite the fact that with a competent calculation, an ordinary one can release up to 35 minutes. A 30 is a confident average calculation. LMS gives a lot, but why limit the possibilities with an incorrect layout. Now for the armor. Which versions of Typhoon hold 14,5? How much does it weigh and how much does it cost? And what was chosen for the Droc in the series? Along the route. I knew what to write about the BRDM. 4 wheels plus 4 more wheels and 7 tons of weight. And the Typhoon has 4 wheels, a high center of mass and 14 tons of weight. Well, almost identical parameters. And don't talk about engine power. Many can turn the wheels in place. But this does not mean moving. But putting the Drok turret on the BRDM 2 is also not a bad idea. But a compromise. I am not advocating for old platforms. I say that even on them the gorse tool looks more logical. I am in favor of a new platform, but not as terrible and illogical as Typhoon. And just do for 82 mm more logical looks like an armored platform in the stern with a muzzle-loading mortar. Accuracy capabilities are the same, rate of fire is 2,2 times higher. And do not forget about the "bucket of bags" that sparkle. In an open fighting compartment, the damage will be definitely less. Well, plus, with a muzzle loading, the problem of obturation disappears.
                      14. 0
                        26 July 2019 14: 53
                        Quote: garri-lin
                        Externally charged something with a ridiculous rate of fire 12 min !!!

                        And you probably have many examples of automatic installation with a higher rate of fire, well, except AMOS? Nope I thought so. And then with what do you compare a lot or a little?
                        Quote: garri-lin
                        With that, with a literate calculation, the usual up to 35 mines can be released. And 30 is confidently the average calculation.

                        Yeah? And how much will they shoot like that? How fast the barrel overheats? Where ammunition take at least a minute 1? I wrote this in the previous post, but as always you could not read it. About security and mobility of the usual calculation generally keep quiet.
                        Quote: garri-lin
                        OMS gives a lot of things, but why limit the possibilities by improper layout.

                        That you recognized her so, and without any justification, simply because I think so :)
                        Quote: garri-lin
                        What versions of Typhoon are holding 14,5? How much does it weigh and how much does it cost?
                        Probably any that will be needed by the customer. the cost? And what could be more expensive than the lives of the calculation?
                        Quote: garri-lin
                        And what did you choose for Gorse in the series?

                        I hope that with protection against armor-piercing 7,62. That is enough for such a machine.
                        Quote: garri-lin
                        I knew that write about BRDM. 4 wheels plus another 4 wheel and 7 weight tone. And the Typhoon 4 wheels, high center of mass and 14 weight tone. Well, almost identical parameters.

                        Actually, 11 has a weight tone and I wrote about it, but you could not see anything here either :) Only the Typhoon's protection is higher, including mine. And again, better visibility and comfort of the crew. Yes, 7 and 11 are pretty close, especially considering the changes.
                        Quote: garri-lin
                        And do not about the engine power. Many people can turn the wheels on the spot.

                        But unlike you, it somehow justifies. What you, of course, did not read the same. Now I will. "An armored personnel carrier is a combat armored wheeled or tracked off-road vehicle intended for transporting motorized riflemen to the battlefield, conducting combat from the vehicle and providing fire support during and after dismounting." That is, for some reason, when designing such equipment, it was considered an increased cross-country ability, but you do not. Again, you know better, you probably even tested it and compared it with something.
                        Quote: garri-lin
                        but to put Bounce bouncer on the BRDM 2 is also not a bad idea. But a compromise. I do not stand for old platforms. I say that even on them the instrument of the gorse looks more logical.

                        You repeat again for the third time. And this is only in dialogue with me. I saw that you wrote similar and others. And the next time I write - until we see the layout, what the installation is, the fighting places and the work process itself, to say that it is better, worse, more logical or not - this is just no other kind of chatter. I, too, for sufficiency without an overabundance, but not out of my head, but quite reasonable.
                        Quote: garri-lin
                        I am for a new platform but not as terrible and illogical as the Typhoon.

                        And what do you know about her? :)
                        Quote: garri-lin
                        And just do for 82 mm more logical looks like an armored platform in the stern with a muzzle-loading mortar. Accuracy capabilities are the same, rate of fire is 2,2 times higher. And do not forget about the "bucket of bags" that sparkle. In an open fighting compartment, the damage will be definitely less. Well, plus, with a muzzle loading, there is no obturation problem.

                        Sorry, but this is just another nonsense. You have completely forgotten everything. And what DROK is and what it is for and what you argued with me and the other participants, just as unsuccessfully, but still. The whole point of DROK is not to bring a mortar, even an ATV can do it. Which is logical and cheap and convenient. But this is a completely different system, for different tasks and other possibilities. The meaning of DROK is that the system is automatic and can execute pre-calculated firing programs. Moreover, it has a very short opening time and high mobility. What you cannot achieve with "installation in the back" Installation in the back is many times simpler means, there are plenty of them, I gave interesting samples in one of the posts with a photo. But this is completely different.
                      15. 0
                        26 July 2019 15: 44
                        What level of automation is possible for old-style mines with "bags"? Only shooting in automatic mode from early equipment to manual cassettes. And the preparation of shots by hand. For this, 4 crew members are most likely sitting there. Doesn't it remind you? It's just that the recharge mechanism is different and allows you to recharge at any charge. 12 shots for 120mm is acceptable. Milking 82 is not enough. Think about it. I will unsubscribe later on the remaining points.
                      16. 0
                        26 July 2019 16: 30
                        Quote: garri-lin
                        What level of automation is possible for old-style mines with "bags"? Only shooting in automatic mode from early equipment to manual cassettes.

                        Think so.
                        Quote: garri-lin
                        12 shots for 120 mm is acceptable. Doya 82 is small. Think about it.
                        Installation does so much. Considering how much it should be in a safe position - that's enough. I suggested 2 trunk, which would further increase the rate of fire in a short period of time.
                        Quote: garri-lin
                        Nothing not like?

                        cornflower

                        Here I also remind you. about mortar transportable. it is clear that the calculation is not very agile, but more than a minute has passed and there are still no shots.
                      17. 0
                        26 July 2019 20: 41
                        Now on the post with the first video. You said what will be in position. It's enough. That is the question that time is of course. And tasks can be multiple or complex or large. The bigger the min the better. Two barrels are cool. Only the Coalition and AMOS have proved that this is not entirely true. Strange. Т5per through the video itself. The calculation knows the parameters of the target and what needs to be done with the ammunition for firing. Does it all on the go. Comes to the OOP. The car stops, the OMS exposes the barrel to the firing position. The crew quickly throws mines into the barrel, the LMS works out the program. The time of the safe finding ends and the machine is briskly removed from the place by relocating to the spare OP. The commander at this time receives new water and the OMS solves mines with what charges are needed. The crew prepares shots.
                      18. 0
                        26 July 2019 21: 49
                        No no no. Let's not be so simple at all. Nobody will do anything on the go. In addition to electronic computing and data installation.
                        The machine takes up a shooting position. The gun is translated into the firing position, and is his guidance. The crew takes up fighting positions, unpacks ammunition. Shooting begins. Any adjustment means stopping. What programs? Just the simplest thing and it greatly reduces the rate of fire.
                        And the automatic system is much easier. So she and only she can make adjustments on the go if necessary. Bq charged in the cassette. And it is exactly the automatic installation that can fire programs. Because she controls and guidance and the right time of the shot.
                        You offer a simpler, proven, reliable yesterday. I think now this is also needed. He has only two advantages - a simpler device and a higher rate of fire. And cons of the sea. But all that you wrote above against DROC works exactly the same way and against what you have just described, in many ways even more. I'm telling you, you easily change your point of view out of necessity.
                        We are talking about modern weapons. Which can provide much higher opportunities. But they need to use, develop it, to achieve optimal results.
                        Quote: garri-lin
                        Two barrels are cool. Only the Coalition and AMOS have proved that this is not entirely true.

                        Yes, in general, no. The coalition does not remember that I would use two. What about AMOS? Perhaps you have more data on it.
                      19. 0
                        26 July 2019 22: 31
                        About Gorse it was said that the main ammunition is regular mines of conventional mortars. How can you imagine the opportunity to realize the full potential of a variable charge using cassettes with the same charge? Cornflowers come up in a timely manner. Manual equipment of the mine with the necessary number of locks at the command of the SRA beforehand, immediately before shooting, looks logical and more flexible. Unless, of course, engineers have done a miracle and have not created a machine capable of supplying mines with the necessary number of charges in the online mode. Shooting on a single charge is strange.
                        Now on the trunks. The coalition has been deliberately planned with 2 trunks to increase the firing rate. We were able to modify the AZ and the MOH (I don’t remember correctly) to the desired rate of fire with one barrel. C AMOS is another story. If I am not mistaken, all who purchased took the single-barreled version. And her rate of fire does not seem to be half a double-barreled but higher. And the accuracy is higher. Double-barrel only manufacturers use.
                      20. 0
                        26 July 2019 23: 04
                        Quote: garri-lin
                        How can you imagine the opportunity to realize the full potential of a variable charge using cassettes with the same charge?

                        I did not speak about it at all. And about shooting programs. For example, when shells are launched with different times and different trajectories, so that they hit approximately simultaneously.
                        Quote: garri-lin
                        Now on the trunks. The coalition has been deliberately planned with 2 trunks to increase the firing rate. We were able to modify the AZ and the MOH (I don’t remember correctly) to the desired rate of fire with one barrel.

                        So this does not mean that she showed that the second trunk is not needed. Just constructively he was not needed.
                        Quote: garri-lin
                        C AMOS is another story. If I am not mistaken, all who purchased took the single-barreled version. And her rate of fire does not seem to be half a double-barreled but higher. And the accuracy is higher. Double-barrel only manufacturers use.

                        Suppose I do not mind, but I do not see here the justification in the process of operation is not the need for a second trunk.
                        This is all different. I spoke about the second barrel precisely for the rate of fire in a short period of time. 2 barrel and 2 feed cartridges are * 2 rate of fire. Not only that - it is not always necessary. But for covering some area, that is, firing with a certain adjustment of the 2 barrel aiming will be most welcome.
                      21. 0
                        27 July 2019 02: 06
                        1. I do not remember how this mode is called, but nowadays any sample of modern weapons must have it. And with variable charges the number of simultaneously arriving mines becomes larger. Two times. Variable charge allows you to play the trajectory. (SW. Lopatov spoke like that, google on this topic.) Sometimes it is necessary that the mine fall as vertically as she can. Either change the position or change the charge. Vertical fall is necessary in dense buildings, on highly rugged terrain. Plus mines with air blasting and GGE with a vertical trajectory before blasting are most effective in trenches and trenches.
                        According to Kaolitsie. The more complicated the mechanism, the less reliable it is. Plus two barrels is an additional buildup. There are many pros too. For the Coalition, the 2 trunk was considered redundant. Perhaps the system with two trunks was just harder.
                        For two trunks on AMOS, I agree with you in principle. Ina perfective mortars too. It would be interesting to see, but here the practicality question is the most important. At the present level, you can achieve a rate of several minutes per second. Question kpkoy price. And whether it is necessary taking into account the price. (The price is not in money but the whole complex of minuses.) Dulnocharging gives 30 shots.
                      22. 0
                        26 July 2019 17: 20

                        About typhoon protection.
                      23. 0
                        26 July 2019 21: 09
                        About the video you need a whole thread of discussion. I honestly Military acceptance jars. Theater of the absurd in half releases. I wanted to turn it off when the presenter took the SVD with both hands on the forearm and tried to use it as a pointer. But it is not vzhno. Concerning the tests I agree. The machine is tenacious. The engine really hit survivability. The question is whether the engine serviced by the troops can work with the production of 50 percent of the resource. Napalm. What a strange napalm. The one that I did in school during the burning of Kak oil in the heat. I will not argue but any civilian vnNNXX road builder will sustain these sachets in the same way. Well, if it is diesel and specifically the tank will not be set on fire.
                        Shooting at the wheels. I was surprised I thought losing 10 without descending stand. Really unpleasantly surprised. By shelling. I did not see the shooting. I did not see at all. I wanted to PKM with 30 meters tape normal tape BB. But did not see. But they said that it holds unambiguously. By shells. I was surprised how much was from projectile to board? 20 meters at least. I remembered here. Genocide projectile !!!!! The guaranteed defeat by splinters of people in SIBZ (bronik) 30 meters. Further only if the enemy fails to pick up a rare heavy shard. On the opponent without bronikov this distance 50-60 meters. And this is data on genocide and what could be cooler. The velocity of the fragments is not lower than 1100 / s. What's in the video? Odromna distance, incomprehensible projectile. Even a plywood shield has not knocked over by a blast wave. Now for the mines. Mines are divided into army and IEDs army divided into a bunch of subtypes. IEDs are divided into a mineral with resources and fantasy and a bogeyman with a bag of silitra. Testing mine on video I liked. I would also like to monk with 15 meters in the board. To be sure. What do you think about the weight of the charges in the video and about the trotyl equivalent? The weight of the 2-3 kilo is purely due to the fact that the pda holds the bundles.
                      24. 0
                        26 July 2019 19: 59
                        I will answer on the day, as promised. Sori for the delay. I'll start with 14,5 and the lives of the soldiers. On paper, everything is beautiful. But where you saw everything in life was so beautiful. The basic version of a typhoon without BM weighs 11 tons, costs more than the BMP (google, there is an Internet connection on this subject) and at the same time 14,5 does not hold. 7,62 BB holds. How much will it cost and how much will it weigh while holding the 14,5. And how many bureaucrats from MO will buy them? I think to show on TV and everything. You yourself acknowledge that 7,62 is enough for such a machine. Now we recall how much the broniviks weigh in the 7,62 circle. Much less. About patency silent.
                        Now the weight is 7,11,14 tons. I recalled the BM in the complete set. 7 tons. BMD and BRDM if you remove their combat modules from them then the weight will be less. Therefore, with a bare typhoon 11 tons, it is necessary to compare not 7 tons but less, approximately 5,5. Well, if we assume that the modules are 7 tons and 14 tons. Everywhere in half. Moreover, if the hull and BMD and BRDM to produce at the modern technological level, the armor resistance will be comparable with less weight. I can't say anything about mine protection. There are a lot of factors. And the qualification of the mineral as well. Below when discussing the video I will say something more.
                        On the go. Many6 what I saw. But 14 tons on 4 wheels will not drive well. Only along a heavily broken road, and then slowly. On virgin soil will not work. And on the track, where the 3-4 machine has already passed, it’s definitely not going through. Not those wheels. Not at all.
                      25. 0
                        26 July 2019 21: 51
                        Quote: garri-lin
                        On the go. Many6 what I saw. But 14 tons on 4 wheels will not drive well. Only along a heavily broken road, and then slowly.

                        Seriously? Strangely, in the commercials, he drives like that, although there is no serious off-road though. But you, again, know better. laughing
                      26. 0
                        26 July 2019 22: 35
                        On all the roads that are in the rollers, my father will quietly pass on the VAZ 2106. Milking military equipment, these roads should be autobahn and not indicative test.
                      27. 0
                        26 July 2019 22: 55
                        There are videos where the snow, virgin snow. And in one video there is a small amount of time where the dirt kneads, though another typhoon.
                      28. 0
                        27 July 2019 01: 40
                        Pro Typhoon Vdv watched a few videos. Not one did not see impassable dirt and too terrible snow.
                      29. 0
                        26 July 2019 20: 19
                        I continue. What is Typhoon is already quite well shown. МрАП armored vehicle for 6 people. The interior is also known. What inside of it is Gracier is not yet clear but you can imagine. Not a lot of options. Drove, on the right is the commander with the guidance equipment. Tower with seovodrivodami. And in the turmoil space. Two poor fellows. If one gunner is a step back. If both are preparing shots then they are more fun together. I think two people are preparing shots, one of them is purely govit, the other is charging the cassette, well, and a machine gun on them. And from the ground together work handier if that. Cassettes can either be maternal or rechargeable non-drum drums. Trouble the same way. And here we go to the next part. If two people work with charges and each charge must pass through the hands, then there is some sense in charge. A highly productive MSA is fully automated. But she also induces a muzzle-loading barrel. In this case, the cut of the trunk will be more than a meter lower to the ground. The center of mass will be lower. The buildup below. The size of the car below. Machine weight below. About obturation silent. You wrote above about the overheating of the trunk. So if the shooting will be fought for a minute it does not matter. Tolko with muzzle-loading to the target will go not 12 and 30 min. Almost all ammunition.
                      30. 0
                        26 July 2019 21: 55
                        Quote: garri-lin
                        Drove, on the right is the commander with the guidance equipment.

                        Cool. That is, you did not even look at the available materials and are already drawing conclusions? This has already been seen more than once. In an ordinary Typhoonian, not DROCK, the operator of the combat module sits behind the driver in the landing party.
                      31. 0
                        26 July 2019 22: 45
                        In the usual Typhoon BM is uninhabited. And according to the logic of things to the right of the driver will sit senior in the car. Commander. Only there are windows for situational awareness. And the operator BM is just a shooter in the typhoon and two with unknown functions in the gorse. That's the whole deal. Well at least the mind was enough machine gun self-defense with turrets to remove and make a separate module. I hope the control is derived at several points.
                    2. 0
                      24 July 2019 21: 36
                      Quote: garri-lin
                      If the enemy is not a slipper and not bargains, the coordinates of the position will be known already by the second mine.

                      Well, about what response time kontrtilleriyskoy shooting? Drock will not have a minute or two? It will be. Why block a wide sector? If he stands in the defense of something, he will stand in a caponier or other shelter and will not go anywhere. And if with his help someone is attacking, then he only needs to drive up to the position at the right moment and open fire.
                      Moreover, this system is designed for the Airborne Forces, I do not think that with their help they will break through some sort of serious defense, where an artillery battery and a Zoo-type machine stand against them. But even so.
                      Quote: garri-lin
                      Its elementary ATGM can be obtained if found.

                      at a distance of 4,5 kilometers? Well, once again I say - it will most likely not be a direct fire to shoot, it will be extremely difficult to visually detect it.
                      Quote: garri-lin
                      At such a distance from the enemy, the BM should be either heavily armored or light, fast and inconspicuous.

                      Well, the armor from the latest generation ATGM is generally difficult. Rather, you must have KAZ. But easy fast and unobtrusive - what difference does it make. Even if it is not easy and not very fast will leave the position, then it will not be there for anyone. And Chassie under the gorse is not very slow. But what about stealth, then if you shoot is not direct direct visual sight and there will be no visibility.
                      1. 0
                        24 July 2019 22: 12
                        What is easier to mask on the ground BTR or BRDM? And provided that the enemy in the infantry there is a radar and thermal imagers and UAVs are compact for monitoring the enemy. There is a simple rule: the smaller the machine, the more difficult it is for the enemy to aim at it while leaving a position, or to find it before firing.
                      2. 0
                        24 July 2019 22: 13
                        By the way at this distance the Zoo is not needed.
              2. +1
                25 July 2019 08: 06
                Quote: Red_Baron
                I saw a buggy with a mortar

                In Singaporeans.

                And the Americans have a project. But they did not join the troops. There are two cars for the mortar. For transportation and vbyjv`nf b <R
    2. 0
      16 March 2021 23: 23
      Columns on the march to accompany the very thing, the BRDM-2 or even the BTR-82A have weak weapons against the enemy who has taken refuge. Even a dozen nalivnya or dry cargo ships are worth something, two such vehicles are accompanied by them and consider protection provided, and if not protection, then retaliation with 82-mm mines is surely certain.
      1. 0
        17 March 2021 00: 49
        Know comments. These vehicles with 82 mm mortars will be the first casualties in the attack.
        1. 0
          17 March 2021 08: 40
          An armored, well-armed escort vehicle will suddenly become the first victim. So any technique can be declared defenseless and unnecessary.
          1. 0
            17 March 2021 18: 20
            Armored? This is what the Typhoon of the Airborne Forces is armored from? From 7,62 × 54? From armor-piercing? What is the Typhoon armored against?
            1. 0
              18 March 2021 10: 43
              Not worse than an armored personnel carrier, that's for sure, checked, don't even hesitate.
              1. 0
                18 March 2021 18: 10
                Well, it’s a little better. But it is far from normal technology. DShK will make an ancient sieve. And because of the high firepower, it will be a priority target.
                1. 0
                  18 March 2021 19: 18
                  For escorting and artillery attacks on unprotected targets just right. Heavy machinery has different tasks and different appetites. And if there are also mines with controlled detonation, or at least bouncing mines, then the enemy will be completely unhappy, this is not 30 or even 57 mm, it will immediately cover a large area.
                2. 0
                  18 March 2021 19: 38
                  With DShK, ambushes against convoys are not satisfactory, with it you will not go far, too large and heavy. DShK for fire from prepared positions and commanding heights. Ambushes are carried out with grenade launchers and light small arms.
                  1. 0
                    18 March 2021 20: 05
                    12,7 does not participate in the shelling of the columns? The topic can be closed. Used more than once and since we started talking about grenade launchers, who will be the priority target for a grenade launcher for 2 shots? The most dangerous technique for him.
                    1. 0
                      April 1 2021 12: 32
                      Be so kind as to describe the process of delivering the DShK machine gun to the ambush site and especially how you are going to leave the position upon completion, how quickly and with what forces it will be done.
                      1. 0
                        April 1 2021 19: 58
                        The four of us coped quite well with this task. Tea is not KPVT. I think simply moving over rough terrain is not much different from moving when setting up an ambush. 1 body. 1 bed, two, two boxes with tapes. Standard weapon with you. There is no problem to run a kilometer to Toyota. What don't you like? Have you ever had such an occupation in the army? Or did they not take you into the army? It's a pity.
                      2. 0
                        April 1 2021 22: 21
                        You won't run anywhere with such a weight. These are just amateurish fantasies. If it is still possible to secretly deliver to the place, then the enemy will not allow to leave with such a load. And the beasts of burden will not survive the return fire, and even unmask it.
                        Running one kilometer with the body of a machine gun weighing 35 kg and a bed of 90 kg is a great idea.
                        And where did you move the four of you DShK? Unless, of course, you have to be 70 years old?
                      3. 0
                        April 1 2021 22: 59
                        Amateur and rushing. In the phrase "Even the ancient DShK will make holes" implied that more modern designs could do it better. NSV KORD. DShK on a wheeled machine is quite possible to pull jogging. I don’t know how many. I didn’t pull. NSV wore. 45 kg on the machine. It is disassembled into two almost identical parts. The soldier calmly carries two boxes of 50 pieces. KORD 25 kg and just do it with bipods can shoot. Without a machine. Join the army. You will be taught there to complete the task.
                      4. 0
                        April 2 2021 08: 36
                        Someone, not owning the subject, promised to drag the DShK into the ambush.
                        In the army, it would never occur to anyone to drag the DShK with them into an ambush, this is just a fantasy. And even more so to pull then by running on a wheeled machine, avoiding possible pursuit.
                      5. The comment was deleted.
                      6. The comment was deleted.
                      7. 0
                        April 2 2021 13: 11
                        It's chaos in your head. A group of suicide bombers with AK 47 will attack the convoy covered by artillery and aircraft. I say it again. Join the army. If the doctor won't let him in, give it to him. Allow.
                      8. -1
                        April 2 2021 13: 26
                        Familiarize yourself with the methods of wiring columns, at least those that were used in Afghanistan. These are posts no more than 15 km away and temporary posts in between, and yes, horror for you, this is artillery at the same posts, and even tanks. And the columns are attacked from brilliant green precisely with AK-47, PK and with grenade launchers, exactly what groups of suicide bombers. An easily carried weapon is used, allowing you to quickly leave the ambush site.
                        Barrage mining and DKSh, which you dream of, are used in equipped positions, more often in the mountains, where these machine guns are also used as anti-aircraft guns.
                        And leave obsessive thoughts about my service, they will not bring you to good.
                      9. 0
                        April 2 2021 15: 03
                        Watch a video of ambushes in Syria. Watch a video filmed while organizing ambushes in the Caucasus. It all depends on the goal. Distract. Stop. Destroy. Scare. In any case, with the correct organization of an ambush focused on inflicting maximum damage, the first and last vehicles are hit by the first shots to block the convoy. And then the most dangerous targets for the ambush participants are hit. And the Typhoon will be for priority purposes if the defense of the colony is tied to it. The means of destruction by the attackers will be selected based on the parameters of the target. Nobody will go against tanks with Kalashi. In the same way, ATGMs or heavy Vampire-type grenade launchers will not be fired at cars. 12,7 was used repeatedly in ambushes. For a simple reason. Anything that is not a tank can not resist him. And the range allows you to hit targets while outside the shooting zone of the shooter. I say it again. Bribe the doctor. Let him write "good." Go to the Army.
                      10. 0
                        April 2 2021 15: 12
                        I am not even going to comment on the incoherent stream of thoughts and fantasies about organizing ambushes on your behalf.
                        Leave alone your thoughts about my service in the army, they will not lead you to any good. By the way, this is another confirmation of the unbridledness of your fantasies, you fantasize from scratch simply by making arbitrary assumptions.
                      11. -1
                        April 2 2021 15: 47
                        Your empty ravings reveal a narrow-minded person in you. Some of your phrases sound ugly. But I don't take them seriously. As well as you in general. If I weren't bored, I would have stopped responding to your crazy posts long ago. But at least some kind of entertainment. Amateurishness amuses.
  13. +1
    24 July 2019 11: 08
    Quote: Spade
    Yes, and in the mountains such a drag ches a word, uncomfortable

    such a field and carry a little awkward laughing
  14. +2
    24 July 2019 12: 11
    It seems to me that an automatic self-propelled mortar is ripe, capable of firing on the move and with minimal operator involvement. Directly on the march, receive a task and process the indicated places (with a spotted enemy and simply suspicious, convenient for an ambush), circle "around the area", and work on instructions (from a satellite, UAV, reconnaissance - no matter, everything is online). "Jump" to the front line, release a dozen mines "on a bend", and leave the "response" zone.
    1. 0
      24 July 2019 13: 05
      Overdue of course a long time. But shooting on the move is not sure, and circling the area too. Go to the position, release a certain number of mines and leave.
    2. 0
      24 July 2019 18: 07
      Quote: VicktorVR
      It seems to me that an automatic self-propelled mortar, capable of firing on the move and with minimal operator participation, has matured.

      Not "on the go", so normal accuracy cannot be achieved. And from short stops. If on "Drok" is the ASUNO that was promised, then you are just watching such a self-propelled mortar.
      1. 0
        26 July 2019 13: 49
        I see no obstacles: a stabilized platform + tracking of the actual position in case stabilization fails - a shot at the moment the guidance data coincides with the actual position (within tolerance)
  15. +1
    24 July 2019 12: 20
    Quote: Red_Baron
    What if from the corner of the tank and right there in the lobovuha palnut.

    then the amount of armor makes no difference
    it seems to me that everything is obvious with this machine - it is designed only to withstand the fire of light hand-held weapons and this MUST be missed.
    but I have another question - how is the orientation of the machine related to the tasks of the Airborne Forces?
    Here I personally do not see the connection.
    1. 0
      24 July 2019 13: 15
      Sorry, I had the irony about the words 20mm in lobovuha.
      Of course withstand light rifle. That is something that can really be unexpectedly used.
      I think you Airborne tasks a little not quite imagine. Now the Airborne Forces are primarily not paratroopers at all. I will say a little not quite correctly, but I hope you will understand me. Self-propelled installation makes, roughly speaking, the defensive qualities of a mortar in the offensive. Due to the high mobility and a small time before the opening of fire. I understand that ordinary mortars can also be used for attack and where it is even necessary. But mobility is extremely limited. Except for hard-to-reach places where the machine cannot pass. In general, ideally, the submission of mines should be automatic and the installation should be double, for greater density of fire for a minimum period. In my opinion.

      "In peacetime - conducting independently peacekeeping operations or participating in multilateral actions to maintain (establish) peace by the decision of the UN, CIS in accordance with the international obligations of the Russian Federation.
      In the period of danger, reinforcement of the troops covering the state border, participation in ensuring the operational deployment of groups of troops in threatened areas, dropping parachute assault forces into hard-to-reach areas; strengthening the protection and defense of important state facilities; fighting with special forces of the enemy; assistance to other troops and security agencies in the fight against terrorism and in other actions to ensure the national security of the Russian Federation.
      In the course of hostilities - the landing of airborne assault forces of various composition and purpose and the conduct of hostilities behind enemy lines to capture and hold, disable or destroy important objects, participate in the defeat or blocking of enemy groupings that broke into the operational depth of our troops, as well as in blocking and destroying airborne assault forces. "
      1. +1
        24 July 2019 13: 54
        Quote: Red_Baron
        . In general, ideally, the submission of mines should be automatic and the installation should be double, for greater density of fire for a minimum period. In my opinion.

        Do you mean Pepelats as the Swedish-Finnish AMOS?
        I also thought about it - how justified is the use of such a machine, whose rate of fire is several times lower, and the caliber is thinner
        1. 0
          24 July 2019 14: 16
          Quote: yehat
          Do you mean Pepelats as the Swedish-Finnish AMOS?
          I also thought about it - how justified is the use of such a machine, whose rate of fire is several times lower, and the caliber is thinner

          I read about AMOS, but this is too complicated a device. Just some feed on the 4-5 min. for each trunk. Which can be quickly recharged in the cabin and which does not respond to rocking while moving even fairly fast.
          I think not justified. But large equipment, for example, based on the Boomerang, would be quite necessary.
          1. 0
            24 July 2019 14: 40
            there are already solutions similar in size like Cand Cat
            but so far no one has made it so simple and convenient that, like a machine gun on any jeep, gets up just embedded from above.
            I personally think that the construction from the article is all bad, badly made
            need to do more perfect.
            And the ability to remove the mortar is a very dubious pleasure.
            1. 0
              24 July 2019 15: 57
              I agree in many ways.
              Simple as a module with a machine gun, probably it is not possible. This is a lot or grenade launchers or small calibers. With the removal of the mortar, I hope that this is only as an emergency decision when it is intact and that the equipment must be abandoned.
              But I am for the production of various designs in small batches, so that during operation there would be pluses and minuses, and then on the basis of this good constructions were created. From the first time creating a new technique is almost impossible to take everything into account. But not trying not to reach the goal.
          2. 0
            24 July 2019 18: 09
            Quote: Red_Baron
            Just some feed on the 4-5 min. for each trunk.

            Fact: the world's fastest 120-mm mortar has manual loading


            ShM vz.85 PRAM-S
            18-20 shots per minute
            1. 0
              24 July 2019 18: 48
              The rate of fire is gorgeous, but if it is not enough for a combat compartment, how long the loaders will be able to maintain it. for this, and I would like to see how it is implemented on DROC and how convenient it is to charge it. The article write 12 shots per minute. Also a pretty good rate of fire.
              1. 0
                24 July 2019 20: 28
                Quote: Red_Baron
                how long will the loaders be able to maintain

                Irrelevant. The barrel overheats before the charging gets tired. Especially since he just shifts mines of fur. ammunition in the loading mechanism, removing excess beams.
                1. 0
                  24 July 2019 20: 55
                  Understood, I thought completely manual.
                  17-20 kilo is not so little.
                  1. 0
                    25 July 2019 08: 14
                    Completely manual for the following on the rate of fire. Dulnozaryadny.
      2. 0
        17 March 2021 08: 58
        It is unlikely that such a mortar will automatically load. Different firing ranges are provided with powder charges of different power. Otherwise, we come to a grenade launcher or a low ballistics cannon, like 57 mm, which they want to put on the new Epoch module, but there is already a different lower ammunition power. Implementing the automatic supply of mines and the separate supply of charges to them is a difficult task for such machines based on the Typhoon. Almost a new type of ammunition will have to be developed, the degree of unification will drop sharply, something like a return to the 73 mm cannon from the BMP-1 will happen.
    2. 0
      16 March 2021 22: 51
      But it is an ideal vehicle for escorting and escorting. A fairly powerful mortar for almost direct fire and a machine gun in addition, plus everything under armor and immediate readiness to open fire. And in the mountains will not fail against ambushes.
  16. 0
    24 July 2019 13: 27
    Quote: VicktorVR
    It seems to me that an automatic self-propelled mortar is ripe, capable of firing on the move and with minimal operator involvement. Directly on the march, receive a task and process the indicated places (with a spotted enemy and simply suspicious, convenient for an ambush), circle "around the area", and work on instructions (from a satellite, UAV, reconnaissance - no matter, everything is online). "Jump" to the front line, release a dozen mines "on a bend", and leave the "response" zone.

    The Chinese are already gash
    https://topwar.ru/144829-samohodnyy-minomet-norinco-sm-4-kitay.html
    1. 0
      24 July 2019 13: 56
      no, that's different. I mean automatic aiming barrage fire on fast-moving input, for example, from a UAV.
      AMOS is only suitable for such a scheme, but so far only static single targets.
      I wonder if they will improve the guidance system when installed on boats.
  17. 0
    24 July 2019 16: 11
    Quote: Red_Baron
    I agree in many ways.
    Simple as a module with a machine gun, probably it is not possible. This is a lot or grenade launchers or small calibers.

    you can make a glass like bmp-2, just a bit more compact -
    it can be inserted into the jeep
    1. 0
      24 July 2019 17: 16
      I would very much like to see how this is implemented in DROK. How combined mobility and comfort. Battle places and transport.
      Here there is MZ-304 "Highlander" it is just based on the Tiger, but I really do not like it. As far as I understand, loading is muzzle-loading and each time it is necessary to transfer it to the position for charging.
      http://btvt.info/2futureprojects/tigr_minomet.htm

      In addition, it is very far from taking a position and shot out at a fast pace. In this vein, I like the mortar on Vizl much more.



      Sand Cat is also a variant of transportation of a mortar in the back, and it is also not capable of attacking immediately after taking a position. In general, as I have looked, there are not so many such constructions, such as DROC.
      1. 0
        24 July 2019 17: 32
        or maybe there is a secret hatch with a fritz-loader? laughing
        1. 0
          24 July 2019 18: 22
          It’s probably not so difficult in a stationary installation to make a horizontal drum near the breech and throw mines into it
          1. 0
            24 July 2019 20: 28
            The problem of variable charge will not allow this.
            1. 0
              25 July 2019 07: 20
              Well, you explained above: a soldier stands next to such a drum for 5-6 "nests" and transfers mines from one "basket to another" (from top to bottom), removing extra bunches of gunpowder from them,
        2. 0
          24 July 2019 18: 58
          I would fall if I saw this :)
          1. 0
            24 July 2019 19: 27
            well, the upper part of the barrel connects with the breech in some arc around the drum in one place, and through the center of the drum in the other, it is in the first approximation. In the second, all three parts are completely separated, but at the moment of the shot (hydraulics?), The upper or lower parts, together with the drum, are pressed against the fixed
            1. 0
              24 July 2019 19: 53
              Not complicated scheme is obtained for a small, relatively car? + should be able to download manually.
              1. 0
                24 July 2019 20: 27
                manual charging with preload condition - as many as you want and, even most likely. More difficult with recoil - here, apart from the muzzle brake and the standard suspension, there are no simple solutions.
  18. +4
    24 July 2019 23: 04
    Our industry has a new fashion. Hang up the old, weak weapon on the new, monstrous and expensive chassis and immediately declare it as a breakthrough ..

    The old, tracked "Nona-S" weighs 8 tons and carries a 120 mm mortar in the turret (and the same 40 mines of ammunition). A slightly newer "Nona-SVK" on a four-axle chassis weighs 14.5 tons. Besides, it floats. And what, against their background, is the advantage of the 14-ton, but two-axle, Drok with its weak 82 mm mortar? It's just some kind of nonsense ..

    The only plus 82 mortar in mobility. The weight in 14 tons absolutely nothing to him. Want to increase the mobility of the calculation - give them a quad with a trailer and do not fool people’s head. Do you want to increase firepower - for a long time there is Nona. Gorse is some sort of wiring for money.
    1. 0
      25 July 2019 08: 19
      Quote: Saxahorse
      Hang up old, weak weapon

      Is not a fact. But what about the new "long" mine?

      Quote: Saxahorse
      The only plus 82 mortar in mobility.

      And a huge minus - microscopic wearable ammunition.

      Quote: Saxahorse
      Want to increase the mobility of the calculation - give them a quad with a trailer and do not fool people’s head.

      Cheap. But neither the defense of the calculation, nor the availability of ASUNO is clearly not observed.
      What makes such a complex much less effective.
      1. +1
        26 July 2019 00: 04
        Quote: Spade
        Cheap. But neither the defense of the calculation, nor the availability of ASUNO is clearly not observed.
        What makes such a complex much less effective.

        Did the reduction in caliber from 120 mm to 82 mm really improve the efficiency of such a machine? If you take the chassis in 14 tons of no reason to sacrifice caliber - no. And for the caliber 82 mm, the weight in tons 14 is not justified.

        By the way, a hundred times I saw, in the commercials from Syria, the usual Aypad partly playing the role of the very same ASTRON. Directly applied to the pipe and suggest.
        1. 0
          26 July 2019 01: 25
          Quote: Saxahorse
          Did the reduction in caliber from 120 mm to 82 mm really improve the efficiency of such a machine? If you take the chassis in 14 tons of no reason to sacrifice caliber - no. And for the caliber 82 mm, the weight in tons 14 is not justified.

          Oh, of course. The chassis in the 14 tons is about the level of the BTR about even slightly less. Only with much better protection including mine protection, visibility, comfort and equipment.
          The options, as far as I can see, are only two.
          1 - open or open body or installation with an emphasis on the surface.
          2 - automatic system in the tower. Type here DROK or AMOS. AMOS is just 120 mm. look at its dimensions and what it is like. And the mass of its times in 2 more.
          Every time I wonder how this is so - the developers, the management, the government, constantly and constantly do not understand anything, how you read the comments, so you are amazed. How much talent is lost. I can that the whole enterprises cannot. :)
          1. +2
            26 July 2019 21: 38
            Quote: Red_Baron
            The chassis in the 14 tons is about the level of the BTR about even slightly less. Only with much better protection including mine protection, visibility, comfort and equipment.

            You forgot to add: As well as a lot more price and much worse mobility, maneuverability and firepower.

            No need to pretend that all these enterprises and developers are asleep and see how to make the country stronger for free. Not at the time we live. We were offered a banal, miserable, overweight armored car with obviously worse weapons than its predecessors.
    2. 0
      26 July 2019 11: 09
      Quote: Saxahorse
      the same xnumx min ammo

      25 mins carried by the BC at the "Nona"
      1. 0
        26 July 2019 21: 31
        Quote: Bad
        25 mins carried by the BC at the "Nona"

        Ammunition: 25 for 2S9; 40 on 2S9-1 and 2S9-1M.
        But when landing all have no more 25 min.
        1. 0
          29 July 2019 12: 12
          Perhaps the old has become, lagging behind life.
    3. 0
      12 October 2019 10: 04
      laughing they live in a subject and go on a gloom and a quadric is a ride between the barracks
    4. -1
      16 March 2021 23: 05
      This is just the perfect vehicle for escorting, escorting and protecting on the march in columns. Shooting with almost direct fire with sufficiently powerful ammunition, and even a separate machine gun in addition, and this is under the protection of armor. BTR, BMD-1,2 and BMP-1,2 with their weak cannons against the background of such a mortar look pale for counterinsurgency.
  19. 0
    1 August 2019 12: 15
    This device sucks !! And he is not needed for nothing. Equipment for airborne troops should be: parachuted, floating. Everything else is from the evil one! This wagon will get stuck in the first swamp / mud, and a small rivulet (depth in the channel 2 - 3 meters) will become an insurmountable obstacle because the airborne forces have a lot of landing pontoons)))). This Drock is suitable only to the ground forces, and then the question arises. Such a big cart, and the 82nd caliber is carrying ... and what for? Set already 120, then it is possible to offer parts on wheels.
    1. 0
      22 March 2021 13: 57
      It is the concept of a 120 mm mortar on a wheeled and even more tracked platform that raises questions. This is already a niche for multiple launch rocket systems and howitzer artillery, it is not entirely clear why a 120 mm mortar is better.
  20. -1
    16 March 2021 22: 39
    A great machine, and a separate machine gun and the ability to fire almost direct fire from the tower. It was such a machine that was missing when escorting convoys in Afghanistan. Neither the ZU-23-2 in the back, nor the towed mortars would be needed. Immediate powerful return fire, in the mountains, in the plains, and the calculation is under protection. Even better than the APC looks for escort. Still, the module of optical-electronic reconnaissance, grenade launchers to detect, and the price will not be such a machine.
    1. -1
      16 March 2021 23: 03
      Somehow this system passed me by. Car fire, ideal for light infantry.
      1. 0
        16 March 2021 23: 09
        And not only, to attach to the car battalions, better protection on the march in columns you can not imagine, especially in the mountains and on rough terrain.
        1. -1
          16 March 2021 23: 16
          I'm talking about them. Azerbaijan effectively used Israeli wheeled mortars. Here is a slightly different, much more universal system. It will come in handy everywhere.