Military Review

Will there be tanks on wheels in the Russian army?

80
The Ministry of Defense of Russia intends to increase the maneuverability of the delivery of military equipment on wheels to the medium brigades of the Russian army. This is the prospect of replacing a tracked platform with tanksand other types of weapons were discussed the day before at a meeting of the special commission under the Russian government, headed by Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin. This intention became known from a source in the defense industry complex. Despite the fact that work on the production of the Kurganets tracked platform is not being phased out, the issue of its use in the troops remains open, the Izvestia newspaper reports.

It was the head of the General Staff Nikolai Maiorov who proposed the production of military equipment for medium-sized army brigades on wheels. The military department has also previously announced that it plans to form an 3 type of ground brigade in the near future: heavy brigades, medium and light. In accordance with the concept announced by Makarov at a meeting of a special commission, the installation of weapons intended for heavy brigades will be carried out on the Armata tracked platform. So far there is no data on whether other types of weapons will be installed on this platform, except for self-propelled artillery installations and tanks.

Will there be tanks on wheels in the Russian army?


It was proposed to equip middle brigades with Makarov to equip military vehicles on wheels. As the main option, the Mustang chassis (manufactured by KamAZ) is being considered, but there are plans to create a Boomerang wheeled platform and several new chassis based on the Bryansk Automobile Plant. The military department plans to put artillery pieces, tanks, air defense systems, electronic warfare, grenade launchers and flamethrowers onto the wheels. As a platform, the KamAZ plant proposes a new six-axle typhoon.

KAMAZ "Typhoon"


As General Makarov said, anti-tank and small arms are planned for light brigades, which will be installed on the Boomerang, Lynx and Tiger platforms. A source in the military-industrial complex noted that the weapons systems themselves in all 3 types of brigades will be almost the same, the equipment will be distinguished only by the level of reservation.

STS "Tiger" GAZ-233014 at the parade in Moscow, May 9 2009-2010. (http://militaryrussia.ru/forum)


The main argument in favor of equipping medium brigades with wheeled vehicles is its high speed, which is 3 times the speed of weapons on a tracked platform. However, according to tank expert Viktor Murakhovsky, vehicles on a wheeled platform will be very vulnerable to enemy fire. After all, tank armor, impressive in its mass, which opposes shells, cannot be put on a wheeled platform.

Recall that some time ago there were reports that it was planned to work out an armored car on wheels for our army together with the French defenders. This was stated at the end of last month by Igor Sevastyanov, deputy general director of Rosoboronexport, during an international forum in Zhukovsky near Moscow. According to Sevastyanov, the French side came up with a proposal for the design of a new Russian-French armored personnel carrier. The base for such weapons has not yet been chosen.

The BTR-90 with the Berezhok armament complex heads a convoy of military equipment at an improvised parade in the city of Arzamas, 9 May 2008 of the year


French defense at the exhibition "Oboronexpo-2012", which was held in the framework of the international forum in Zhukovsky, while the model of an armored car VBCI, in which provide a body made of aluminum alloy and modular armor, provided ballistic protection. Military experts expressed doubts about the fact that during the tests the French car could outperform the Russian-made BTR-90. However, the domestic sample was rejected. As indicated by the military, the reason for this decision is the location of the engine compartment in the rear of the car, which is contrary to the world practice of designing armored cars.
Author:
80 comments
Ad

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

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. itr
    itr 5 July 2012 09: 25
    +1
    Something I doubt that the caterpillar tank has less maneuverability than the wheeled one and the speed?
    Explain to gentlemen why you need a wheeled tank? still can not understand
    1. radikdan79
      radikdan79 5 July 2012 09: 45
      +8
      itr,
      Well, I won’t argue about maneuverability, but the speed of a wheeled chassis is a priori higher than that of a crawler. further - the resource of a wheeled mover is an order of magnitude higher than that of a caterpillar; indicators such as reliability, maintainability and cost also do not speak in favor of the caterpillar engine.
      I just assume that if you create a wheeled vehicle equal in protection to a tracked vehicle (and weighing about 50 tons), then almost all the advantages of a wheeled propulsion system will come to naught. as a result, we get a fire support vehicle like "Centaur" or "Vextra-105"

      1. itr
        itr 5 July 2012 09: 59
        0
        So about this and the conversation what kind of wheeled vehicle is 50 tons? With such a mass of maneuverability and speed, patency is zero
        1. Vyalik
          Vyalik 5 July 2012 14: 03
          +3
          Maybe the speed of wheeled vehicles is higher than caterpillar tracks on good roads, but I doubt very much about the patency on our roads and off-road.
          1. 11 black
            11 black 5 July 2012 17: 01
            +8
            wheeled tanks will never replace tracked ones, and they are not going to change them.
            But the wheeled tank perfectly complements the tracked one - it has much higher speed, much more mileage on the 1 tank - as a result, it can be quickly transferred to any point and it will not ruin the roads.
            his task in attacking the country as soon as possible to take up defense at the breakthrough site, and to keep the enemy tanks until the MBT approach - here it is indispensable.
    2. cth; fyn
      cth; fyn 5 July 2012 19: 31
      +4
      It's all about the fingers. during the march, the fingers connecting the tracks of the tracks quickly wear out, there are cases when the Abrams were delivered to the battlefield with tractors. no designer has yet been able to defeat metal production.
      maneuverability here is implied in the fact that a wheeled vehicle can travel a greater distance than a tank at a time.
  2. Varnaga
    Varnaga 5 July 2012 09: 26
    +7
    How did these journalist with their "sources in the military-industrial complex" get it? This will soon become a meme, followed by selective delirium. No one is going to wind up work on the Kurganets, as well as replace tracked platforms with wheeled ones. It was equipping middle brigades BKM different classes by weight.
  3. Yarbay
    Yarbay 5 July 2012 09: 28
    +8
    ** Military experts expressed doubts about the fact that during the tests the French machine will be able to surpass the Russian-made BTR-90. However, the domestic sample was rejected. ** - no words!
    1. Dictator
      Dictator 5 July 2012 09: 56
      +3
      Designers are collecting equipment from the French, and designers from ours, so we must use our equipment.
      1. Trailer
        Trailer 5 July 2012 16: 12
        +1
        "As the military pointed out, the reason for this decision is the location of the engine compartment in the rear of the car, which contradicts the world practice of designing armored cars ..." I was always amused by the fact that ours cannot do almost anything without looking at how they have there - in the West! Who will answer - why is it bad that the motor is installed in the rear end of the armored car? Is it so, in theory, more difficult to get to those who shoot from the front?
        1. core
          core 5 July 2012 21: 17
          +6
          motor yes, harder, but the crew immediately kirdyk, or are you one of those who believe that our peasants still give birth to peasants?
        2. stur
          stur 6 July 2012 00: 50
          +1
          engine in front - extra crew protection
  4. lewerlin53rus
    lewerlin53rus 5 July 2012 09: 43
    +10
    which is contrary to world practice
    This world practice should be equal to our gunsmiths, and not vice versa. To keep up with world practice means to catch up. And to catch up means to always lag behind, which is unacceptable for Russia.
    1. stas52
      stas52 5 July 2012 09: 53
      +7
      All ingenious was done just contrary to world practice, and then itself became this very world practice.
      And I wanted to ask the author where Typhoon has three more axes in the photo? It is written six-axis, and in the photo there are only three.
      1. Korvin
        Korvin 7 July 2012 15: 44
        0
        Yes, author is raving how he can ...
  5. timhelmet
    timhelmet 5 July 2012 10: 00
    +1
    Mde ...
    Let this wheeled tank continue to be drawn.
    Need reliability.
    They would have put the tank on the rollers.
    1. Trailer
      Trailer 5 July 2012 16: 15
      +6
      How do you like that?
      1. wasjasibirjac
        wasjasibirjac 5 July 2012 18: 00
        +2
        scale not respected. judging by the primary sources, this walking tank is slightly lower than 30 m. You can’t hide this in the bushes. and so - Veshch !!!!!
      2. mind1954
        mind1954 6 July 2012 01: 34
        +7
        That's what the head should hurt about!

        What wheeled tanks are there? The French and British know them
        for which places, and with us for which ??? Where will we have this rubbish
        to ride? Artillery fast self-propelled needed ?! Put her on an armored personnel carrier!
        Ah armored personnel carrier can not stand it ?! But then, due to the fact that this technique is not shock,
        and only has to jump and stand on the defensive, most likely
        anti-tank, before the approach of the main forces, SO USE
        EXPERIENCE WWII and make anti-tank self-propelled gun
        on wheels from an armored personnel carrier, without any towers !!!
        From the side of the gun decent armor, and behind and sides, what is!
        And by the way, you might think about putting the engine ahead!
        And there’s nothing to do nonsense, referring to foreign experience !!!
        1. brr77
          brr77 6 July 2012 05: 47
          0
          Bravo mind1954, I plus you +++ !!!
  6. EMILPOLAK
    EMILPOLAK 5 July 2012 10: 24
    +5
    tanks by tanks, and wheeled vehicles are also needed. for the same Airborne Forces or RRFs where mobility is very important
    1. Joker
      Joker 5 July 2012 15: 16
      +2
      And what did you then all together with radikdan79 minuses then stuck? Some kind of direct solidarity with you.
  7. sd34efghfgh
    sd34efghfgh 5 July 2012 10: 34
    0
    What is the matter with the country where the authorities are looking?
    I accidentally stumbled upon a site to search for people u.to/tFAmAg
    Here you can find information about any resident of Russia, Ukraine, and other CIS countries.
    I’m really scared - to twist in such a way with anyone can go in and see.
    Addresses, best friends, kinship with anyone, above all there are for example my photos, phone number.
    It’s good that you can delete it, you’ll find your page and you’ll go through verification and delete
    And then there is nobody who is looking for ...
  8. Civil
    Civil 5 July 2012 11: 39
    0
    South Africa built something nice wheeled in due time ...
    Ruikat for example ... export equipped with 105 mm gun


    1. Korvin
      Korvin 7 July 2012 15: 52
      +3
      The chassis is a good debate, there are only two troubles, the first is a sharpened car under the South African theater with its savannahs and semi-deserts and not our mud baths; and the second is a black gopa from the South African military who bought headaches from local, regular parts of neighboring countries (the same black gopa) a pair of rusty T55s and in our opponents the modern MBT of China and the NATO countries and leaving them with a gun less than 120mm means simply killing yourself ...
  9. Dim.25.ru
    Dim.25.ru 5 July 2012 12: 24
    +1
    Why not, speed, maneuver in addition is a good caliber and the asphalt does not wobble.
    1. rennim
      rennim 5 July 2012 13: 20
      +4
      One shot from an RPG or LNG and is no longer a tenant.
      1. Trailer
        Trailer 5 July 2012 16: 17
        +3
        In the order of delirium - but it would be possible to supply these tanks to the Georgian army. With naturally increased speed and reinforced rear armor!
        1. Bronis
          Bronis 5 July 2012 17: 11
          +2
          There is no need to "worry" about Georgians. They stir up their tank-wunderwaffle ... laughing
          1. brr77
            brr77 6 July 2012 05: 49
            +1
            What is such a wunderwafel tank? Something I did not hear about it, can you tell me where to find information on it?
      2. wasjasibirjac
        wasjasibirjac 5 July 2012 18: 03
        +1
        and many tanks can withstand numerous RPG and LNG hits. too, how do you get. and the chariots are cheaper in operation and the speed on the dorgs is higher than that of the goose. sometimes we don’t drive all roads without roads, after all, and we have roads. in addition, such machines can be transferred by medium-sized aircraft of the BTA, and tanks of the T-72 type - only by heavy ones
      3. core
        core 5 July 2012 21: 19
        +4
        I look at some snipers gathered, on the move from the RPG fall.
    2. Bronis
      Bronis 5 July 2012 13: 46
      +2
      Quote: Dim.25.ru
      and the asphalt does not wobble.
      Asphalt is not everywhere. We have already written about booking and mobility here. Everywhere has its pros and cons. But the "wheel theme" has the right to life. I would like to believe that the General Staff has a concept of combat use, and not just shy away from the corners - "Let's get this ... and let's get this ... or maybe we will buy from these ... and others." So far, somehow the system is not developing for them. At least based on the analysis of publications in the press.
  10. rennim
    rennim 5 July 2012 13: 09
    +4
    I don’t understand where this nonsense of re-equipping the army with lightly armored ersatz comes from. For some reason the army as the main technique of the Tigers and Lynx. There’s also a typhoon of some kind. Doesn’t like the BRDM-design a new one. There are normal armored personnel carriers. Let them serve them. Do not satisfy, design new ones. But not typhoons (trucks) shed-like cars, but special equipment. BMPs should also be sent to the army and as much as possible. And not these cardboard boxes ... Better yet, instead of disposing of tanks, make heavy infantry fighting vehicles on their basis. This is the dream of every infantryman. And mobility on wheels and on tracks is a moot point ...
    1. Korvin
      Korvin 7 July 2012 15: 57
      0
      This nonsense comes from Makarov. He does not give rest until the glory, the creator of the Striker brigades, and he wants to go down in history as the creator of the Russian Boomerang brigades, and for everything else he ........
  11. bazilio
    bazilio 5 July 2012 13: 12
    +5
    I do not quite understand, where does the world practice? Well, they put engines in the front in the west, and in our tail, so what? why did western counterparts become standards? Of course, both schemes have their pros and cons. Even if the front location of the MTO is better than the rear, why immediately reject the BTR-90? I think this is not such an unsolved problem, throw the engine forward, and install the ramp in the stern. Why so categorically refuse the services of the domestic defense industry? at least it will make the MO and the army dependent on the French
    1. Drednout
      Drednout 5 July 2012 13: 53
      +1
      Quote: bazilio
      and in the feed ramp set

      Why the hell is she needed there? When moving, the greatest shaking is just in the stern, respectively, the armament should be in front with the least shaking. And about the world practice - I agree with you Basilio for the whole 100. World practice is us too! The engine in front is back into the future (BTR 50). Maybe also an open landing compartment?
      1. bazilio
        bazilio 5 July 2012 16: 20
        0
        Dear Dreadnought
        I mentioned the ramp, as earlier on this site there was a heated debate about this damned ramp. In my opinion, BTR class cars should have both a ramp and a side door, but right now it's not about that.
        The main argument when placing the engine in the front end is to increase the protection of the crew and troops from weapons in the frontal projection. Simply put, the point is to "hide" the crew behind the engine. And the logic here is simple - in attacks, most of the hits will be in the forehead.
        On the other hand, getting into the engine will most likely put him out of order and therefore the car will just get up. From the standpoint of preserving the life of the crew and the landing party, which engine placement option will be better depends on specific situations. if exaggerated, what is better, to be protected but motionless or mobile but unprotected?
        1. flanker7
          flanker7 5 July 2012 22: 33
          0
          I believe that the thesis about security should be removed. Only mobility remains ...
          1. bazilio
            bazilio 10 July 2012 14: 40
            +1
            why take off? as I said, it all depends on the situation.
            1st option. in armored personnel carrier in the forehead shmalnuli with a tank or an assault. engine behind. the armor was broken, the crew was killed or at least seriously wounded, but the engine is working. Who will help the working engine?
            Option 2. engine in the front, lupanuli from a tank or ptur. engine in the trash, but the crew is intact. then you can evacuate. but again it all depends on the situation. if you lie on open and shot space or when the fire is conducted not only from the front but also from the flanks, I think it’s not long to lie
            1. Bad_gr
              Bad_gr 10 July 2012 22: 31
              0
              And if you recall why the engine was moved back to the BMP-3?
              They increased their frontal armor to hold a 30 mm caliber projectile - their nose grew heavier to balance the car, and the engine was stowed.
              By the way, the BTR-90 also has a 30mm projectile on its forehead.
              Now, what do we get by moving the engine forward? I think, again reduce the thickness of the frontal. And if about a thick frontal leaf it can be guaranteed to say that this is protection, then about the engine with its aluminum cylinder block - hardly.
              But there will be a fashionable ramp in the ass.
              1. Assyrian
                Assyrian 30 May 2017 17: 03
                0
                Bad_gr "But there will be a fashionable ramp in the ass."
                Garnish with ribbons, little ribbons. Geyropeytsy will buy. laughing
    2. Old skeptic
      Old skeptic 5 July 2012 16: 43
      +3
      The exit of a motorized gunner from the stern is not only a world practice, but ours too.
      It is due to the fact that the infantryman, upon unsuccessful exit from the vehicle, does not fall under her wheels (meaning in motion), and the exit from the stern is more convenient.
      Have you tried to get off the bus on the go? And in a combat situation, and even through a small door? And with the BTR-90, everything is not so simple, it has a too screwed up transmission so that it could be so easy to reconfigure everything.
      Starting with the BTR 80, two engines are installed, I don’t know about the 90th.
      1. Rjn
        Rjn 5 July 2012 18: 11
        0
        Quote: Old Skeptic
        Starting with the BTR 80, two engines are installed, I don’t know about the 90th.

        You probably wanted to say with BTR 60 - 70 put two engines. BTR 80 - with one engine
        1. Old skeptic
          Old skeptic 5 July 2012 18: 36
          0
          Sorry, paraffin. You're right.
      2. bazilio
        bazilio 10 July 2012 14: 42
        0
        Yes, getting out of the stern is better but not always. For example, if the shelling is carried out from the flank or even from the rear (for example, in urban conditions), then the possibility of exiting from the side doors is a very useful thing
      3. Bad_gr
        Bad_gr 10 July 2012 22: 41
        0
        Quote: Old Skeptic
        Starting with the BTR 80, two engines are installed, I don’t know about the 90th.
        Starting with the BTR-60, two engines were installed (in-line 6s), since there was no one suitable in power. On the BTR-70 - two lawn engines (V-shaped 8-ki.
        BTR-80 has one turbocharged engine.
        By the way, the BTR-80 is exported to 30 countries and does not bother them with an exit on its sides.
        The BTR-90 has the same engine. At first there were 550 horses, then they wanted one unified engine for both the BTR and the BMP of 600 horses,
        and then the wise men came and stole it all.
    3. cth; fyn
      cth; fyn 5 July 2012 19: 52
      +2
      the funny thing is that the option with the location of the engine compartment in the seridine of the car is also there, but it also does not suit the military.
      So understand these saldafonov, they don’t like Masha and Lenka don’t want to.
      1. Korvin
        Korvin 7 July 2012 16: 06
        0
        The mid-engine layout is good if there is a sufficiently compact engine (but at the same time high-torque) to install it on the side (as on the RG-35 6x6) so that there is a passage from the DO / BO to the cabin (at the same time replacing the engine is simplified) and it’s better to place an uninhabited car on such a machine a tower (module), otherwise the tower shifts strongly in f .... in a car like in an armored personnel carrier 4
    4. core
      core 5 July 2012 21: 21
      0
      decide for a very long time. the couple would already rearrange the dviglo.
  12. understudy
    understudy 5 July 2012 13: 18
    +3
    Quote: Dim.25.ru
    and the asphalt does not wobble

    Rzhu ... Does this have any significance in the conduct of hostilities? The troops should have what is needed for war, for real combat. Axiom.
    In order to "put" on the ass and immobilize this entire wheeled organism, a machine gun is enough, for no pumping system can cope with all the punctured wheels.
    1. igor67
      igor67 5 July 2012 13: 21
      +3
      Quote: Understudy
      Rzhu ... Does this have any significance in the conduct of hostilities?

      But how to protect the MKAD, wheeled just right
    2. Bronis
      Bronis 5 July 2012 13: 55
      +1
      Well, a fire support car may be needed. Something from the development of the theme "Nona-SVK", but only this is not a tank at all ...
      In addition, for the Airborne Forces, a heavy wheeled tank is, in principle, not relevant. You can't throw him off a parachute. Yes, and on transport workers such a "miracle" will not work very well. And the mobility and, accordingly, the cross-country ability will be much worse than the tracked platform.
      1. prispek
        prispek 5 July 2012 23: 27
        -4
        Quote: Bronis
        You can’t drop him from a parachute

        I believe you that "from a parachute" you will not drop not only a heavy wheeled tank, but also a soldier. He will resist very strongly and cling to the lines so that you cannot tear off a tank. wassat
        1. Bronis
          Bronis 6 July 2012 08: 34
          -2
          You, Prishpek, and without a parachute can ... joke.
          1. prispek
            prispek 6 July 2012 20: 45
            0
            No, Bronis, I can just parachute. And you need to be parachuted so that they understand the difference, tell us one after the other ... seriously
  13. loc.bejenari
    loc.bejenari 5 July 2012 15: 05
    +1
    so for police operations just right
  14. Pashhenko Nikolay
    Pashhenko Nikolay 5 July 2012 17: 49
    0
    If for self-propelled guns, a wheeled mover is quite buzzing and even better than a caterpillar one. Of course it doesn’t work for a tank.
  15. Rjn
    Rjn 5 July 2012 18: 16
    +2
    In Ukraine, an APC 4 was blinded with a motor in the middle. To some extent, this is similar to resolving the issue: both the rear exit and front control, nothing obscures the view. This is a talk about the engine behind, but not about the tank on wheels
  16. cth; fyn
    cth; fyn 5 July 2012 20: 38
    +3
    In general, to equip wheeled tanks, or rather Artillery support vehicles, mobile units like motorized infantry or airborne forces are a very interesting idea. so these types of troops will have very maneuverable and unrestricted artillery. By the way, for the European theater of operations, with their developed network of roads, wheeled vehicles are very good!
    Of course this is not a tank, but to support the infantry or create a line of defense, they can do it.
    As for the Typhoon, I don't understand why such a machine is needed. Vertical armor does not deflect bullets, but takes all their energy on itself, a high profile unmasks the car. The Typhoon is tall and narrow, which suggests that it is prone to overturning. Large windshields are convenient for an enemy sniper, it is a trifling matter to target the driver at them, and with the advent of large-caliber rifles, it will not hold a bullet.
    I don't have a high opinion of "Tiger" (provided that its mine protection remains the same). here "Wolf" is another matter: the ability to change the booking on the conditions of the task, the ability to change the configuration and purpose of the car from the task, the level of protection 6a, high mine protection (like the "Lynx"), a good engine, automation (change the clearance and tire pressure you can use the on-board computer), well, everyone is good at the machine.
    There are two options for the BTR-90: Standard (made in metal), Euro (on paper, it is already with a ramp and the engine is between the control compartment and the combat one).
    In general, the name Wheel tank immediately sets against, from this we can conclude that the author immediately wanted to set us against this idea, it was necessary to call something like an armored personnel carrier of a heavy class, or art. support machine.
    1. marshes
      marshes 6 July 2012 14: 23
      +1
      Quote: cth; fyn
      In general, to equip wheeled tanks, or rather Artillery support vehicles, mobile units like motorized infantry or airborne forces are a very interesting idea

      I will support you. If you create quick response brigades, this is now developing in Kazakhstan, it is a pity that you do not have an anti-tank self-propelled gun in Russia. I think we would buy it.
      Quote: cth; fyn
      As for the Typhoon, I don't understand why such a car is needed.

      Probably better several cars, such as the Tiger, for 4-6 people, than one. This is my opinion. Expensive of course.
    2. Korvin
      Korvin 7 July 2012 16: 11
      0
      The typhoon is needed so that the police stop in Dagestan every day to be blown up on the Ural armor.
  17. flanker7
    flanker7 5 July 2012 22: 20
    +2
    Quote: rennim
    Better yet, instead of disposing of tanks, make heavy infantry fighting vehicles based on them. This is the dream of every foot soldier.


    Exactly !
  18. rustam.ru
    rustam.ru 5 July 2012 22: 57
    +1
    Of course, I don’t understand this, but is it really impossible to finalize or process the BTR-90 in any way, instead of buying incomprehensible foreign equipment.
  19. prispek
    prispek 5 July 2012 23: 17
    +4
    In my opinion, the very idea of ​​equipping medium brigades with wheeled "tanks" is justified, firstly, by the desire to receive kickbacks from foreign manufacturers, and secondly by the economy during exploitation. As always, our management solves two problems at once: we cut costs - we get the opportunity to raise ourselves. that is, management, salaries and bonuses. We buy equipment from third-party manufacturers - we get a kickback, both in cash and in the form of various pleasant services from these same manufacturers. All this has nothing to do with the modernization of weapons and the improvement of defense capabilities. Everything is much simpler. If, however, he is seriously concerned with the problem of maneuverability of armored formations. then you just need to put the tank on a tractor, and a transfer of 200-500 km will not lead to wear of the chassis. Everywhere they do it. In addition, it is high time to abandon the parachute landing of equipment. To replace the BMD, create an airmobile tank or a heavy fire support vehicle, armored personnel carriers for l / s and transport aircraft capable of landing and taking off from the ground or light GDP. In the presence of an air wing, capable of transferring up to 3 airborne troops, the need for "medium" brigades will disappear at once. Parachute landing should be left only to reconnaissance companies and battalions of special forces to seize GDP and prepare and hold sites for subsequent airborne assault. But all this will not give lave to those who saw the military budget.
    1. Korvin
      Korvin 7 July 2012 16: 17
      +1
      In general, there is only one BUT plus to you: The trouble is in the army with armored and mine-protected tank truck tractors, we don’t have either Wiesent or MAN or Aktros AHSVS, you see that all logistics is either railway or Kamaz ...
  20. tank64rus
    tank64rus 6 July 2012 09: 17
    +1
    Compare the amount of armored vehicles in the division of the Chinese army and in this medium or light brigade, and everything will become clear. The attempt of the MO to replace full-fledged divisions with brigades on wheels is a very risky enterprise, because. increased mobility is unlikely to correspond to combat effectiveness. Wheel options have their own niche in the armored weapons system, but it makes no sense to take them as the basis for arming an entire brigade, i.e. if the enemy is not an illegal armed group, but a NATO or PLA division, defeat is inevitable. Smoothly on paper, but forgot about the ravines on which to drive these wheels.
  21. red 015
    red 015 6 July 2012 13: 22
    0
    the point is in such tanks, one shot from an RPG and there is none, the same armored personnel carrier with only a more powerful cannon, and for an airborne cumbersome car
    1. cth; fyn
      cth; fyn 6 July 2012 14: 01
      +2
      T-72 also does not hold RPG-7, so what?
      This is not a tank. The author deliberately misled us. This is an art car. infantry support, heavy armored personnel carrier, wheeled self-propelled guns, but not a tank.
  22. Jeglov
    Jeglov 6 July 2012 15: 55
    0
    I believe that the whole concept of the transition to a brigade organization is flawed. A small formation, with all its comparative mobility, is not able to be the main military formation of a modern land army. All the advantages in the form of greater mobility, compared with divisions and corps, are nullified by the overall complexity of the interaction of such small formations and their leadership.
    The unsuccessful experience of using tank brigades in the initial period of the Second World War led to the abandonment of them as the main mechanized formation. Yes, indeed, in comparison with the "mastodons" mechanized corps arr. 1940, the brigades showed great controllability, but in general it was very difficult to manage them and the shock capabilities of the brigade left much to be desired.
    The main reason why in 41 turned to the "brigade" form of tank formations was the significant loss of material parts (tanks) during the first months of the war, so I had to "look for options." When things went smoothly in terms of restoring production of equipment, we proceeded to the formation of full-fledged tank armies, which fully paid off.
    The current transition to a brigade organization in the Russian Federation is caused primarily by economic reasons (cost savings) and the current state of the engineering industry. Obviously, after the collapse of the USSR, Russian industry is not able to fully satisfy the army's needs for armored vehicles (although UVZ is still theoretically capable of producing up to 1 tanks a year). So you have to resort to "creativity" - to invent a "bicycle" under the name of heavy, medium and light land brigades.
    In local wars and conflicts, they may be more effective than divisions and corps - quick-read brigades are easier to concentrate and use against a relatively weak enemy, for example against Georgia itself (suddenly the button Mishiko decides to play Blitzkrieg in the Caucasus). But if we assume that in the foreseeable future a conflict of scale similar to the First or Second World War is possible, then the effectiveness of land brigades is reduced to zero. The transition to a three-tier troop command and control system (military district - operational command - brigade) makes it impossible to fully manage large forces. Well, try to collect in such a single fist such a number of isolated military units, and even determine for them independent combat missions - you will get such a "Brownian movement" that you won’t understand without a pint.
    As for the use of wheeled tank equipment, this is another search for “creativity” in the context of limited material capabilities and a weak industry. To establish the production of light wheeled tank equipment is much easier and cheaper than full-fledged tanks. Efficiency is, of course, an order of magnitude lower, but what can we do ... The Ministry of Defense has to cover at least something with “shame” - cheap and cheerful.
    Indeed, wheeled vehicles on good smooth roads show good speed characteristics, but where the road ends, problems begin for wheeled vehicles. The Americans were convinced of this by the example of the Stryker in Iraq. If the terrain of the Stryker Brigades allows, they show good efficiency due to speed, but where the road is bad, there is little sense in these weakly armored vehicles.
  23. CHICHIMAH
    CHICHIMAH 6 July 2012 16: 40
    0
    at our Goose Roads More suitable solution
    1. cth; fyn
      cth; fyn 6 July 2012 17: 10
      0
      but in Europe, even the edge is asphalted. Hopefully the hint is clear against whom this technique is.
  24. cth; fyn
    cth; fyn 6 July 2012 17: 08
    0
    I wonder how the advertisement crept into my koment?
    This is not a tank. The author deliberately misled us. This is an art car. infantry support, heavy armored personnel carrier, wheeled self-propelled guns, but not a tank.

    for some reason, on the word Author pops up an advertisement of a car.
  25. Insurgent
    Insurgent 6 July 2012 17: 40
    0
    And that there was an armored personnel carrier in the WWII with a 45 mm cannon the same tank on wheels
  26. Owl
    Owl 6 July 2012 18: 12
    +1
    "Wheeled tanks" are necessary for "counterinsurgency" operations (including on the territory of their own country) or for expeditionary operations on the territory of foreign countries. In terms of security and passability, KBM cannot really compete with tracked models.
  27. Jeglov
    Jeglov 6 July 2012 18: 52
    +2
    This is not a tank. The author deliberately misled us. This is an art car. infantry support, heavy armored personnel carrier, wheeled self-propelled gun, but not a tank


    Technically, this is not a tank, of course! But the author of the article, unfortunately, absolutely correctly identified this as a tank, considering the context in which this "miracle" will be used. As an independent armored and well-armed unit. Obviously, they do not plan to use it as a support vehicle for tanks - this crap cannot fully work together with tanks (it will constantly lag behind) over rough terrain, and along the roads it is not often necessary to act!
    They will try to use the tactics of amerikosov t \ n "striker brigade" deep raids on the rear of the enemy. Although the same "striker" is intended for use in low intensity conflicts.
    1. Mr. Truth
      Mr. Truth 7 July 2012 13: 26
      +1
      Jeglov,
      Quote: Jeglov
      Although the same "striker" is intended for use in low-intensity conflicts.

      All their brigades, both light and "striker" for conducting battles of any intensity (primarily in complex physical and geographical conditions) and supporting heavy brigades.
  28. x45ssdffsf
    x45ssdffsf 7 July 2012 00: 56
    0
    Well, from what have already reached, imagine there is a site http://poisski.notlong.com
    In which you can find any person only by last name, or first name,
    Collected information from the social. networks, police, etc.
    Our specials are even involved here. service, I don’t know, the truth is - but all the information about me, my husband and my children was here.
    Even photos that I never threw on the Internet, I’m at a loss.
    It’s good that I deleted it on time, which I advise you
  29. Mr. Truth
    Mr. Truth 7 July 2012 01: 41
    0
    "Rolling" ...
  30. Korvin
    Korvin 7 July 2012 16: 21
    0
    Journalists continue to stubbornly call Fire Support Machines for wheeled brigades on a single chassis Wheeled Tanks, causing merciless breaking of copies from scratch))))
  31. AIpot
    AIpot 24 August 2012 15: 46
    +1
    Caterpillars are undoubtedly better, cross-country ability + U-turn in place. What are we talking about?
  32. Bad_gr
    Bad_gr 24 August 2012 17: 36
    0
    "... Italian wheeled vehicles in the port of Novorossiysk
    Centauro and Freccia arrived at the port of Novorossiysk this week for testing on behalf of the Russian Defense Ministry. .... "


    http://gurkhan.blogspot.com/2012/08/blog-post_7562.html#comment-form
  33. Forever so
    Forever so 28 January 2017 17: 24
    0
    In the framework of using the army to protect thieves and stolen from the people, it is quite normal.
  34. Comrade
    Comrade 28 February 2017 13: 23
    0
    For starters, the author is a little bit, let’s say, so cunning.

    Caterpillars or wheels, this does not affect the engine in any way. Engine power is chosen from the calculation, the weight of the armor, the thicker and heavier, the more powerful the engine is needed. By the way, we have tracked armored personnel carriers, this is the Marine Corps BMD.
    And regarding the armor. The BMP and the armored personnel carrier is lightweight bulletproof, not because the engine is weak, but because they should be equally suitable for both infantry and airborne forces, where the latter deliver all the equipment by plane, rather than by train.

    And finally, at the dawn of Soviet tank building, we had wheeled-tracked tanks. Even the famous T-34 was originally designed in two forms, both tracked and wheeled-tracked.

    In the 30s in the USSR there was a doctrine that on the field on caterpillars, and having left the caterpillars on the highway, take off further on wheels (rinks). The two front rollers became steering wheels, and the last two leading. In those years, the steering wheels did not have an engine drive, as on a modern armored personnel carrier. For this reason, when driving on wheels, the tank risked being stuck in trenches. if both rear rollers are in it. The BTR-80 appeared when front-wheel drive was invented.
    They decided to abandon the wheel-caterpillar scheme, since changing the “shoes” took a lot of time, and in a combat environment this is dangerous.
  35. Comrade
    Comrade 28 February 2017 16: 30
    0
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sep-PN7n85I

    Video on the topic.
  36. Comrade
    Comrade 28 February 2017 18: 24
    0
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXqt58_wxdE

    About the T-34 and other tanks, as described above.
  37. Romanenko
    Romanenko 2 June 2017 13: 54
    0
    Wheel tanks - a horse of the French, British and Italians, were made for use mainly in colonial wars, such a machine can quickly come to the rebellious village and support the punishers with fire of a very serious gun. And in production, given the light armor and relatively inexpensive components on the chassis, this technique certainly suited the conquerors of northern Africa, India and Indochina, where 90% of the resistance and counteraction to them consisted of pitchforks, scythes, hunting rifles and stones. But the wheeled tank has a lot of flaws - it has weak armor and an increased center of gravity (you can’t get anywhere from this, the gun is not a machine gun) and poor passability, in a word, if Russia does not need to wage colonial wars, or radically, like in Ukraine, it’s unlikely that such a technique can be needed in serious quantities, but to make some modifications based on the BTR-80-82, or Boomerang for policemen .... Well, you probably can, but why should the police gun 100 or 125 mm ???