"Kurganets-25": "grenade launcher's dream" with significant advantages

"Kurganets-25": "grenade launcher's dream" with significant advantages

The Russian army is armed with several types of infantry fighting vehicles inherited from the Soviet Union, as well as armored fighting vehicles for various purposes, created on the basis of these infantry fighting vehicles. The existing types of infantry fighting vehicles are already outdated, and modernization from time to time certainly improves the combat characteristics, but in essence this remains the same Soviet infantry fighting vehicle.


The project of a new universal combat platform that appeared in the 2010s, on the basis of which in the future it was planned to create a whole family of armored vehicles, including infantry fighting vehicles, was received with a bang. The platform demonstrated at the Victory Parade in 2015, called the Kurganets-25, was supposed to replace the existing types of armored vehicles in the troops. It was planned that the modular principle will speed up and reduce the cost of production of equipment based on it, and a single base will greatly simplify the operation in the troops.

At the same time, the Ministry of Defense announced plans to adopt an infantry fighting vehicle, an airborne landing vehicle, a caterpillar armored personnel carrier and an anti-tank self-propelled gun with a 125-mm gun, which were gradually to replace Soviet-style equipment.


Further, in its report for 2017, Kurganmashzavod announced the order of the Ministry of Defense of an experimental batch of infantry fighting vehicles based on the Kurganets-25 platform for testing. Afterwards news about the platform periodically appeared in the media, reporting the continuation of the tests, the alleged appearance of the "Kurgan" in Syria and, finally, plans to complete the state tests. Already in February of this year, it became known that it was necessary to wait for the completion of state testing of the platform in 2022 and not earlier, and serial delivery would begin only after the decision of the Ministry of Defense.

What's wrong with this combat platform, why its tests dragged on for such a long time, because it was originally planned to take the Kurgan into service back in 2017.

Let's look at the available pros and cons of the combat platform, starting from the information we have regarding it.

So, what do we know: Kurganets-25 is a universal tracked platform. The engine-transmission compartment is located in front of the housing on the right. To unload the landing ramp is used with an additional door in it. The mass of the machine is 25-26 tons. There is a dynamic defense and a complex of active protection, ammunition and weapons are isolated. The crew consists of three people + eight landing. The maximum speed is 80 km / h on the highway and 10 km / h on the water. Engine power 800 hp

Of the significant advantages available, the following can be noted: improved protection of the crew and landing, compared to the "Soviet" BMP, consisting of its own armor, dynamic defense and the KAZ "Afganit" on the tower. Dynamic protection is also claimed to increase the BMP's buoyancy. A powerful engine and variable clearance allows you to overcome off-road and develop good speed on paved roads. Good maneuverability of the machine is also noted. The landing compartment with hanging seats and seat belts is comfortable and safe.


Of the minuses, we immediately note the dimensions of the Kurganets-25, significantly exceeding the dimensions of the "Soviet" infantry fighting vehicles. As previously written on the Web, the first BMP samples on the Kurganets platform returned from tests marked "too big a silhouette." The military, testing the platform, supposedly even gave it the name "grenade launcher's dream" (I can’t vouch for reliability, but there are many references). Another disadvantage is too weak armament: in the uninhabited module there is a 30-mm gun with a coaxial 7,62-mm machine gun and four ATGM “Cornet”. Ammunition is only 500 rounds for a gun and 1000 for a machine gun, which is too small for modern combat.

Most likely, the protracted tests are associated with the correction of the identified shortcomings of the combat vehicle and the possible replacement of weapons. Previously, it has been suggested more than once that the 30-mm automatic gun is too weak, especially since combat modules with a 57-mm gun have already been developed in Russia.
Author:
Photos used:
http://voenchel.ru/
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

247 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Zementbomber April 30 2020 06: 27 New
    • 14
    • 6
    +8
    The platform demonstrated at the Victory Parade in 2015, called the Kurganets-25, was supposed to replace the existing types of armored vehicles in the troops.

    Outright Stupidity. negative Far not all. Even in production. Not to mention "in service". And even if we are talking only about BMP / BMD.
    1. Bad_gr April 30 2020 14: 09 New
      • 13
      • 1
      +12
      Demonstrated at the Victory Day parade in 2015, the platform, called "Kurganets-25"
      By the way, a slightly different machine should go to the troops. Pay attention to where the driver is sitting.
      The top photo is in the front car, and on the bottom, as it will be in the troops:



      1. Shurik70 2 May 2020 01: 52 New
        • 3
        • 1
        +2
        And what was meant by "the 30 mm gun is too weak"?
        Still, you need to understand that the TANK, self-propelled guns, infantry fighting vehicles, armored personnel carriers are different vehicles with different tasks. And even each of these machines has different modifications for different tasks. And the troops need everything.
        1. Boratsagdiev 2 May 2020 14: 13 New
          • 3
          • 1
          +2
          It was understood that she would not take modern Western "tarantai" into her forehead.
          Not always, and the board will strike. The nomenclature of shells is small.
          They hung them well.
      2. Boratsagdiev 2 May 2020 14: 15 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        It was changed so that you could put another module.
        30 mm is not always enough.
        They will add the option with 57 mm, if at all they will not switch to it.
  2. Zementbomber April 30 2020 06: 30 New
    • 22
    • 8
    +14
    Ammunition is only 500 rounds for a gun and 1000 for a machine gun, which is too small for modern combat.

    Хthen is it born-said ?? belay Compare with b / c sovr. BMP And you will see - more than enough.
    1. svp67 April 30 2020 06: 45 New
      • 13
      • 3
      +10
      Quote: Zementbomber
      Compare with b / c sovr. BMP And you will see - more than enough.

      Well, even BMP-2 cartridges for FCT are TWO times more, with smaller sizes
      1. Zementbomber April 30 2020 07: 13 New
        • 9
        • 12
        -3
        Well, actually - ch. BMP weapons - the same automatic gun ...
        1. Doctor April 30 2020 12: 59 New
          • 1
          • 10
          -9
          Well, actually - ch. BMP weapons - the same automatic cannon.

          Who would only explain why she needs her ...
          1. alexmach April 30 2020 14: 56 New
            • 9
            • 0
            +9
            Who would only explain why she needs her ...

            To defeat light armored vehicles and manpower of the enemy, is not it?
            1. Doctor 1 May 2020 20: 52 New
              • 0
              • 3
              -3
              To defeat light armored vehicles

              There are tanks for this.

              and enemy manpower

              For this, PCT is enough.
              1. alexmach 1 May 2020 23: 37 New
                • 3
                • 0
                +3
                There are tanks for this.

                Light BT as a whole is more than tanks, while it itself has serious anti-tank weapons.
                For this, PCT is enough.

                Firing range? Defeat hiding infantry?
      2. Alekseev April 30 2020 13: 20 New
        • 8
        • 5
        +3
        Quote: svp67
        at smaller sizes

        hi
        Yes, size matters. Honestly, I didn’t pay attention before, but it’s not into any gates. The machine turned out to be too healthy. After all, how to strengthen the armor, the shell has always had and will have an advantage ... Maneuverability and the ability to "cling" to the raw earth are of no less importance to the protection of both a soldier and an armored infantry fighting vehicle than armor and other armored vehicles of BTT. Moreover, it’s hardly possible to book such a volume while maintaining an acceptable mass.
        But there is still a sample of a heavy armored infantry fighting vehicle based on Armat. It seems like Kurganets get something, not this, although it looks impressive. request
        Isn’t it easier and better to create a relatively light BMP based on the BMP-3?
        After all, the BMP is not a "barn", similar to the MRAP armored cars, which were created to accompany the convoys in the conditions of the anti-partisan struggle.
        She will need to use the terrain folds. We’ve gained experience in Syria - they are now teaching our tankers to shoot using an earthen rampart as a shelter. True to this experience for more than 75 years. And the Germans, especially, and ours burned hundreds of enemy tanks, acting because of the reverse slopes of the heights. wink
        1. svp67 April 30 2020 14: 37 New
          • 7
          • 3
          +4
          hi
          Quote: Alekseev
          Yes, size matters.

          Absolutely agree. And here I am afraid of the repetition of the sad experience with the PT-76, which, due to its geometric dimensions, lost in handling on difficult terrain with the same T-55. I think that there is something too clever
          Quote: Alekseev
          Isn’t it easier and better to create a relatively light BMP based on the BMP-3?

          So she already is. BMP-3M "Dragoon"




          1. Ryaruav April 30 2020 19: 52 New
            • 8
            • 1
            +7
            BMP-3 is still the same cardboard box. According to modern realities, protection is weak, and a heavy BMP will not be able to land an enemy under hurricane fire, I think heavy BTR-BMPs are needed even very much to replace tanks in a city, there an airborne landing can be more or less comfortable. It’s not the field and the ligament are almost invulnerable infantry vehicles and the infantry itself as two components of success
            1. Romario_Argo April 30 2020 20: 54 New
              • 2
              • 14
              -12
              I think that as soon as the Sun get a Warrior-3 with an exoskeleton, it will not matter which BMP
              because Boron carbide warrior-3 holds a 14,5 mm bullet with kinetics grounded through an exo-frame
              1. Bobik012 1 May 2020 13: 28 New
                • 9
                • 2
                +7
                Did you understand what you wrote? :-) calculate the kinetic energy of 14,5 and figure out where this warrior will fly at a meeting. Well this, if I attended physics at school :-)
                1. root 1 May 2020 22: 15 New
                  • 0
                  • 3
                  -3
                  He will not fly away anywhere. Those who attended physics at school will speak of momentum. Stupidly, taking the data from the wiki for the cartridge of 14,5 mm and taking the mass of the fighter in the exoskeleton at 150 kg, you can calculate what speed the carcass will receive (here you can agree, having received such an impulse in the arm or leg, you will part with a limb, in the torso under the condition of normal shock distribution through the exoskeleton design can get rid of shock concussion of the whole body, but still live). The total is: 0,064 kg * 1000 m / s = (150 + 0,064) kg * X * m / s, then X = 0,42 m / s. You sit on the ass and only :)))). We don’t have to talk about any flights :)) Here's how to distribute the blow over the whole body, here's the question. And whether the exoskeleton design will extinguish such loads - and the devil knows :))) Here ufof dofiga should be considered more :)))
                  1. Brancodd 2 May 2020 01: 03 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    Actually, this is kinetic energy = 32 kN. Those. 3200 kgf. To pieces will fly apart.
                    1. root 2 May 2020 02: 43 New
                      • 0
                      • 3
                      -3
                      It won’t fly apart :)) I saw a regular bullet hit a youtube on a suspended doll (similar in weight to a human) with a metal endoskeleton from a barrel (bullet weight is less than about 2 times, kin. Energy is about 2,5 times less), the bullet got stuck in endoostov dolls. The skeleton's glands twisted, the doll on the suspension barely moved. And then the armor plate may fall apart or there the mount will collapse, this is understandable. The warrior here, no matter what version it is, doesn’t roll. There really should be a suit from the Heinlein Star Infantry :))). If the 14,5 bullet is not armor-piercing, then a titanium plate of 2-3 cm with stiffeners will withstand the hit. Here, to transfer the received impulse from the bullet to the armor plate to the exoskeleton design and distribute the blow throughout the body is a problem. Shock accelerations seem to be not fatal.
                2. Romario_Argo 2 May 2020 09: 51 New
                  • 1
                  • 4
                  -3
                  kinetics of a bullet 14,5x114 mm, weight 64 grams = 3200 kg - and what (?)
                  hit with a baseball bat - also has a force of 3200 kg.
                  it all depends on the application practice (!)
                  1. Puper driver 6 May 2020 22: 33 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    E = mcc \ 2 = 32000 J. Or a drop from 1 meter of cargo E = mgh .m = E \ gh = 32000 \ 10 * 1 = 3200 Kg = 3.2 Tons. Take it away. A beat with a bat is incorrect.
                    1. Romario_Argo 7 May 2020 11: 48 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      even if the exoskeleton compensates for some of the energy, then let it blow it down - for that it’s alive
                      and not figs go to the line of fire, from the beginning you need to suppress the firing points
                3. Romario_Argo 2 May 2020 22: 33 New
                  • 0
                  • 1
                  -1
                  Did you understand what you wrote? :-)

                  I’ll make a note. then you will see for yourself. and you will be silent, but I will remind (!!!)
              2. SASHA OLD 3 May 2020 14: 24 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                Quote: Romario_Argo
                because Boron carbide warrior-3 holds a 14,5 mm bullet with kinetics grounded through an exo-frame

                and pulse of the plasma phase integrator Westinghouse M-25 .. wassat
                1. Romario_Argo 3 May 2020 15: 53 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  introduced new classes of protection, if not in the know, called Br. 5 and Br. 6
        2. Klingon 1 May 2020 17: 38 New
          • 0
          • 3
          -3
          Germans yes, ours - no. our tanks had negative vertical guidance angles of a maximum of -5 ° C for the Germans from -6 to -10 ° so that the Germans could bend the barrel from the return ramps without any special dances with a tambourine
        3. 4thParasinok 5 May 2020 23: 08 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: Alekseev
          Isn’t it easier and better to create a relatively light BMP based on the BMP-3?

          It is better to make a new car, including the case, but relying on the BMP-3M "Dragoon". BMP-3 was made using the hull of the PT and there is no need to carry troops. There the engine was a checker and located with a rear at the bottom. For the new BMP, you must first make the transmission, and then build a module for the landing around it, and not vice versa.
        4. ROSS_51 10 May 2020 17: 03 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: Alekseev
          After all, how to strengthen the armor, the shell has always had and will have an advantage ... Maneuverability and the ability to "cling" to the raw earth are of no less importance to the protection of both a soldier and an armored infantry fighting vehicle than armor and other armored vehicles of BTT. Moreover, it’s hardly possible to book such a volume while maintaining an acceptable mass.

          Shell, yes, but with modern development and the level of saturation in the troops, the main threat remains ATGMs. And "snuggle" will not work anymore - to get even into a small-sized target now is not a problem.
    2. Nikolaevich I April 30 2020 07: 45 New
      • 29
      • 0
      +29
      Quote: Zementbomber
      Ammunition is only 500 rounds for a gun and 1000 for a machine gun, which is too small for modern combat.

      Hto is it born-said ?? Compare with b / c sovr. BMP And you will see - more than enough.

      And you need more! Roughly like here ....:
      1. Zementbomber April 30 2020 07: 50 New
        • 3
        • 7
        -4
        Plusanul !! good laughing
        Although the b / c is still "know the center in comparison with the military". wink
      2. Andrey Usachevhj33z67z2hb April 30 2020 13: 46 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        A good idea. The bigger, the better! laughing wassat
      3. AnderS 1 May 2020 16: 53 New
        • 5
        • 0
        +5
        Well, yes, there are either very few or few rounds of ammunition, but no longer carry away laughing
  3. mark1 April 30 2020 06: 51 New
    • 13
    • 0
    +13
    The reserved volume is two times more than the BMP-1 (2), weight too. Security above, it seems, is far from double. The question is - is it possible to achieve the same security (or almost) in the dimensions of the BMP-1 (2) hull (to the BMP-3 extreme) during modernization thereof while maintaining an acceptable weight?
    1. Hagen April 30 2020 07: 05 New
      • 10
      • 2
      +8
      Quote: mark1
      The question is - is it possible to achieve the same security (or almost) in the dimensions of the BMP-1 (2) hull (to the BMP-3 extreme) during modernization thereof while maintaining an acceptable weight?

      Most likely, it is possible, but she will not swim anymore. With similar security in BMP-2 dimensions, the weight will increase from 14,7 tons, to a minimum, to 18-20 tons.
      1. mark1 April 30 2020 07: 12 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        This is not what you need. The issue is related to the application of technologies and materials similar to those used at Kurganets-25. An increase of more than 1,5-2,5 tons is not welcome.
        1. Hagen April 30 2020 07: 27 New
          • 26
          • 3
          +23
          Quote: mark1
          This is not what you need.

          I think that when designing Kurganets, the issue of minimizing the silhouette was taken into account. And if you made it the way it is, then obviously the machine does not fit into the smaller dimensions. I don’t think that someone on the site has competencies above the authors of the project in order to edit them.
          1. mark1 April 30 2020 07: 34 New
            • 4
            • 0
            +4
            That smart people designed I have no doubt whatsoever. But you simply did not pay enough attention to comparing the ratios of volumes and weight, here you can also see an almost direct correlation of these parameters with higher security at Kurganets
            And yet, when designing the "Kurganets", increased volume norms for one paratrooper were taken into account.

            1. Hagen April 30 2020 08: 13 New
              • 15
              • 3
              +12
              Quote: mark1
              But you simply did not pay enough attention to comparing the ratios of volumes and weight, here you can also see an almost direct correlation of these parameters with higher security at Kurganets

              I already said earlier that otherwise, with a smaller volume, the car will not float, there will not be enough buoyancy margin. And the standards for the landing are increased based on explosive stability. Have you ever tried to put on OZKs in the BMP-1,2 landing squad in winter? laughing , especially with a height of 185 cm ...
              1. mark1 April 30 2020 12: 17 New
                • 1
                • 2
                -1
                It looks like we are talking each about his own. I’m talking about modernizing the existing park, and you are talking about something else.
                1. Hagen April 30 2020 17: 38 New
                  • 1
                  • 1
                  0
                  Quote: mark1
                  I’m talking about modernizing the existing park, and you are talking about something else.

                  What are your suggestions for upgrading the BMP-1,2?
            2. Saxahorse April 30 2020 21: 23 New
              • 3
              • 1
              +2
              Quote: mark1
              That smart people designed I have no doubt whatsoever.

              But I would doubt it. To achieve the level of protection of Abrams or Merkava and even squeeze the landing there, it will definitely turn out to be something trough-like. I believe that from the very beginning an unrealistic task for TTX was set.
          2. infantryman2020 April 30 2020 08: 07 New
            • 19
            • 1
            +18
            In general, the meme “dream of a grenade launcher” (in relation to the dimensions of our new generation of armored vehicles), it is of the same order as another meme - “shoulder strap on a belly” (in relation to the placement of insignia on a field uniform.
            These are cheap pearls of “couch professionals” and quasi-patriots.
            1. missuris April 30 2020 12: 32 New
              • 1
              • 1
              0
              and I liked the "epaulette on the belly", so at least it was possible to understand what the belly was before you)
              1. Nikolaevich I 1 May 2020 04: 56 New
                • 2
                • 0
                +2
                Quote: missuris
                I liked the "epaulette on the belly", so at least it was possible to understand what the paunch was before you)

                And why do you not have the Red Army buttonhole? request
                1. missuris 1 May 2020 13: 29 New
                  • 4
                  • 0
                  +4
                  I didn’t find it, and even the epaulette on the belly could be worn on the armor, and the buttonholes and shoulder straps on the shoulders are blocked by hinged equipment.
                  1. Nikolaevich I 1 May 2020 16: 11 New
                    • 1
                    • 0
                    +1
                    That don’t worry so .... there are many armies in the world .... there are armies where rank insignia are worn not only on uniform, but also on headdresses (helmets) ...
          3. Hermit21 April 30 2020 10: 22 New
            • 8
            • 3
            +5
            Now a low silhouette is no longer a priority. The requirements for security, survivability and habitability do not allow to make the height of the equipment less
            1. Disant 1 May 2020 13: 16 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Are you a designer or a customer to claim priority?
          4. Alekseev April 30 2020 19: 52 New
            • 4
            • 0
            +4
            Quote: Hagen
            I do not think that someone on the site has competencies above the authors of the project

            You see, fools were never allowed to design BTT models, especially since they were planned for acceptance into service. But ... sometimes very successful cars turned out, and another so-so ...
            And not all, even very talented, designers could fulfill the requirements of the technical task. request
            In addition, do not forget that the main goal of the military-industrial complex is to receive an order, to ensure profit, and not to present the best example. For this, both GBTU and military acceptance, which control industry. It’s just that, sometimes, both here and abroad, they push in a rush to arms “not quite something, something.”
            1. Hagen April 30 2020 21: 56 New
              • 3
              • 2
              +1
              Quote: Alekseev
              In addition, do not forget that the main goal of the military-industrial complex is to receive an order, to ensure profit, and not to present the best example.

              Can you substantively prove? Despite the fact that both the customer and the contractor have the same owner.
              1. Alekseev 1 May 2020 15: 14 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                If this is news for you, then, in brief, I will cite a number of examples, due to lack of time without detailed explanation. You can ask if you wish.
                Three different MBTs in service with the SA.
                Gun Thunder on BMP-1.
                BTR-60.
                Etc.
                Well, for the fleet and aviation, you can ask sailors and pilots. And, I assure you, not to no avail.
                1. Hagen 1 May 2020 16: 06 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  Quote: Alekseev
                  I will give a number of examples, for lack of time without detailed explanation

                  Children's claims for over-awareness. No one in the USSR / RF has ever officially recognized the priority of profit of an individual LLC-PAO over product quality. The quality and conformity of its TK is established as a result of state tests. Lobbying the interests of an individual producer can be carried out as a result of a corrupt conspiracy of this producer with members of the state commission, i.e. criminal offense. Some sailors and pilots cannot possess information about this, and those who can are silent or sitting. Today it is fashionable to refer to some rumors and conjectures, but they do not become the truth from this. Although they are often launched with specific goals, they are not always righteous. So if it’s not difficult, shed light on 2A28, what is so criminal in its history?
        2. alexmach April 30 2020 15: 02 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          This is not what you need. .... An increase of more than 1,5-2,5 tons is not welcome.

          Soon the fairy tale affects but not soon the thing is done.
      2. Zeev Zeev April 30 2020 07: 58 New
        • 5
        • 2
        +3
        At the same time, mobility will greatly decrease and the same problems will remain with the lack of space and the difficulty of leaving the machine.
        1. Hagen April 30 2020 08: 18 New
          • 4
          • 3
          +1
          Quote: Zeev Zeev
          At the same time, mobility will greatly decrease and the same problems will remain with the lack of space and the difficulty of leaving the machine.

          I think that the specific power of the machine will be no less old, and the dimensions of the reclining ramp will give greater freedom during landing and disembarkation.
          1. Zeev Zeev April 30 2020 11: 37 New
            • 3
            • 1
            +2
            I think that without major changes to the body of the ramp you can’t shove it there. And it will not help, the landing itself in the car is disgusting, and it is impossible to change due to lack of space.
            1. Hagen April 30 2020 18: 07 New
              • 3
              • 0
              +3
              Quote: Zeev Zeev
              I think that without major changes to the body of the ramp you can’t cram there

              Which car do you want to change? Clarify if not difficult.
              1. Zeev Zeev April 30 2020 19: 16 New
                • 4
                • 0
                +4
                I don’t want to change anything. I am responding to a proposal to upgrade the BMP-2 instead of creating a new car.
                1. mark1 1 May 2020 06: 01 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  Quote: Zeev Zeev
                  upgrade BMP-2 instead of creating a new car.

                  A small but important clarification is not instead (I tend to consider myself an adequate person) but when modernizing the existing park (100% replacement, as we understand it, will not be tomorrow)
                  1. Zeev Zeev 1 May 2020 07: 08 New
                    • 3
                    • 1
                    +2
                    This upgrade will be as if not more expensive than a new car. At the very minimum, you need to abandon buoyancy, put in a new FCS and communication system, attach a dofig of armor, change the engine (to maintain mobility) and modify the suspension (the weight will increase). In this case, again, the design flaws of the BMP will not be resolved in terms of ergonomics and living conditions.
                    1. prodi 1 May 2020 07: 44 New
                      • 6
                      • 0
                      +6
                      Well, yes, how can you solve the habitability problems in such a mousetrap


                      except for the spreading of the central bench along the sides and the reduction of the landing
                      1. The comment was deleted.
                      2. Saxahorse 1 May 2020 20: 14 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Quote: prodi
                        Well, yes, how can you solve the habitability problems in such a mousetrap

                        Are you inside going to dwell? laughing

                        The task of the landing is to drive 500-1000 meters under fire from all sides and take a position somewhere slightly in the depths of the enemy’s defense.
                      3. prodi 2 May 2020 07: 58 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Yes, you know, I would really like to make the inevitable marches in more human conditions, and not on the armor. And this need is much, much more than the ability to swim, not to mention armored protection
                      4. Saxahorse 2 May 2020 20: 58 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        The bus will help you! But only if you suddenly stumble upon an enemy, it will immediately become very sad, especially without armor.
                2. mark1 1 May 2020 12: 32 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  This is exactly the Israeli method of modernization. But it’s possible to slightly reduce the landing to 4 transportable and 2 IO crew members. Carriages are placed in a capsule (as in armature) along the longitudinal axis in the middle. The width of the protection increases due to the space between the capsule and the outer sides, the ramp is self-supporting, instead of loopholes the remote control is installed in the stern, of course the remote control module instead of the turret, the function of switching to the crewless mode to accompany the compartment (welcome), the hinged side screens filled with foamed aluminum,
                  1. Zeev Zeev 1 May 2020 13: 52 New
                    • 2
                    • 0
                    +2
                    And now we look at the stern of the BMP-2 and think how to make a ramp out of an armored plate with two hatches without violating the integrity of the structure. How will even four fighters sit there, if both the height and width of the fighting compartment become smaller due to the pushing of an armored capsule? And how to shove it there without cutting the case? And what can a group of four soldiers do in battle? Or split the branch in two?
                    I think that the "Israeli method" of modernization will still be better. And cheaper at times than the proposed, and more convenient for the fighters.
                  2. mark1 1 May 2020 17: 38 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    Quote: Zeev Zeev
                    ramp without violating the integrity of the structure.

                    Why set such a task? Break the integrity ..
                    Quote: Zeev Zeev
                    How will even four fighters sit there, if both the height and width of the fighting compartment become smaller due to the pushing of an armored capsule?

                    But I wrote how (except for the height, the roof will have to be raised like that of the Czechs)
                    Quote: Zeev Zeev
                    And how to shove it there without cutting the case?

                    And do not set unattainable tasks, cut and put at least a roof for at least an ass.
                    Quote: Zeev Zeev
                    And what can a group of four soldiers do in battle?

                    This is the weakest part, but 4 briskly running soldiers are better than 8 burnt carcasses.
                    Quote: Zeev Zeev
                    I think that the "Israeli method" of modernization will still be better. And cheaper at times,

                    Your Israeli method just shreds all the iron + replacing everything inside, so it’s hardly cheaper even for a shekel
                  3. Zeev Zeev 1 May 2020 20: 53 New
                    • 1
                    • 0
                    +1
                    Our Israeli method is time-tested. No reduction in the volume of the fighting compartment, but a serious increase in protection. "Ahzarit", "Puma", "Nashmakhon", "Namer" ...
                  4. mark1 2 May 2020 05: 05 New
                    • 1
                    • 0
                    +1
                    Who says he is bad. It’s just not our method. Uncle Sam doesn’t pay us on defense, and our TVD is very diverse. Not everywhere your forts will suit our conditions.
                  5. Zeev Zeev 2 May 2020 08: 40 New
                    • 1
                    • 3
                    -2
                    Well, again, these are the same excuses ... Uncle Sam’s “paying” is not at all connected with modernization programs, and TVDs are everywhere the same in terms of requirements for protection and ergonomics. Although I’m lying, your soldiers need even more space in the fighting compartment, but they haven’t really turned around in winter uniforms.
                  6. mark1 2 May 2020 09: 30 New
                    • 1
                    • 0
                    +1
                    Quote: Zeev Zeev
                    Uncle Sam’s “paying” is not at all related to modernization programs,

                    Not connected, but extra money as a result there are ...
                    Quote: Zeev Zeev
                    and TVDs are everywhere the same in terms of protection requirements

                    And here I allow myself to disagree with you.
                    It’s not for nothing that your BTT is not particularly sold out (in comparison)
                    Regarding the internal volume, it is a question of modernizing the Soviet BTT, but it is not made of rubber.
                  7. Zeev Zeev 2 May 2020 11: 41 New
                    • 1
                    • 2
                    -1
                    Extra money is never there. And they go for completely different purposes.
                    But our BTTs are not bought, because they are not sold. Although Israeli ideas, like light armored vehicles, are popular.
  • Doctor April 30 2020 12: 38 New
    • 4
    • 3
    +1
    Most likely, it is possible, but she will not swim anymore.

    Why would she even swim? When was the last time an infantry fighting vehicle sailed in combat?
    1. alexmach April 30 2020 15: 12 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      To overcome water barriers in the European theater.
    2. Zeev Zeev April 30 2020 19: 38 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      In Afghanistan, when crossing rivers, they sailed.
    3. 4thParasinok 5 May 2020 23: 30 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      in Grozny ....
  • Albert1988 April 30 2020 22: 15 New
    • 3
    • 1
    +2
    Quote: mark1
    Security above, it seems, is far from double.

    let's put aside all these “similar” ones, because the protection of the Kurgan is much higher than that of the old BMPs due to new armor, new DZ and, most importantly, the KAZ system. Well and that is not unimportant - there is a mine protection.
  • The leader of the Redskins April 30 2020 07: 11 New
    • 10
    • 1
    +9
    Once at the school we were introduced to BMP3. A disadvantage of her teacher considered the dimensions are large, compared with previous models.
    Today, looking at the comparison picture, I thought that even the “troika” is an inch.
    1. Hagen April 30 2020 07: 32 New
      • 15
      • 3
      +12
      Quote: Leader of the Redskins
      A disadvantage of her teacher considered the dimensions are large, compared with previous models.

      When we studied BMP1,2 and BTR, our teachers somehow carefully avoided the issues of real security of machine bodies. But we already understood that even M-2 for these machines is deadly in almost any projection.
    2. donavi49 April 30 2020 08: 12 New
      • 16
      • 2
      +14
      All last-generation infantry fighting vehicles are more efficient. The main factor of the defeat is not the grenade launcher, but the ATGM operator, or even the kamikaze UAV / guided bomb. The main factor of defeat during patrolling is the detonation of IEDs.




      Here, under the urgent tasks, everything is done by monsters. In Syria, as a souvenir, I can recall one case of using RPGs precisely according to the technique of recent years - where the TIP group drove out T-1s and BMPs, but they had nothing but RPGs and the Yugoslav Wasp. At the same time, did not drive out. In Mosul, they were used in street battles, but again, the main factor in the IED technique, the shahids and the prepared positions with the bassoons.
      1. bk0010 April 30 2020 12: 36 New
        • 5
        • 0
        +5
        It’s not huge now, it used to be “tight” BMPs. Because of the power of the engines, probably (powerful engines were too expensive for such a mass production).
      2. Saxahorse April 30 2020 21: 29 New
        • 6
        • 0
        +6
        Quote: donavi49
        The main factor of defeat during patrolling is the detonation of IEDs.

        Tricky question. But what the hell, when trying to use patrol BMP? The car is definitely sharpened for military operations in the area of ​​the front line. There are MRAPs by them and patrol!

        The BMP is designed to break through the front line and direct combat operations to the entire depth of defense. Patrolling roads is definitely not something that should be part of the original TTX BMP.
    3. Zeev Zeev April 30 2020 11: 38 New
      • 11
      • 1
      +10
      And your teacher did not consider the landing system over the engine to crawl?
      1. The leader of the Redskins April 30 2020 16: 37 New
        • 6
        • 0
        +6
        Already had the experience of Afghanistan, after which it became clear that it was better to ride on a march on armor, tatge inside.
        1. Zeev Zeev April 30 2020 19: 19 New
          • 5
          • 1
          +4
          When it comes to BMP-1/2 or BTR-60/70/80, then it is better on armor. Soviet armored vehicles for infantry do not at all protect from mine blasting or from the DShK lineup.
      2. The leader of the Redskins April 30 2020 17: 40 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Yes ... BMD1 / 2/3 was not considered a disadvantage like?
    4. Bad_gr April 30 2020 13: 48 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: Leader of the Redskins
      Once at the school we were introduced to BMP3. A disadvantage of her teacher considered the dimensions are large, compared with previous models.
      Today, looking at the comparison picture, I thought that even the “troika” is an inch.

      1. Albert1988 April 30 2020 22: 17 New
        • 4
        • 1
        +3
        Judging by the photo - the size difference is not that big - the thickness of the Kurgan is mainly given by thick side screens with DZ. But what’s important - Kurgan has a much larger internal volume due to the use of an uninhabited module without a turret basket ...
        1. 4thParasinok 5 May 2020 23: 37 New
          • 0
          • 1
          -1
          Quote: Albert1988
          Judging by the photo - the size difference is not that big - the thickness of the Kurgan is mainly given by thick side screens with DZ
          And the Kurganinets’s building is at least half a meter higher, and the tower is even higher, and the building is even wider, even without screens ...
  • Ross xnumx April 30 2020 07: 20 New
    • 18
    • 3
    +15
    Interesting article. And the comments in it are entertaining. I tend to agree with the words:
    “Generals always prepare for the last war” ...
    I will explain the course of my thoughts. From childhood, you have been familiar with the basics of Suvorov's Science of Winning, which says:
    “Fight not by number, but by skill”
    On the one hand, the military is right, who dubbed the "Kurganets" a grenade launcher's dream. And, on the other hand, the designers again planned a place for 11 people in the combat vehicle and tried to make it look like a machine with the highest firepower. It is likely that revising combat manuals and developing battle tactics is much more difficult than writing a list of technical requirements. Only in this case one thing to remember:
    “There are no big seven hats from a sheep!”

    The experience of the military operations of WWII, Afghanistan, Syria shows that in life more important is the professionalism of the personnel and their armament. Are military strategists entitled to turn an airborne assault vehicle into a "mass grave of infantry"? Among the users there are probably participants in the hostilities. Remember, the more compact the group, the better the coordination of the actions of its members, and opposition to the enemy often depends on the availability of fire weapons and the support of the same aviation and artillery ...
    Perhaps it’s time to reconsider the options for transporting cannon fodder and to create new units that can fight using drones and using (even !!!) aviation.
    Here is an example for you: compare the crew of the Ka-52, Mi-28N and their firepower and capabilities in comparison with the "Kurgan". Objections and sarcasm are accepted ... BUT !!! Why do we need a deliberately doomed to fail ground equipment? The presence of a "small expensive spool" is more important than heaps of manure. We are not rich enough to produce cheap things.
    I apologize if I could not convey my view on the topic.
    hi
    1. blackice April 30 2020 08: 04 New
      • 19
      • 2
      +17
      I apologize if I could not convey my view on the topic.

      Yes, everything is clear and agrees on something. Air support is now everything.
      But there is an opinion. BMP is still needed. And my opinion Kurganets, although more, is still better than BMP-1. The military always didn’t give a damn about the fighter hunched in the “luggage” compartment of the BMP-1. With my height of almost 2 meters it was not very comfortable even to get there. I won’t even raise a question about protection.
      And again, the military’s favorite theme is to push the cruiser’s firepower into the small-sized vehicles, the troop compartment on the company and armor is thicker, but at a lower cost.
    2. Hagen April 30 2020 08: 05 New
      • 9
      • 1
      +8
      Quote: ROSS 42
      what is more important in life is the professionalism of the personnel and their armament.

      It’s hard to argue. For this, in fact, they drive through new technologies and the largest possible part of the army’s leadership through conflicts of all degrees, in order to be at least at the level of modern requirements with an estimate for the near future. Obviously, TK is also formed on the basis of an analysis of the actions of troops, including in combat conditions. It’s not without reason that Kurganets has grown in size. The same shock-absorbed seats for landing, the low-resistance contours of the hull in the dimensional framework "2" are unlikely to fit.
      Quote: ROSS 42
      Are military strategists entitled to turn an airborne assault vehicle into a "mass grave of infantry"?

      I agree. This is obviously why both the power of weapons and the size of the machine itself are growing. Although with weapons and the possibilities of its use, it seems to me that an imbalance also occurs. For example, the BMP-3 today has a 100mm low-impulse gun with the possibility of firing a mounted trajectory with a PDO. In total, as many as 2 artillery batteries are assembled in the MCP, and there is still no specialist artilleryman in the MCP staff, and the artillery training of officers is somewhat "of the wrong profile." As a result, the infantry will not be able to dispose of the power of the existing artillery in full. But with the compactness of the group questions. What do you mean by that?
      1. Ross xnumx April 30 2020 08: 21 New
        • 4
        • 2
        +2
        Quote: Hagen
        But with the compactness of the group questions. What do you mean by that?

        I am inclined to assume that it is necessary to reduce the composition of the landing. You will not deny that in modern combat the number of foot soldiers no longer plays the role that was assigned 80 years ago? That is what I am inclined to. A few soldiers with guns are unlikely to confront a machine gunner or a sniper ...
        hi
        1. Hagen April 30 2020 08: 31 New
          • 9
          • 1
          +8
          Quote: ROSS 42
          I am inclined to assume that it is necessary to reduce the composition of the landing.

          Modern OSh provides one machine per MSO. I think there is no reason to reduce MCO, especially since the amount of communication means gives the commander a good margin of safety. It is unlikely that the country's economic capabilities will allow two machines to be supplied to the MCO. But the soldiers somehow don’t fight us with pistols. In wartime, everyone, including the battalion commander, is armed with AK.
          1. garri-lin April 30 2020 09: 38 New
            • 3
            • 3
            0
            But the idea is sound. A vehicle for 4 paratroopers will be the size of an infantry fighting vehicle 1/2. All a little more. Wired at the level of Kurganets. One machine with 30 mm. The second with a mortar automatic or 57 mm or 82 mm. 57 are in stock LLLS. True, such a pair will be expensive.
            1. Hagen April 30 2020 09: 50 New
              • 3
              • 1
              +2
              Quote: garri-lin
              A vehicle for 4 paratroopers will be the size of a 1/2

              Maybe someday we will live to see it. I do not presume to judge how much it will be justified.
              1. garri-lin April 30 2020 09: 59 New
                • 3
                • 2
                +1
                From the point of view of the infantryman’s survival, this will be very, very justifiable. The goal is less, less the chastity of defeat for two reasons. Difficult to get in and easier to hide. And in case of defeat, there is less loss. Still, the SLA would be more advanced, so that the crew is not 3 but 2 people. So that the commander of the machine marks the target and the OMS fulfills without a gunner. Dreams Dreams.
            2. Doctor April 30 2020 12: 58 New
              • 5
              • 1
              +4
              But the idea is sound. A vehicle for 4 paratroopers will be the size of an infantry fighting vehicle 1/2.

              Meaningless. First of all, from the point of view of management. No units for 4 people. If one is injured during landing, two others will be required for evacuation. will remain 2. And one in the field is not a warrior.
              A full-fledged squad of 10 people with a commander should sit in the BTR-BMP. Plus 2 crew members: gunner commander and mechvod.
              1. garri-lin April 30 2020 16: 20 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                It depends entirely on the command. How many people are there today? How much does it get into Kurgan? Divide in half. For two cars. And so that less than two cars do not drive. Kurgan is really large. And his armor is by no means tank.
              2. Victorio 1 May 2020 12: 15 New
                • 0
                • 1
                -1
                Quote: Arzt
                And one in the field is not a warrior.

                ===
                how to say, have something to fight with him
                1. Doctor 1 May 2020 13: 00 New
                  • 2
                  • 0
                  +2
                  how to say, have something to fight with him

                  All of these BMPs were originally created for only one thing - delivering infantry TOGETHER with tanks to the front edge of the enemy because there the tank is blind and vulnerable.

                  In WWII, we drove on armor, but practice has shown that infantry blows off armor long before the trenches and the tanks are defenseless again.

                  Of course there were exceptions - Private Gromykhalo from the village of Armpits.
                  Here he is one warrior in the field. laughing
              3. Hagen 1 May 2020 16: 29 New
                • 2
                • 2
                0
                Quote: Arzt
                Meaningless. First of all, from the point of view of management. No units for 4 people.

                I would not be so categorical. The US Army MPO was divided into 2 sections of 4 soldiers. In the 80s. Now - I will not say.
                1. Doctor 1 May 2020 18: 44 New
                  • 2
                  • 2
                  0
                  I would not be so categorical. The US Army MPO was divided into 2 sections of 4 soldiers. In the 80s. Now - I will not say.

                  Maybe. But still it’s too bold for one BMP for 4 soldiers. Trite on the march, such a division will stretch immeasurably.
                  The whole problem is that they misunderstand the main tasks of the BMP.
                  And there are only two of them.

                  1. Providing infantry with a protected vehicle;
                  2. Providing fire support for infantry during battle.

                  It is in this sequence of priorities.

                  Therefore, when they put a 100 mm cannon into an armored personnel carrier, they are very surprised, "but what kind of monster is this for us?"

                  Need a banal a tracked non-floating armored personnel carrier with 30 mm armor, a heavy machine gun, an automatic grenade launcher, from which you can quickly jump (and not under your wheels) reliable and cheap.

                  In order not to again have to carry infantry from above on armor, or telepath in WWII.

                  I think since the Second World War, our design idea did not come up with anything sensible.

                  It was.



                  After:



                  Even THIS is better, you can even sit in it.

                  1. Saxahorse 1 May 2020 20: 26 New
                    • 1
                    • 0
                    +1
                    Quote: Arzt
                    We need a banal tracked non-floating armored personnel carrier with 30 mm armor, a heavy machine gun, an automatic grenade launcher, from which you can quickly jump out (and not under your wheels) reliable and cheap.

                    As for the "non-floating", the complete nonsense is complete. Have you seen enough American movies? Wow, they all the time in the desert strive to arrange war. But in Europe and the middle zone of Russia you won’t pass two kilometers so that you don’t meet a river .. "Non-swimming" will immediately stand up, waiting for sappers with pontoons. But BMP-1 passes such obstacles without braking.

                    Well, I already got this children's nonsense about infantry on the armor! Above, about the "habitability" of the BMP, read damn it! All guts will turn out inside the box on the march .. That is why the infantry at the top of the BMP is sitting. Going into battle in this way - NO! am
                    1. Doctor 1 May 2020 21: 26 New
                      • 0
                      • 1
                      -1
                      "Non-swimming" will immediately rise, waiting for sappers with pontoons.

                      It is possible and floating. Just do not forget to bring amphibious tanks with you. And not the PT-76, but full-fledged ones.
                      How many floating BMP-1s would have fought on the Dnieper, Vistula and Oder even against the old Panthers and Tigers?
                      1. Saxahorse 2 May 2020 21: 05 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        Quote: Arzt
                        How many floating BMP-1s would have fought on the Dnieper, Vistula and Oder even against the old Panthers and Tigers?

                        If you recall the regular for BMP-1, ATGM Baby - even the Tigers will not seem enough. But the tanks on the bottom learned to walk. There are not so many rivers with a depth of more than 4-5 meters, the main thing is not to get stuck.
                      2. bk0010 2 May 2020 21: 44 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Quote: Arzt
                        How many floating BMP-1s would have fought on the Dnieper, Vistula and Oder even against the old Panthers and Tigers?
                        With proper use, they would have chopped "nut". I recommend reading the Gadyukinsky Bridge by Rostislav Marchenko on this subject. There they consider options for the battle of a parachute assault platoon with a machine-gun-grenade launcher attached against an advancing German infantry regiment with reinforcement. And there is an option with a victory (I remind you: platoon against the regiment).
                      3. Doctor 2 May 2020 22: 25 New
                        • 0
                        • 1
                        -1
                        With proper use, they would have chopped "nut". I recommend reading the Gadyukinsky Bridge by Rostislav Marchenko on this subject.

                        Read several times, well written.

                        But in fact - if buoyancy is achieved by a small increase in mass, then why not.
                        But given that the BMP should work in conjunction with tanks, but they are not very floating, it can be neglected.
                      4. bk0010 2 May 2020 22: 32 New
                        • 2
                        • 0
                        +2
                        The mass increase is small, but God forbid the volume grows: look at the same AAV7 - the mass is less than 30 tons, but what a barn!
                2. Koluj 7 May 2020 09: 29 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  It was someone else who reviewed the movies. In Syria / Libya / CAR, the Russian Federation does not pursue any goals, does not fight, yeah. That BMP crossed the river and what next? How to deliver supplies? How to enter tanks? Can tanks also do floating with such logic?
                  The sense of using floating infantry fighting vehicles was only in the USSR with its breakthrough to the English Channel. I absolutely do not understand where people get such an obsession with floating infantry fighting vehicles, which even DShK / M2 are barely in the forehead (!!!!!!!!) keep, not to mention RPG / ATGM and all kinds of Bushmasters.
              4. Hagen 1 May 2020 20: 55 New
                • 2
                • 0
                +2
                Quote: Arzt
                The whole problem is that they misunderstand the main tasks of the BMP.

                Sign up for volunteers at least in the DPR. Sit under real bullets, then you will find out how nice it is to realize that one, preferably two 100 mm howitzers, capable of also launching ATGMs at 6 km range, works in your interests.
                1. Doctor 2 May 2020 10: 38 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Sign up for volunteers at least in the DPR. Sit under real bullets, then you will find out how nice it is to realize that one, preferably two 100 mm howitzers, capable of also launching ATGMs at 6 km range, works in your interests.

                  Of course it’s nice when the car on which the howitzer and ATGM are installed works in your interests.
                  But it’s not so nice when you and your department are sitting in the same car.
                  Better in the trench, under the bullets.
        2. Cympak April 30 2020 16: 23 New
          • 3
          • 2
          +1
          Not at all sound. It's all from the idea that a motorized rifle should fight for armor. But in fact, the motorized rifle must fight "for two." Then the questions with the "dreams of the grenade launcher" will disappear by themselves. All this stems from the Soviet doctrine of the Cold War era with the assault on the enemy’s positions, cleared by tactical nuclear strikes, and a massive unprofessional draft army.
          Modern doctrine requires a highly professional fighter whose value and firepower is not less than the value of a combat vehicle
          1. garri-lin April 30 2020 16: 28 New
            • 3
            • 1
            +2
            The doctrines to attack the enemy’s defenses for armor are no longer sooooo long since honestly and never. To get to the places of haste for salary areas was. But it was not possible to attack the fortified defense. The value of a fighter is growing year by year. In all armies. Just the pace is different.
            1. Hagen 1 May 2020 16: 38 New
              • 1
              • 1
              0
              Quote: garri-lin
              But it was not possible to attack the fortified defense.

              Not at all. I remember there was such a form of front-line attack in an “armored battle order” (without dismounting). Everything depended on the degree of front-line suppression by artillery. And given the assortment of ammunition, today there is an opportunity to treat the “front end” in such a way that cockroaches cannot survive there. At the same time, observing, periodically, from the tank biathlon, I would say that minimizing the silhouette of the target with increasing its maneuverability makes a lot of sense for survival in conditions of fire resistance in a real field.
              1. chenia 1 May 2020 17: 54 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                Quote: Hagen
                Everything depended on the degree of front-line suppression by artillery. And given the assortment of ammunition, today there is an opportunity to treat the “front end” in such a way that cockroaches cannot survive there.


                All right. It's just that the guys do not know how many carriages of shells flies to the poor GP.
                And if you "turn off with a sleep chain," you can even have a tea party during an attack. laughing
                Although it is desirable to have several fire channels on the BMP (not with machine guns, but with an AH and a machine gun).
                1. Hagen 1 May 2020 21: 51 New
                  • 4
                  • 2
                  +2
                  Quote: chenia
                  It’s just that the guys don’t know how many carriages of shells flies to the poor GP

                  So that the guys do not suffer - GP is a platoon stronghold, occupies a 300 to 200 meter (6 ha) site on the ground. Suppression (temporary deprivation of a combat unit with a defeat of at least 50% l / s) by artillery of 152 (155) mm will require the consumption of 150 shells per 1 ha, or 600 on GP. Destruction of a platoon in a prepared OP with a defeat of 80% l / s will require significantly more shells. The mass of the box with one shot is 70 kg. Total 42 000 kg or 58,8 cubic meters of shells for 152 mm howitzers. Such is the applied mathematics, if anyone is interested.
                  1. chenia 1 May 2020 22: 10 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    Quote: Hagen
                    150 shells per 1 ha


                    Particleboard information however. And for 122 mm, a third more (suppression). But there is still shooting to destroy (and this is a multiple).
                  2. Hagen 1 May 2020 22: 23 New
                    • 1
                    • 1
                    0
                    Quote: chenia
                    Chipboard information however

                    No, everything is already in the public domain. Even BusVch.2 freely floats in a network. Here are 1 parts I have not seen laughing until...
                  3. chenia 2 May 2020 08: 55 New
                    • 1
                    • 0
                    +1
                    Quote: Hagen
                    Even BusVch.2 freely floats in a network.


                    Where the world is heading. bully In my time, the number of the regiment was hidden.
          2. garri-lin 1 May 2020 19: 15 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Attack for what? To occupy and clean up the dispersal of the enemy? Or to break through the lines of defense and maneuver in the rear of the enemy?
        3. Doctor 1 May 2020 19: 15 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          The doctrines to attack the enemy’s defenses for armor are no longer sooooo long since honestly and never. To get to the places of haste for salary areas was. But it was not possible to attack the fortified defense. The value of a fighter is growing year by year. In all armies. Just the pace is different.

          No. You still have to step on.
          The infantry needs armor, without it it is naked.
          And she also needs wheels to keep up with the tanks.
          But the tanks need infantry and preferably near, because the tank is blind.

          Nothing has changed, Chechnya has confirmed.
          1. garri-lin 1 May 2020 19: 21 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            The infantry inside the armor is blind and incapable of anything. Infantry is only infantry when it is in a hurry. It moves in the established order among armored vehicles. And first of all, it identifies the key resistance points and anti-tank weapons of the enemy. Infantry guards the tanks. Tanks comb the road infantry. An infantry fighting vehicle is an infantry firing point.
            1. Doctor 1 May 2020 19: 40 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              The infantry inside the armor is blind and incapable of anything. Infantry is only infantry when it is in a hurry. It moves in the established order among armored vehicles. And first of all, it identifies the key resistance points and anti-tank weapons of the enemy. Infantry guards the tanks. Tanks comb the road infantry. An infantry fighting vehicle is an infantry firing point.

              All right. But you have already described the battle. Moreover, it looks like a fight in the city.
              And the march? And the attack in the open?
              The infantry must not lag behind the tanks, it must be taken after them both on the march and in the attack on the ground to the trenches, where the tank will become vulnerable.
              And to take for armor, otherwise machine gunners will cut it off, this was their main task in the Second World War, and now.

              Article: Terrible. Tanks. How it was.
              "An attempt to capture an attack from the hospital complex of the bridgehead on the eastern bank of the Sunzha River resulted in the loss of two T-3B (M) tanks from artillery and grenade launcher fire from the 72th Guards Omsbr that entered the city on the eve. After the infantry was cut off from the tanks, the latter were instantly knocked out at the bridge, replenishing the account of the irretrievable losses of the tank units storming Grozny. Covering the crew’s withdrawal with fire from an automatic machine, the wounded tankman Private A. Ryabokon died at his combat vehicle (posthumously awarded the Order of Courage). "
              1. garri-lin 1 May 2020 19: 48 New
                • 2
                • 0
                +2
                If in open area the enemy machine gunners managed to cut off the infantry from the escorted tanks, then HaNa would give up completely. Do you know why? Because the tanks on the battlefield are just so that those machine guns could not do more than one short line. If this interaction does not work out, then it’s better not to fight. Like the French, for example.
              2. Doctor 1 May 2020 20: 17 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                If in open area the enemy machine gunners managed to cut off the infantry from the escorted tanks, then HaNa would give up completely. Do you know why? Because the tanks on the battlefield are just so that those machine guns could not do more than one short line.

                And again you have everything for sure. In battle, a machine gun is one of the main objectives of the tank. But not the main one. The main thing is anti-tank weapons (artillery and ATGMs), enemy tanks and in general everything heavy that infantry can destroy.
                But that's not all. Then the main thing. The infantry was cut off not only because of the tankers (it is not so easy to detect a machine gun from a tank), but also because the infantry did not have normal armor.

                Normal - for protection against small arms up to and including CPVT.
                Z0 mm is enough.
                More is a meaningless arms race.
                And for a machine gunner, a large-caliber machine gun is enough.
                Maximum (if you want to compete with helicopters) automatic gun 23 mm.
                More is a meaningless arms race.

                Bonus - KAZ and AGS.

                That's the whole concept of BMP (and armored personnel carriers too).
              3. garri-lin 1 May 2020 20: 55 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                The best armor for infantry is shelters and maneuvers. Sitting in the armor will not work. Plus the main eyes on the infantry battlefield. Even interactions were worked out when the infantry fired on tracers identified targets. And the tank, without any request, stupidly put a couple of RPs there. This is in case of loss of communication. But these are special cases. If the infantry is not dismounted, then it is not needed. BMP changes to BMPT. But such a composition does not hold the position. You can break through and get to the rear, but you can’t keep it. Until the infantry comb through every bush.
        4. chenia 1 May 2020 20: 07 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: garri-lin
          The infantry inside the armor is blind and incapable of anything.


          If we talk about the war of equal opponents, then according to the existing controllers the breakthrough of layered defense occurs according to certain rules. And then the target of the MCP attack will be pre-processed by several carriages of shells and bombs. And the breakthrough of the most saturated defense (first position) and then the first lane. units should carry out the most saturated TBMP and BMPT (well, this is in addition to tanks, etc.). Further, when the density of defense falls, you can use the "light" BMP or armored personnel carrier.
          This is me that to solve certain problems it is necessary to apply (by the way, as it was) to use specialized (with the appropriate weapons and OSh) units. parts. and even connections.
          In this case, naturally, in most cases, formations should have considerable versatility.
          1. Doctor 1 May 2020 20: 35 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            Further, when the density of defense falls, you can use the "light" BMP or armored personnel carrier.

            Yes, not even further, but together. But let the infantry have RELIABLE protection at least from small arms. But not even that!
            Because they are trying to stick a powerful weapon there. And it spoils everything.
            And on the battlefield it also attracts all tank barrels, ATGMs, helicopters, etc.
            And pushes the BMP commander to try to fight the heavyweights, driving the infantry into horror.
            A tank is a tank, and a bus is a bus. Do not confuse them.
          2. chenia 1 May 2020 20: 54 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: Arzt
            But let the infantry have RELIABLE protection at least from small arms.


            Definitely. “light” infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers, besides holding up to 30 mm in the frontal

            Quote: Arzt
            Because they are trying to stick a powerful weapon there.


            For the "universal" BMP 57 mm (if taking into account the reduction of the landing, then the BC will be significant). For most tasks in defense, offensive and various conditions, this is the most.
            For the Airborne Forces of 100 mm, they have a shortage of artillery, and the main task is defense. keep the area until the approach of the main forces. And to occupy an area where there is no layered defense, only sentry guard.

            For combat in various conditions, not only do you need specialized equipment, it is possible to provide for the replacement of a combat module.
            But basically, it will be generalists.
          3. Doctor 1 May 2020 21: 19 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            For the "universal" BMP 57 mm (if taking into account the reduction of the landing, then the BC will be significant). For most tasks in defense, offensive and various conditions, this is the most.

            This is in theory. But in life everything is easier.
            Guys want protection against grenade launchers. Our designers can not see.

            We have to do so.



            They want the AGS. From Afghanistan to the Donbass. And not only ours but also the enemy.
            But the designers have their own vision of the battle.





            I will modestly keep silent about the concept of airborne landing in general and landing of equipment in particular in the conditions of modern air defense.

            And attempts to use neutered infantry fighting vehicles in the form of BMD in Chechnya led to the largest losses of this armored vehicle. I think the 152 mm gun would not have saved her, she’s a cardboard one.

          4. chenia 1 May 2020 21: 32 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: Arzt

            They want the AGS. From Afghanistan to Donbass


            Yes, they generally do not need military, but specialized equipment.

            Quote: Arzt
            I will modestly keep silent about the concept of airborne landing in general and landing of equipment in particular in the conditions of modern air defense.


            Ha! There are cases when (before the first shot) you can take a glade. And there, whose meadow. addition and a picnic. There have been cases. And so.
          5. Doctor 1 May 2020 21: 46 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Yes, they generally do not need military, but specialized equipment.

            Where can I get her, specialized for all occasions. And how much it will cost.

            The need for ACS on BMPs has long been recognized by military theorists.
            For example, the article "Development of an Infantry Fighting Vehicle of the Future" by Gregory A. Pickell is a captain in the US Army Reserve Reserve.
            Considers various types of weapons BMP.

            "Automatic grenade launcher (AGL). Of all the weapons used for the BMP, an automatic grenade launcher is perhaps the most suitable. It occupies the smallest space of all options, except for a machine gun. At the same time, automatic grenade launchers, of which the typical representative is an automatic grenade launcher MK 19 USA, have ammunition capable of hitting manpower, lightly armored vehicles, various fortifications and other armored targets with very satisfactory results. A distinctive, but important advantage of automatic grenade launchers is their relatively low initial velocity, which makes it possible to bombard entrenched manpower, which is protected to a large extent from guns with a higher initial velocity and more gentle ballistic trajectories. than any other weapons option, which is often an underestimated but much-needed aspect of the infantry mission. "
          6. chenia 1 May 2020 22: 06 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: Arzt
            The need for ACS on BMPs has long been recognized by military theorists.


            Undoubtedly.
            If TBMP, then it is highly desirable to have several fire channels. The main tower is 57 mm. high ballistics. But in the BC have a low-pulse telescopic shot (naturally, the gun is not automatic), shooting up to 2 km. Shot-3 fragmentation grenade, the first remote detonation, the rest of the shock. (almost like an automaton will work).
            The rest of the turrets. or sector embrasures - machine gun and AG-40.
  • garri-lin 1 May 2020 21: 00 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    What prevents the use of TBTR in the first group? In a pair to BMPT. The stronger the resistance, the stronger the armored vehicles should be. But there is a certain distance from which defeat of technology by the enemy becomes very, very likely. The infantry at this point should be in a hurry.
  • chenia 1 May 2020 21: 23 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: garri-lin
    What prevents the use of TBTR


    Nothing. But I’m just for not producing entities.

    Quote: garri-lin
    The stronger the resistance, the stronger the armored vehicles should be.


    Of course. In addition, there are times when, fire preparation guarantees the suppression of even pre-occupied defense. And the combined arms commander will decide to make a breakthrough without dismounting (the pace is higher). Then you also need to have equipment capable of being in the same battle line with tanks (and this is a 200 m line of safe removal).
  • garri-lin 2 May 2020 08: 42 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    But to "finish off" the remnants of the enemy’s troops will still have to. But they are not engaged in rear activities.
  • Hagen 1 May 2020 22: 20 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    Quote: garri-lin
    Infantry is only infantry when it is in a hurry. It moves in the established order among armored vehicles.

    To broaden horizons: infantry never moves across the battlefield among armored vehicles. She is supposed to walk on foot behind the line of tanks, and her armored vehicles move using the folds of terrain behind the line of dismounted infantry. So BUSW suggests. For combat in urban conditions, assault groups are created (MSV-MCP reinforced by sappers and tanks), while tanks work in a chain or behind an infantry chain. According to the same BUSV. Of course, a new technique, such as BMPT, may introduce some adjustments. For this, specialists from the General Staff work who analyze combat experience and develop recommendations and instructions.
    1. garri-lin 2 May 2020 08: 47 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Wrote the same "established damage".
  • alexmach April 30 2020 18: 17 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    A vehicle for 4 paratroopers will be the size of a 1/2

    There will be no car for 4 paratroopers of this size and with the same level of protection. In the best case, there will be 0.8 of the size of the BMP for 8 paratroopers.
    1. prodi April 30 2020 18: 33 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Yes, it would be wonderful if it fit into the dimensions of the M-113
  • chenia April 30 2020 11: 18 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: Hagen
    It is unlikely that they will be allowed to give two cars in the MCO


    It is rational and optimal to have 5 infantry fighting vehicles in platoons, where 3 on the MCO + 1 control + 1 gain link.
    Without an increase in l / s platoon firing capabilities will increase (even with a decrease in the number of dismounted).
    And each boss (3 KO.ZKV, and KV) has a car.)
    You can then increase the caliber of the gun to 57 mm.
    1. Albert1988 April 30 2020 22: 21 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: chenia
      It is rational and optimal to have 5 infantry fighting vehicles in platoons, where 3 on the MCO + 1 control + 1 gain link.

      In this case, you can stay without pants .. in the sense that our economy will not pull so many cars ...
    2. Hagen 1 May 2020 16: 47 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      Quote: chenia
      link amplification.

      The gain link has its own technique. This may be a tank, BM ATGM, BMPT or something else from the attached funds. Give the car control, maybe it makes sense. Total to platoon - 4 BMP. Why not?
      1. chenia 1 May 2020 17: 34 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: Hagen
        The gain link has its own technique.


        No, I'm talking about something else, not about strengthening the MSV.
        With an unchanged number of squadrons and a platoon decrease (4-5 people), there will be fewer fighters in the squad when dismounting (here you also need to exclude mechvods and operators — and if 5 infantry fighting vehicles — as many as 10 people). And the reinforcement link, this is l \ s which is part of the squad, but is included (or rather moves) in the BMP assault squad and BMP-ZKV. When dismounting, they run to their unit.
        1. Hagen 2 May 2020 09: 52 New
          • 1
          • 1
          0
          Quote: chenia
          And the reinforcement link, this is l \ s which is part of the squad, but is included (or rather moves) in the BMP assault squad and BMP-ZKV. When dismounting, they run to their unit.

          But it will definitely be inconvenient. It is easier to form a fire / other group of reserve KV 1-2 snipers from them with a medic. In battle, the ZKV should remain in the car and steer the BM fire, the KV would dismount and it would not be in the way of a certain “maneuver group” with special tasks.
          1. chenia 2 May 2020 12: 16 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Quote: Hagen
            But it will definitely be uncomfortable


            The chain of separation of the people will not be enough, with a reduced landing.
            So. that part (6-8 people) should be placed in the BMF KV and ZKV.
            Line BMP platoon in the intervals of the front angle back.
            In the management of a nurse, sniper, ZKV in another BMP. And beyond the state, the reinforcement link (or at the expense of the branches) makes no sense. Trend - on the first line there are fewer people, more firearms (robots are already on the way here).
  • Cympak April 30 2020 16: 17 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    The truth is that the BMP-3 cannot fire from a closed position. Rather, it can shoot, but it definitely doesn’t. To be able to shoot with a PDO, minimal modifications are needed for very little money ....
    1. Hagen April 30 2020 17: 26 New
      • 4
      • 1
      +3
      Quote: Cympak
      Rather, it can shoot, but definitely hit - no

      those. functionality is embedded in iron, but not in brains. This is a disaster.
  • Per se. April 30 2020 09: 01 New
    • 8
    • 7
    +1
    Quote: ROSS 42
    The experience of the military operations of WWII, Afghanistan, Syria shows that in life more important is the professionalism of the personnel and their armament.
    I really liked your comment, Yuri Vasilievich. What I wanted to add. Firstly, when speaking about experience, it must be understood that the war in Afghanistan is mainly military operations against militants using guerrilla tactics. The war with a full-fledged army, having all kinds of troops, will already be different. In one case, police and anti-terrorist equipment may be in demand, with emphasis on MRAP technology (mine resistant ambush protected - protected from undermining and attacks from ambushes, mine-resistant ambush protected), when attacking military convoys, in another case, these “armored buses” will be Not needed. Finally, a different geographical environment, low-water areas, a dry climate, or marshland, many water barriers. In addition, the type of battle, where the most difficult, for any equipment, will be a battle in the city. This must be understood initially.

    Now the “platform”, where “ahead of the rest”, “Armata”, “Boomerang”, “Kurganets” ... It’s like to pre-designate “a platform that hasn’t proved itself in any way, the whole test cycle has not passed, it’s not accepted at armament, not mastered by industry? If a lot of equipment was created on the basis of MT-LB, this machine became a platform, being tested by time, being technological, relatively cheap, reliable, mastered by industry. On the basis of the T-72 / T-90 a lot of equipment was also created , and this is a platform. Spend millions and billions on ala "platform" from that "Armata" is stupidity and sabotage. Well, it’s not smart to design a "platform" on any raw and complicated base. Now, "Kurganets" ...

    Always perceived "Bradley" and "Warrior" freaks, but capitalist Russia gave birth to its monsters, of course, to songs about caring about the "infantry Vanya." Here, they will surely pour mud on the BMP-1/2/3 under the cliché of the "mass grave". It doesn’t reach many “veterans” of network tank games that you cannot add anything without decreasing anything, without sacrificing anything. You rightly noted about the place "for 11 people." This will be a "mass grave", especially if this "dream of a grenade launcher" climbs next to tanks with unhurried infantry. In general, the meaning of an infantry fighting vehicle is only in its versatility and maneuverability, the “heavy infantry fighting vehicle” with fire support will be inferior in terms of armament and defense of an infantry fighting vehicle, and in transport functions to a heavy armored personnel carrier. Therefore, if we talk about equipment for working with tanks, the best seen is a bunch of BMPTs and heavy armored personnel carriers for assault groups of 5-6 people per vehicle. Reducing the number of troops will optimize the dimensions, protection and comfort of deployment, reduce the time of dismounting troops as a battle group, and minimize losses in the event of a vehicle being hit with the troops on board. So it turns out, next to the tanks, with specialized fire support, BMPTs are needed, and for infantry, in the second line, heavy armored personnel carriers are needed. Whether Kurganets is needed here is a big question for me personally.
    1. chenia April 30 2020 12: 04 New
      • 1
      • 3
      -2
      Quote: Per se.
      "heavy infantry fighting vehicles" with fire support will be inferior in armament and BMPT security, and in transport functions to heavy armored personnel carriers.

      That's right, instead of increasing the number of infantry fighting vehicles in the platoon (without changing the number of squadrons) and creating special units for breaking through the prepared defense at the TBMP together with the BMPT (the BMPT is a Tank Support BM, but the vehicle is already a tank, not an infantry) , started some garbage. .
    2. BREAKTHROUGH READY April 30 2020 13: 34 New
      • 3
      • 1
      +2
      The war with a full-fledged army, having all kinds of troops, will already be different.
      The war with a full-fledged army will begin with a short-lived missile-bomb strike and end with the subsequent gaining superiority in the air, with the pursuit of defenseless and vulnerable centralized forces. The subsequent sweeping of the unfinished, scattered enclaves is not too different from the insurgent conflicts of Afghanistan and Syria.
  • basmach April 30 2020 11: 06 New
    • 6
    • 2
    +4
    Aviation is a good thing (it’s good from it). But on the preparation for departure time is wasted on the go. It is hardly less now than in my time. With planned flights of the squadron (10 sides) - preliminary preparation (for the first flight) -3 hours. Preparation for the second flight is almost half an hour (in wartime, somewhat less due to the refusal and combination of some operations for the preparation of the aircraft). Plus (as far as I remember from the tactics of the Air Force) - the location of airfields from the front line - fighter-50-60km, attack-100-120, IBA-150-160, FB-about 200. And that is in the presence of airfields. With the army easier, there and the lawn will do. But the preparation time is also not 5 minutes. And most importantly, modern air defense systems will very quickly thin out aviation. And everything remains as before, the main role on the battlefield is played by ordinary infantry Vanya. Aviation remains an auxiliary participant with disabilities. It was during the Second World War that it was possible to rivet 25 thousand aircraft (of all types) per year. And now God forbid a hundred.
    1. Igor Aviator 1 May 2020 12: 18 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      Quote: basmach
      Hardly less now than in my time. With planned flights of the squadron (10 sides) - preliminary preparation (for the first flight) -3 hours. Preparation for the second flight - almost half an hour (in wartime, somewhat less due to the refusal and combination of some operations for the preparation of the aircraft)

      Apparently, you VERY LONG TIME served ... hi You missed the point that you are operating with standards that are valid only for PEACE time, that is, from b / g CONSTANT and that is the standards of the 90s, which were written under the dictation of “import advisers”. In addition, the technique has changed VERY. I will not advertise ALL the nuances, but the amount of pre-flight training is SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCED, compared with the OLD technique. Preparation for the second flight, in terms of time, was actually limited by the suspension time of the BC. In addition, in this case, it is necessary to operate with standards for the military-hazard degree b / g, not lower, and if we take into account that front-line aviation will "work" from dispersal places, not regimental forces at all, and, moreover, with already suspended means of TSA, then - in general, according to the temporary standards of "withdrawal from attack," that is, characteristic of remote sensing readiness from "1". In other words, an “order” for “processing” a point (you must admit that one plane, or a couple, well, a link, no more is capable of delivering a point strike, and NOBODY CANCELED the duty forces) will be VERY promptly yes ... Take Syria: in a day, airplanes usually made MORE THAN 70 sorties. On the most stressful days, more than 200 sorties took place, the crews barely had time to change each other between sorties.
      1. basmach 1 May 2020 13: 14 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        You do not carry nonsense. I began serving in the regiment in the year 90, according to the new staffing, NIAS-86. What to the devil "Western advisers." He started as an engineer of the PrNK in the squadron, then only in the TEH. Aircraft Su-17M4. Pre-flight preparation consists in conducting certain inspections for each specialty (AO, REO, SD, AB, PrNK, OK). Weapons gunners work after all, combining the work of any specialists with gunsmiths is strictly forbidden, when suspended, the aircraft is de-energized, the cabin closes (the lamp is lowered). Preparation for the second flight takes about 25-30 minutes (most operations are not performed, OK-objective control data is taken, the aircraft will not be released into the air without deciphering these data). I need to refuel the plane, enter new data on the purpose and type of ammunition, suspend the weapons (and by profession I’m an armorer and how much the suspension will take, I know). So stop hanging noodles on my ears. In wartime, part of the verification operations are not carried out - this gives benefits mainly in advance preparation for departure. Have you ever seen what a conclusion is from under attack ?. Aircraft do not stand with suspended ASP (only the duty link), only refueled. TSAs are generally suspended ONLY before departure (the first BC, if it is an AB, is stored in an arched shelter with the aircraft in our 2nd squadron, where I started 1 BC was OFAB 250-270, it was suspended on cables). Each squadron has its first BC. 1st squadron (in my time) - special suspension (and I, as a gunsmith, had to train as part of calculating the suspension). And about Syria, from what calculation of the number of aircraft. If from 60-70 it’s one flight a day. Again, the flight shift is 12 hours (of which 3 hours are pre-flight, hours after flight, 8 hours of flight.) The suspension was either P-50-75 (one) + cannon, or Ub-32 (4 C-5) + cannon. Almost every departure polygon. It was planned for 6 sorties on board; a maximum of five per shift was carried out. And even with such a suspension, the gunsmiths had a butt in the soap!
        1. Igor Aviator 1 May 2020 13: 53 New
          • 1
          • 1
          0
          and I was FINISHING the service when the NIAO-90 was replaced, and the FAO IAO was introduced!
          preflight preparation is now performed by CALCULATIONS and in parallel, not by specialists, their task is to install the battery (and they are going to return the battery to storage on board), check the AMP, CHECK the level of gas, fuel, run VSK, Census information OK (to confirm the AMP check ) - remove the flash drive from the board, stick it in the magician - and back - SECONDS !. Next is the ASP suspension. ALL! Once again I say - you are VERY behind!
          By the second departure - discharge (if necessary), census of materials OK NOT IDEED, FLASH CHANGE - seconds, analysis - in OK using automatic algorithms - also, no more than 3 minutes. And in the meantime - refueling, and gas - actually in parallel, (if suddenly there is no gas producing station on board), By the time the refueling is finished, the answer from OK is ALWAYS ready. By the time the suspension began, the decision to fly was ALREADY taken! And how much is needed for the suspension, with the LITERARY Deputy for IAS and engineers for AB, LOGO organized logistics, I know firsthand! 3 years spent at PU IAS! and the flight support I felt on my own skin to the fullest, albeit an AO-shnik. Entering a b / task in the TSA - ALSO SECONDS, well, a couple of minutes, no more. Something like this!
  • Doctor April 30 2020 13: 06 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    Here is an example for you: compare the crew of the Ka-52, Mi-28N and their firepower and capabilities in comparison with the "Kurgan". Objections and sarcasm are accepted ... BUT !!! Why do we need a deliberately doomed to fail ground equipment? The presence of a "small expensive spool" is more important than heaps of manure.

    Right. No matter how we increase our armor, there will always be more caliber, so the armor must hold small arms up to the heavy machine gun inclusive + KAZ.

    The volume should allow the transport of a full-fledged compartment of soldiers of 10 people.

    Firepower should ensure the defeat of the enemy’s l / s. The rest will be handled by tanks.

    Total we have: M113 with a grenade launcher. No wonder he was released the most in the world.
  • Bad_gr April 30 2020 20: 29 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Quote: ROSS 42
    I tend to agree with the words:
    “Generals always prepare for the last war” ...

    It would be strange if it were otherwise. The experience gained during the war, the work on mistakes, and that would not step on the same rake again are taken into account. Do not plan the same operations with the expectation of spaceships, the movement of units through the subspace, the energy of torsion fields and the use of individual laser weapons.

    "What is the use of looking ahead if the whole experience is behind."
    M. Zhvanetsky:
  • Igor Aviator 1 May 2020 12: 34 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: ROSS 42
    BUT!!! Why do we need a deliberately doomed to fail ground equipment?

    Excuse me, hi I do not agree! stop Sorry for the banality, but "victory is forged ON THE EARTH!" (with). Never the territory, stronghold, front-line section or settlement will not be considered liberated (or occupied) by our troops until the foot of OUR SOLDIER - INFANTRY sets foot there !! so that the role of aviation in the cause of liberation (and the mission of OUR army is to protect and liberate) is power support, support in one way or another, the actions of the INFANTRY. hi
  • awdrgy 2 May 2020 20: 10 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    All the same, you need to have 2 types of infantry fighting vehicles, namely the army, where low silhouette is a priority, high mobility, the ability to overcome water obstacles is a powerful weapon and, as a result, relatively low protection, including from mines (or some secret technologies that I still do not know) Second let's say, the counter-guerrilla as much as possible protected from mines is well-armored with a weaker gun And although it’s good to have a “two in one”, it still doesn’t work (or the equipment will be too expensive) These contradictions t is still police operations by and large And army officers are preparing for war and not chasing a couple of hundreds (thousands) of militants who by and large are enough to deprive of supply bases (albeit not humanely but leveling them and not with the help of armored vehicles In this and the difference between a war and a police operation) Therefore, when the "police" equipment is handed over to the military, they are dissatisfied. The same are the Vovans, they are given the army and they have other methods (this technique is not suitable for them). And here you can not equal either Israel or the USA or Europe (for some TVs "Dumpy" other-expeditionary police forces others do not understand something if a PR technique whether the same colonial police operations) and yet their technique prohibitively expensive for peacetime and complicated for military
    1. bk0010 2 May 2020 21: 46 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: awdrgy
      The second one, let’s say, the counter-guerrilla, which is as much as possible protected from mines, well armored with a weaker gun
      This is called MRAP. It is several times cheaper than the first option, but it is not manufactured industrially.
      1. awdrgy 2 May 2020 21: 48 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quite right, it is not produced, but in our language there are no Latin letters)
  • Mwg
    Mwg April 30 2020 07: 23 New
    • 1
    • 2
    -1
    Nowadays, hamburger king and poppy-donalds dimensions should not confuse))))))))))))
    1. Bodipancher April 30 2020 10: 15 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      Now the average person is much higher and larger than the average man of the 60s + all in body armor. Without an increase in size in any way, unless you reduce the number of troops. But you won’t save much, more powerful armor and the engine will still dictate specific dimensions.
  • Strashila April 30 2020 07: 32 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    What prevented the installation of a modernized (KAZ afghanite) combat module with BMP-3, which means that everything is not so simple with the internal volume for all its overall dimensions from the outside.
    1. Albert1988 April 30 2020 22: 24 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Strashila
      What prevented the installation of a modernized (afghanite KAZ)

      So he is already standing on the Kurgan)))
      Quote: Strashila
      combat module with BMP-3

      And then he will devour half of the internal space due to the huge turret basket, and the automatic turret basket module does not have at all ...
      1. Strashila 1 May 2020 06: 22 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        in BMP-3M "Dragoon", this does not interfere, the crew is 3 + 8, exactly the same
        1. Albert1988 1 May 2020 14: 00 New
          • 2
          • 1
          +1
          Quote: Strashila
          in BMP-3M "Dragoon", this does not interfere, the crew is 3 + 8, exactly the same

          Even as it bothers - there these 8 people are sitting in three deaths and the chairs themselves very, very much leave much to be desired, and the dragoon, like the converted BMP-3, has almost no mine protection. Therefore, the Kurgan is one step ahead.
  • Zaurbek April 30 2020 08: 20 New
    • 1
    • 2
    -1
    And what kind of diesel does it cost? With 57mm cornet there is no need .... but you need a 37-45mm gun. And a lot of shells and powerful.
    1. Doctor April 30 2020 12: 51 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      but you need a 37-45mm gun. And a lot of shells and powerful.

      Why 37? What are her goals in battle?
      1. Zaurbek April 30 2020 13: 45 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        BTR and BMP of the enemy, protected from a 30mm gun. And the infantry with fortifications .. Using a more powerful HE projectile
  • alex aircraft April 30 2020 08: 35 New
    • 8
    • 2
    +6
    Where in real b / d after the Second World War was used to force water barriers immediately? so why is the BMP / BTR able to swim? is it necessary to strengthen mine protection and Kaz. or again we want to reach the English Channel in 3 days?
    1. Cympak April 30 2020 16: 31 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      In WWII there was no floating equipment. Rather, it was, but specific for the landing of naval landings. In the modern army you need to have 2 types of equipment for transporting foot soldiers: heavy, which operates in linear order along with tanks to break through the enemy’s defense, and overcomes water barriers along with tanks, and light, which has the ability to overcome water barriers on the move to capture bridgeheads and offensive development. When attacking a prepared enemy defense, light vehicles should go in the 3rd line after tanks and heavy infantry fighting vehicles / armored personnel carriers
      1. bk0010 1 May 2020 00: 59 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        In WWII there was no floating equipment.
        Offhand: T-37A, T-38. You do not take into account that buoyancy is needed not only for "crossing the Dnieper". If it exists, the rivers we turn into roads (well, not quite roads, but taking into account their possible use will cause many problems to the enemy command and can save many of our lives).
    2. Out
      Out April 30 2020 17: 42 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Indo-Pakistani conflict of 1971, doomsday war.
    3. alexmach April 30 2020 18: 29 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Yes, in fact, there is no need for Lamansha, even in a hypothetical war on its own territory, the ability to force a water barrier on the move will be superfluous.
      1. prodi 1 May 2020 07: 29 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        (an opportunity!), of course, there will not be, but there will be (constant!) lack of armor protection and oversize (to the detriment of habitability)
        1. alexmach 1 May 2020 10: 31 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Why on earth. As Kurgan has already written, it is quite in world trends in terms of protection and size.
          1. prodi 1 May 2020 12: 06 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            the front engine and reinforced frontal armor require an increase in the forward volume of the bow to ensure buoyancy, and this is the size; although, according to statements about 26t of Kurganets and as much as 34t of Boomerang, it’s hard to believe in good booking, the maximum is better than the current one, especially if the bet is on DZ and KAZ
  • Esaul April 30 2020 08: 44 New
    • 7
    • 0
    +7
    KAZ should just protect it from the grenade launcher, but the fact that the dimensions have grown is inevitable.
  • Bodipancher April 30 2020 09: 57 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    An increase in size is also necessary for natural reasons. People are now much taller and larger than in the 60s + now motorized rifles are dressed in armor, and this still adds dimensions. It may be easier to get from a grenade launcher, but due to better armor, the crew and the landing are less vulnerable to small arms and mines. A better visibility will reduce the likelihood that the grenade launcher will be able to approach the distance of the shot. Kurganets and the T-15 are a natural evolution of military vehicles and will still have to switch to a new generation. Small ammunition is certainly embarrassing, yet one of the main BMP functions is the fire support of dismounted infantry.
    1. Cympak April 30 2020 16: 32 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      And on the approach exoskeletons, which will further increase the size of the foot soldiers.
      1. Albert1988 April 30 2020 22: 25 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: Cympak
        And on the approach exoskeletons, which will further increase the size of the foot soldiers.

        When exoskeletons become firmly in the equipment, then the appearance of the BMP will change dramatically ...
  • AAK
    AAK April 30 2020 10: 04 New
    • 10
    • 0
    +10
    To BMP-1/2 supporters (who served as a motorized rifle), I suggest recalling the sensation of a “frog in a box” after passing at least a 100-km march inside this “brotherly carriage” ... And if not along the highway but along the “intersection”, but BMD sensations are even cooler .... But as for the armored protection of these infantry fighting vehicles, ask past Afghanistan or Chechnya ...
    As for the weapon module on the Kurgan, you need to put either a 30-mm twin as on the Terminator or 57-mm with the preservation of missile weapons
    1. AAK
      AAK April 30 2020 10: 08 New
      • 7
      • 0
      +7
      As for the composition of the landing group of 8 people, it should be borne in mind that in the m / s department the state has 1 machine gun and 1 RPG, with the second numbers it is already 4 people, only 4 arrows remain, and of them there may be 1 more Marxmann "with SVD, I think this amount is minimally sufficient to carry out a combat mission
    2. FIR FIR April 30 2020 11: 15 New
      • 2
      • 1
      +1
      Support.
      And the caliber is 57 mm. need to set. Medium caliber with serious data.
      1. Doctor April 30 2020 12: 49 New
        • 5
        • 0
        +5
        And the caliber is 57 mm. need to set.

        What for? What are her goals in battle?
        1. Cympak April 30 2020 16: 42 New
          • 3
          • 1
          +2
          On tests 2 new combat modules
          1. KBP Tula - with a 57-mm moderate ballistic gun, a machine gun, 4 ATGM “Cornet” and 8 small UR “Bulat”. BMP with him, by the way, is presented in the picture in the title of the article. The 57-mm cannon is made on the basis of the LShO-57 and has a grenade comparable in effect to a 82-mm mortar mortar, which allows you to crush the enemy’s resistance with automatic fire. caliber projectile.
          2. Central Research Institute "Petrel" - "Dagger" / "Baikal" with a 57-mm gun based on the S-60 anti-aircraft gun. To this cannon they make a new projectile with remote detonation to combat sheltered infantry and a guided projectile to combat helicopters.
          I will assume that the module from KBP will go to the Kurganets and the upgraded BMP-3, and the module from the Central Research Institute Burevestnik to the T-15, because "military-industrial feudalism" has not been canceled in our country.
          1. Doctor April 30 2020 19: 24 New
            • 2
            • 2
            0
            1. KBP Tula - with a 57-mm moderate ballistic gun, a machine gun, 4 ATGM “Cornet” and 8 small UR “Bulat”. BMP with him, by the way, is presented in the picture in the title of the article. The 57-mm cannon is made on the basis of the LShO-57 and has a grenade comparable in effect to a 82-mm mortar mortar, which allows you to crush the enemy’s resistance with automatic fire. caliber projectile.

            Clear. Again, instead of the Infantry Fighting Vehicle, they want THIS:

    3. Saxahorse April 30 2020 21: 39 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      Quote: AAK
      As for the weapon module on the Kurgan, you need to put either a 30-mm twin as on the Terminator

      How interesting! Maybe you can explain why the hell “Terminator” put a spark? What, one 30-mm gun with more than a decent rate of fire versus one infantryman is not enough?

      Very many people consider the air defense spark at Terminator to be an absolutely ridiculous decision. Maybe you can finally explain WHY this garbage was screwed to the Terminator?
      1. Albert1988 April 30 2020 22: 27 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: Saxahorse
        How interesting! Maybe you can explain why the hell “Terminator” put a spark?

        In order to level their number of shells, far from enough power.
        1. Saxahorse April 30 2020 22: 36 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Quote: Albert1988
          In order to level their number of shells, far from enough power.

          Why then soared? It was necessary to immediately put the AK-630!


          "From the six-barrel, but not into the crowd of hares?" (c) Petka & Vasily Ivanovich.
          1. Albert1988 April 30 2020 22: 38 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Quote: Saxahorse
            Why then soared? It was necessary to immediately put the AK-630!

            Well - how to put a destroyer, at worst, a frigate, on a caterpillar move is still harder than pushing a couple of 30 mm guns on the tank chassis))) But I agree - it’s better to have one bigger gun.

            But seriously - they sculpted from what was, as in the old song)))
        2. Cympak 1 May 2020 10: 07 New
          • 2
          • 1
          +1
          The special "charm" of the pair on the "Terminator" is that each trunk can be fed with only one tape. Initially, the 30A 2A42 gun has selective power from 2 tapes, one of which is loaded with HE shells, and the other with armor-piercing shells. On the "Terminator", apparently, one barrel fires armor-piercing shells, the other with high-explosive shells. Or you need to equip the tape mixed. For example, 3 HE shells 1 armor-piercing shell. By the way, initially for the “Terminator” (BMPT “Frame-99” or Object 199) a module was planned with 1 30-mm gun 2A42, 30-mm AGS and ATGM. But some also wanted anti-aircraft functions. So this nonsense appeared with 2 30-mm guns, but without selective nutrition.
          Whoever is interested can watch an interview with the leading designer for the development of the Frame-99 Alexander Yakovlev explaining how this strange model of the Russian BTT appeared.
          1. Albert1988 1 May 2020 14: 04 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Quote: Cympak
            But some also wanted anti-aircraft functions.

            Not anti-aircraft, but the possibility of honor fire on the upper floors of buildings in a fairly high development. Terminator is the brainchild of the Chechen war. Interestingly, in Syria, these cars in urban areas were very, very useful ...
            But with the appearance of heavy infantry fighting vehicles with serious weapons - the meaning in the BMPT somewhat disappears ...
            1. Cympak 1 May 2020 23: 22 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Watch the video. At 7:12, Yakovlev plainly said that 2 guns on the Terminator were used to combat air targets, for the same reason they chose Attack rather than Cornet as ATGMs. But the UVN of the guns at the “Terminator” is -5 ... + 45 degrees. It’s not enough for shooting in the mountains and the city, and this is in the presence of a remote combat module with a gun mount. For example, the BMP-2 -5 ... + 74 has a UVN, and the BMP-3 has a -6 ... + 60 degrees.
              1. Albert1988 2 May 2020 11: 56 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                Quote: Cympak
                Watch the video. At 7:12, Yakovlev plainly said that 2 guns on the Terminator were used to combat air targets, for the same reason they chose Attack rather than Cornet as ATGMs. But the UVN of the guns at the “Terminator” is -5 ... + 45 degrees.

                He says something can be anything, especially in modern times ... BMPT corny has no corresponding guidance systems for firing at air targets.
                Quote: Cympak
                But the UVN of the guns at the “Terminator” is -5 ... + 45 degrees. It’s not enough for shooting in the mountains and the city, and this is in the presence of a remote combat module with a gun mount. For example, the BMP-2 -5 ... + 74 has a UVN, and the BMP-3 has a -6 ... + 60 degrees.

                It is doubtful, of course, that he has such a small angle, but even more so - what kind of fire is there for air targets? If only for those that fly "low-low" ...
  • Bodipancher April 30 2020 10: 07 New
    • 2
    • 2
    0
    And I still don’t understand why PKT is used on all combat modules. It seems logical to establish a tank Cord, in terms of size it is not much larger, the place on the tower seems to be enough, but it can already fight against lightly armored targets, hit the infantry behind walls and shelters, the range is much higher. 12.7 at the squad level will greatly increase the firepower of the unit, it will be possible not to spend precious shells once again. Kalashnikovs and the infantry have. Do experts have any ideas?
    1. garri-lin April 30 2020 10: 28 New
      • 4
      • 1
      +3
      Redundant for most purposes and ammunition at times less. The essence of the machine gun is precisely in suppression. And there you need a long fire.
    2. Real Vugluskr April 30 2020 10: 38 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      And you do not perceive it as a real weapon. He is sighting. Well, so that expensive shells are not wasted.
    3. Real Vugluskr April 30 2020 10: 40 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      He is sighting. And in melee there is more cheap ammunition. The “average” caliber of CORD is, like, a sub-gun and a machine gun.
    4. Cympak April 30 2020 18: 36 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      The larger the caliber, the higher the thermal load on the barrel during automatic fire. In other words, you can replace the 7,62 machine gun with a 12,7 machine gun and stuff a lot of rounds into the turret, but he still can’t shoot for a long time due to the rapidly overheating barrel. True, there is an interesting solution from the "gloomy Teutonic genius" - the Germans put coaxial 3-barrel machine guns on their armored vehicles. But they are not made according to the Gatling scheme. Just when one barrel is overheating, the automation rotates the barrel block and a new cold barrel is used, while the one that is warming up cools down.
  • Real Vugluskr April 30 2020 10: 35 New
    • 5
    • 0
    +5
    Testers, I had a chance to talk, K-25 is praised. And these are military officers in the past, not factory tractor drivers.

    The song about the "high profile" is sung by those who fight in the wars of the mid-twentieth century.

    Replacing the combat module would not affect the delivery of at least a battalion kit for the development of a new look in one of the brigades. Most likely the questions are in the manufacturer itself, for which the country's main raider is being cut down and the lack of an appropriate cooperation system, which ultimately leads the tractor to the cost of the aircraft. And, therefore, the money goes into a well-established program of modernization of the "old imperial junk" and armored buses.
    1. Albert1988 April 30 2020 22: 30 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Real Vugluskr
      Replacing the combat module would not affect the delivery of at least a battalion kit for the development of a new look in one of the brigades. Most likely the questions are in the manufacturer itself, for which the main raider of the country is now chopped off and the lack of an appropriate cooperation system

      So the Kurganmash plant was literally just pulled out of a debt hole. where the previous leadership, banks and inattention from the government drove him ...
      So, I really hope that now everything will accelerate a little ...
  • FIR FIR April 30 2020 11: 12 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    The fact that the dimensions are large is that they are considerable for all modern models of armored vehicles.
    That tanks, that BMP, that armored personnel carriers - all as a selection of outstanding dimensions.
    In my opinion, Kurganets has only one small drawback - it is a small ammunition.
  • Vyacheslav34 April 30 2020 11: 33 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    Previously, design assignments were issued for a specific aircraft. BMP near Antei, now the "Kurgan" is not clear that all the more so it is a "marder"
  • Julius Caesar April 30 2020 13: 07 New
    • 6
    • 0
    +6
    The size of the silhouette matters only for the prehistoric grenade launchers with which primitive people hunted mammoths. To modern anti-tank weapons on the drum, how high or low the silhouette of the affected equipment.
  • pepel April 30 2020 13: 46 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    And why not take a 30mm or 37mm gun instead of a 45mm gun? The power of ammunition is greater than 30mm, and ammunition is greater than 57mm guns.
    1. Kolin April 30 2020 15: 19 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      The Epoch has 186 shots, 120 offs and 66 bops, this is quite enough.
    2. Albert1988 April 30 2020 22: 36 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: pepel
      And why not take a 30mm or 37mm gun instead of a 45mm gun? The power of ammunition is greater than 30mm, and ammunition is greater than 57mm guns.

      There are many projects there, including the installation of 50-mm low-ballistic guns. I think that this is due to the delay in testing - in addition to finalizing the machine itself, they are also actively testing various weapons options.
  • Tektor April 30 2020 15: 49 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    In my opinion, Kurganets-25 has every right to exist, because its distinguishing qualities are its high passability and ability to overcome water barriers. But under the condition of two most important abilities: situational awareness as a unit of a network-centric system for lighting the combat situation of a tactical link and the capabilities of the defense complex to repel any means of destruction. If such a defense complex on the basis of Afghanistan is created, then the size of Kurgan will no longer have any noticeable significance. And situational awareness should help fix problems first. An ideal option would be the integration of Derivation-Air Defense in Kurganets-25. Then no money would be sorry for such an indestructible land cruiser. Instead of Derivation - Chrysanthemum as an option.
  • Interdum_silentium_volo April 30 2020 17: 15 New
    • 8
    • 0
    +8
    damn, what century do you live in?! Today, the influence of the technology profile is minimal. Around the ATRA, thermal imagers and UAVs. A precision weapon that sneezed on the profile.
    Secondly, the RPG-7 has an aiming range of 500 meters !!! And even the 7,62th machine gun fires further !!! And the 30mm cannon also has many times longer aiming range.
    Get this RPG at a shot distance !!!
    The authors of these articles may bring order to their heads.
    1. Albert1988 April 30 2020 23: 04 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: Interdum_silentium_volo
      The authors of these articles may bring order to their heads.

      Retrograde is very difficult to defeat in words, even practical experience sometimes does not help ...
  • Saxahorse April 30 2020 21: 45 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Very interesting! Finally, some fresh information about the fate of Kurgan. Not to say that it is positive but anyway, many thanks to the author!

    In my opinion, the sad fate of Kurganets stems from the frankly inadequate performance characteristics exhibited by our military for this vehicle. Obviously, combining mobility, mobility and maximum passive protection is very difficult. Apparently the problem is the level of protection requested. The Chinese decided to limit their BMP protection from 12,7 mm board, 30 mm forehead and made an excellent ZBD-04. We seem to want everything right away, because there is still no adequate BMP. :(
    1. Albert1988 April 30 2020 23: 03 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Saxahorse
      and in my opinion, the sad fate of Kurganets follows from the frankly inadequate performance characteristics exhibited by our military for this machine. Obviously, combining mobility, mobility and maximum passive protection is very difficult.

      The main problem is the sad state of the factory that produces them! The only good news is that it seems that the plant was pulled out of a complete abyss ...
      1. Saxahorse 1 May 2020 20: 08 New
        • 1
        • 1
        0
        Quote: Albert1988
        The main problem is the sad state of the factory that produces them!

        Alas, I am more concerned about the complete lack of adequate infantry fighting vehicles in our army today. BMP-1 / BMP-2 are outdated due to insufficient protection, BMP-3 is initially bad as a BMP, a light tank that does not have the possibility of a safe landing.
        1. Albert1988 1 May 2020 22: 16 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: Saxahorse
          Alas, I am more concerned about the complete lack of adequate infantry fighting vehicles in our army today. BMP-1 / BMP-2 are outdated due to insufficient protection, BMP-3 is initially bad as a BMP, a light tank that does not have the possibility of a safe landing.

          Then, all the more, it is necessary to polish the Kurgan, so that a good BMP for many years is obtained at the output!
          1. Saxahorse 2 May 2020 20: 56 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: Albert1988
            Then, all the more, it is necessary to polish the Kurgan, so that a good BMP for many years is obtained at the output!

            Kurgan seems hopeless. They’ve screwed up too much at the request of the military .. More likely to bring the “Dragoon” made on the basis of the BMP-3, but taking into account the claims to this vehicle from the infantry.
            1. Albert1988 4 May 2020 14: 16 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Quote: Saxahorse
              Kurgan seems hopeless. Too much wind at the request of the military as well ..
              Why on earth is he hopeless? It’s a very promising platform, and everything is just fine in it, time has ended to fight on irons and axes, military equipment will be difficult ...
              Quote: Saxahorse
              More likely to bring the "Dragoon" made on the basis of the BMP-3, but taking into account the claims to this machine from the infantry.

              The military has one claim to this car - it’s made from a tin, there is no mine protection ... So only Kurgan and that's all ...
              1. Saxahorse 5 May 2020 20: 54 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Quote: Albert1988
                The military has one claim to this car - it’s made from a tin, there is no mine protection ... So only Kurgan and that's all ...

                So the claim to Kurgan is exactly the same! Armor type did not come out! It looks like our MO has only Jewish Namer before our eyes, but so that instead of 60 tons it becomes 12-16, but with the same protection! laughing

                Well I say, complete inadequacy in the performance characteristics ..
                1. Albert1988 5 May 2020 21: 38 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  Quote: Saxahorse
                  So the claim to Kurgan is exactly the same! Armor type did not come out!

                  This is when there were such claims against him? With armor there are all the rules, moreover - there is mine protection and KAZ is installed ...
                  Quote: Saxahorse
                  It looks like our MoE has only Jewish Namer before his eyes

                  So, there is already a “Soviet intention” - the T-15 is called, the same 60 tons, and compared with the intention - there the armament is much better. But what does TBMP have to do with coragenz - this is a common BMP? And about possible claims to security - so they were to the same tigers, and did not buy until they were fixed.
                  Quote: Saxahorse
                  Well I say, complete inadequacy in the performance characteristics ..

                  Why do you think so? where from?
                  1. Saxahorse 6 May 2020 01: 31 New
                    • 1
                    • 0
                    +1
                    Quote: Albert1988
                    Why do you think so? where from?

                    Let the counter question. What do you think a modern BMP should keep? Listen to local commentators so "uranium scrap" at least .. But seriously?
                    1. Albert1988 7 May 2020 11: 11 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      Quote: Saxahorse
                      Let the counter question. What do you think a modern infantry fighting vehicle should keep?

                      It should do as before - it is safe to deliver infantry from point A to point B, point B is usually the point of the database))) And at the same time support the infantry with fire during those same databases. But what a modern BMP must withstand is a more interesting question. First of all, mines that can meet on the way from point A to point B, this means that when an infantry fighting vehicle is detonated in a mine, the landing force must survive and get rid of minimal wounds. Within the limits of the possible, of course, no BMP can stand the explosion of 3 tons of TNT. Even already 300 kilos ... It is also advisable to have protection against all kinds of RPGs that will fly from the bushes, but this is already a matter of KAZ. But what passive armor of this BMP should be able to do is to hold 40-45 mm shells of automatic cannons of modern NATO BMPs in the forehead. But in the remaining projections, it should hold all kinds of large-caliber small arms (machine guns, etc.), as well as withstand large-caliber sniper rifles. All the tasks listed above also make very decent demands on passive armor.
                      It is desirable to be able to swim across water obstacles, but there are almost no problems with this.
                      Quote: Saxahorse
                      Listen to local commentators so "uranium scrap" at a minimum.

                      Well, "uranium scrap" is for heavy BMPs, there are only one and a half such in the world so far - this is the intention. which is not an armored personnel carrier, but an armored personnel carrier, and only the last time the Tsakhalovites are trying to turn it into an armored personnel carrier, and the second is our native T-25, there are passive armor with DZ, and armament, and KAZ - everything is like "uranium scrap" . But this is a machine with its own tasks and scope, and it is. for obvious reasons, does not replace the "ordinary" BMP.
                      1. Saxahorse 7 May 2020 22: 04 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        Quote: Albert1988
                        First of all, mines that can meet on the way from point A to point B

                        I do not immediately agree. Where do you find mines on the rock? Have you set saboteurs? The database zone is a place where civilians are caught and saboteurs are shot back. You confuse the BMP with the patrol MPC.

                        Quote: Albert1988
                        But what passive armor of this BMP should be able to do is to hold 40-45 mm shells of automatic cannons of modern NATO BMPs in the forehead. But in the remaining projections, it should hold all kinds of large-caliber small arms (machine guns, etc.), as well as withstand large-caliber sniper rifles.

                        But this is a very real requirement. Modern infantry has really overgrown with both light transport and large-caliber weapons. Such a machine is for example the Chinese ZBD-04:

                        She also swims by the way. It just holds 40 mm in the forehead and 12.7 mm in the side. Moreover, there is a heavy version of this machine, additionally hung with armor plates, which it keeps no longer know, it looks like a battle in an urban environment oriented.

                        Here are just requirements for our modern infantry fighting vehicles much more seriously. Up to holding the ATGM onboard ..
                      2. Albert1988 7 May 2020 22: 46 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Quote: Saxahorse
                        I do not immediately agree. Where do you find mines on the rock? Have you set saboteurs? The database zone is a place where civilians are caught and saboteurs are shot back. You confuse the BMP with the patrol MPC.

                        Modern mines are diverse, and yes - they have been sabotaged. And, moreover, I’ll tell you that they regularly put precisely on the paths of the most probable following technology! This is a combat experience. And in the case of MPI - in general, mines are the main enemies. Mines in general are the main enemies of the BBM - even during the Second World War, most of the damaged tanks and armored vehicles were damaged precisely by mine explosions! So do not drop mines, although the BMP’s mine protection will never be the same as that of MRAP, yes
                        Quote: Saxahorse
                        But this is a very real requirement. Modern infantry has really overgrown with both light transport and large-caliber weapons. Such a machine is for example the Chinese ZBD-04:

                        This, incidentally, is a very successful copy of our BMP-3, heavily redone and with clearly enhanced protection.
                        Quote: Saxahorse
                        Moreover, there is a heavy version of this machine, additionally hung with armor plates, which it keeps no longer know, it looks like a battle in an urban environment oriented.

                        This is yes - the design of the machine must assume that in certain situations a lot of extra protection is hung on the machine.
                        Quote: Saxahorse
                        Here are just requirements for our modern infantry fighting vehicles much more seriously. Up to holding the ATGM onboard ..

                        To withstand the ATGM directly hit - I did not hear such a requirement, most likely, it was meant that there was protection against ATGMs in the side projection - this is achievable through KAZ. Please note that both Armata and Kurgan have afghanite as an indispensable element of equipment!
                      3. Saxahorse 8 May 2020 00: 18 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Quote: Albert1988
                        Moreover, I’ll tell you that they regularly put on precisely the paths of the most probable following technology! This is a combat experience.

                        I would say that this is more likely the experience of counter-guerrilla actions. I agree for the tanks, they have such a job, with their forehead to check the strength and patency of the defense. But the BMP and the armored personnel carrier on the mines, it means the wrong way. It is good if the equipment protects its crew from such accidents, but it is reckless to put mines in the first place.

                        That ATGM yes, today the main trouble for any military vehicles. And with the requirement to have KAZ, one can only agree.

                        Quote: Albert1988
                        This, incidentally, is a very successful copy of our BMP-3, heavily redone and with clearly enhanced protection.

                        The Chinese ZBD-04 is not a drop or a copy of the BMP-3. Ours offered by the way, but the Chinese ultimately categorically refused. We bought and licensed only the BMP-3 combat module, and developed the chassis ourselves, from scratch. And they did it right. Landing from BMP-3 is implemented simply ugly.
                      4. Albert1988 8 May 2020 10: 47 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Quote: Saxahorse
                        I would say that this is more likely the experience of counter-guerrilla actions.

                        Here's the thing: DBs using BBMs are now mainly against partisans, it’s also relevant for us - we recall the experience of the Caucasus, and for any potential conflict (God forbid) in the territory of the former USSR, all databases will quickly go over to partisans. since not one of the post-Soviet armies will be able to compete with us for a long time in an open battle, and then all sorts of Nazis / Islamists can go over to partisanism.
                        Quote: Saxahorse
                        But the BMP and the armored personnel carrier on the mines, it means the wrong way. It is good if the equipment protects its crew from such accidents, but it is reckless to put mines in the first place.

                        Here, again, the problem - there were a lot of mines and "getting in the wrong place" was also very simple, alas. But the mine protection of modern infantry fighting vehicles / armored personnel carriers does not stand in the first place - they are, nevertheless, not MCI, but it should be, in principle, the old ones do not have it ...
                        Quote: Saxahorse
                        That ATGM yes, today the main trouble for any military vehicles. And with the requirement to have KAZ, one can only agree.

                        Yes, KAZ is needed by all armored vehicles ...
                        Quote: Saxahorse
                        The Chinese ZBD-04 is not a drop or a copy of the BMP-3. Ours offered by the way, but the Chinese ultimately categorically refused. We bought and licensed only the BMP-3 combat module, and developed the chassis ourselves, from scratch. And they did it right. Landing from BMP-3 is implemented simply ugly.

                        How to say - the Chinese bought the BMP-3, they re-ordered the case - such as their own development, the module bought from us melon (license) - that’s the Chinese car))) In fact, it’s a dragoon, only Chinese))) Even outwardly there are a lot of similarities with BMP-3. We also need such a machine, but its role is, rather, like that of the same BMP-3.
                      5. Saxahorse 8 May 2020 22: 13 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Quote: Albert1988
                        Here, again, the problem - there were a lot of mines and "getting in the wrong place" was also very simple, alas. But the mine protection of modern infantry fighting vehicles / armored personnel carriers does not stand in the first place - they, nevertheless, are not MCI, but it should be, in principle, the old ones do not have it ..

                        The question is sick, because protection from real mines and protection from Homemade WUs are not the same thing. Just to remind you: The TM-83 anti-tank mine with an impact core has a weight of 20 kg, and "the diameter of the created hole is 80 mm in armor 100 mm thick at a distance of 50 m;" In general, there are few tanks that can hold such a blow to the side, and there is no reason to hope for an IFV.

                        Quote: Albert1988
                        In fact, this is a dragoon, only Chinese))) Even outwardly there are a lot of similarities with the BMP-3.

                        Only historically the opposite. Dragoons rushed to do when they saw the Chinese BMP with Bahcea. Well, it’s not easy to put it simply, to put it mildly, the BMP-3 was made of an experienced light tank. The Chinese have absolutely everything else.
                      6. Albert1988 10 May 2020 13: 41 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Quote: Saxahorse
                        The question is sick, because protection from real mines and protection from Homemade WUs are not the same thing. Just to remind you: The TM-83 anti-tank mine with an impact core has a weight of 20 kg, and "the diameter of the created hole is 80 mm in armor 100 mm thick at a distance of 50 m;" In general, there are few tanks that can hold such a blow to the side, and there is no reason to hope for an IFV.

                        You are right, in fact, the anti-mine defense for the BMP and is being done against precisely all kinds of homemade goods, which are now much more in conflict zones than "factory" mines.
                        Quote: Saxahorse
                        Only historically the opposite. Dragoons rushed to do when they saw the Chinese BMP with Bahcea. Well, it’s not easy to put it simply, to put it mildly, the BMP-3 was made of an experienced light tank. The Chinese have absolutely everything else.

                        Of course - the Chinese immediately made the right changes to the design of their BMP-3 clone, from which it formally ceased to be a clone and only melon had to be licensed. And ours, when they saw how to build a car, they immediately made their choice, though it's too late ...
                      7. Saxahorse 10 May 2020 20: 24 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        Quote: Albert1988
                        And ours, when they saw how to build a car, they immediately made their choice, though it's too late ...

                        Everything is more complicated there. The story began with the BMP-2. When the requirement to strengthen weapons reasonably led to an increase in the turret and turret space. In Chelyabinsk, they said that it was necessary to increase the length of the chassis, and began to develop a seven-pack version of the case. And in Kurgan they said - garbage is a question, and simply transplanted the excess, 7th arrow forward. It is easy to guess that in battle through the front hatch landing is problematic. As they convinced the MO that this is normal, a riddle .. But with the BMP-3 we went on the thumb, already the entire landing should climb out of the top.

                        Except for the Arabs, it was not possible to convince anyone of the adequacy of this idea. So Dragoon, this is a forced return to the normal layout of the BMP, with a ramp and a landing, like all normal people do.
                      8. Albert1988 10 May 2020 23: 20 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        Well, I'm talking about that))) When our people saw HOW the normal BMP-3 should look from the Chinese, they built dragoons right away, only the train left - the chassis itself was outdated for the modern conflict, so we had to do the Kurgan. And dragons on the foreign market can no longer be pushed through - the Chinese version will be cheaper in every way ...
  • Maksim_ok 1 May 2020 01: 07 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    You can add a small declination angle to the BMP gun. Generally, 35-45 mm caliber guns with programmable air blasting ammunition are not enough. The 57 mm certainly inspires, but the BC will inevitably be small.
    1. chenia 1 May 2020 08: 05 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      121 projectile 57 mm -0,5 M3.
  • SiberianGun 1 May 2020 09: 26 New
    • 0
    • 2
    -2
    What kind of fashion went to write articles "about nothing"? From Zen authors scored? Information - minuscule. Nothing new. The topic is not disclosed.
  • Alexey G 1 May 2020 12: 32 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Well I do not know! As for me, the Kurganets car is cool! I don’t know for what reason it wasn’t adopted, but maybe the price is a question, and the silhouette is just an excuse, according to Freud! Type can be the same but smaller and cheaper by default !?
    Well, how to make the car comfortable for landing and very small? Or how to increase security and not exceed weight and size? Yes, Kurganets tower is much larger than that of the Soviet BMP 2, but after all, THIS TOWER MUCH MUCH FROM THAT that simply can not be placed on the old BMP 2. Sights, missiles and afghanit, everything needs a place. Well, if someone thinks that it is more difficult to get into the Soviet BMP 2 from an RPG, then this is probably true, but it can be penetrated from a heavy machine gun - a machine gunner’s dream! What about mine protection? ITS it on BMP2, but Kurganets has and the author of the article does not indicate this in the pluses.
    30mm gun? Well, there are missiles in stock! In addition, this is enough for infantry shooting! Well, in extreme cases, the size of the tower allows you to think and put 57mm in the future!
    1. Albert1988 1 May 2020 14: 05 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Alexey G
      I don’t know why it wasn’t accepted.

      The reason is clear and known - the test cycle is not finished ...
    2. prodi 1 May 2020 14: 20 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      well, look: with a landing placed on board, we take 60cm per nose - we get a 2.5m landing squad for 8 people, with a body length of 7.2m. Isn't 4.5m too much for the engine compartment with tanks and cabs? But let's say; further, the height of the hull is 2.3 m (minus 0.5 m clearance, 1.7 m inhabited compartment, plus armor - we leave it, and then we make a step 20-30 cm down to the very front and lower the tower. The total height will decrease from the current 3 m to all the same terrible 2.7m, but without focusing on swimming, we save the weight saved at the height of the hull for additional booking
  • Essex62 1 May 2020 14: 35 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    And what is the size? It was protection, the preservation of the life and combat effectiveness of the landing party, that long ago came to the fore. For many decades of fighting, Israel has been operating BMPs converted from tanks. From the fourth Merkava, almost immediately, Namer banged; 60 tons! And Bushmaster stands on it with the same caliber of 30 mm. You can put a 40 mm barrel but the thing is precisely in the ammunition. And I think they’ll reach the English Channel, such laibes, without any problems with a qualified, live landing force on board.
  • Klingon 1 May 2020 17: 41 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    and about the dimensions there is still the problem of transportation by air. how many kurgans in IL-76 can I shove and how many BMP-3? + mass of course!
  • NordUral 1 May 2020 18: 28 New
    • 0
    • 3
    -3
    The tank came to mind alone, it was called a mouse. as I looked at the picture.
    But in general, in my opinion, all armored vehicles are heavily booked, that is Soviet, that Russian, like American, German, Israeli, and now Chinese, etc. - she’s all a grenade launcher’s dream.
    And why not just modernize the Soviet park, who will say?
    1. Cympak 1 May 2020 23: 40 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      The main problem of BMP-1 and BMP-2 is weak booking. But if you hang up the armor, then they will not be able to swim, moreover, the chassis was not originally designed for a significant increase in mass and will begin to crumble quickly. We need a new engine that needs to be shoved into the existing volume. In general, we get the cost of upgrading an old car, approaching the price of a new one. Therefore, many options for the modernization of the BMP-2, which are offered by various offices in the former countries participating in ATS, do not find real buyers.
      1. NordUral 2 May 2020 22: 13 New
        • 0
        • 2
        -2
        I agree, Alex. But any of this class of armored vehicles, even the most modern ones, has insufficient bookings.
        So you can find application for junk, especially since effective managers are not very flexible and give out new equipment.
        The Soviet will also serve.
    2. would 2 May 2020 21: 37 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      And why not just modernize the Soviet park, who will say?


      Because it will require essentially cutting the technique. Up to the digestion of the body. From the examples I immediately remembered BMP-M2 CZ and BRDM "Cayman". Both this and that level are far from modern technology, and Cayman eventually abandoned the remodeling of old buildings from the BRDM and began to use completely new ones.

      The approach you propose is much more complicated and expensive, and most importantly it is not clear what is needed. At the same time, little remains of the modernized machine in the percentage ratio. It is much more expedient to make Kurganets-25 from scratch than to try to make Kurganets-1 from BMP-25. Well, the BMP-1 in a modernized version can be sold to poor countries, and even if it comes in handy.

      she’s all a grenade launcher’s dream.


      While no modern grenade launcher can overcome the KAZ, and the grenade launchers themselves are clearly already outsiders and are successfully replaced by anti-tank systems.
      1. would 2 May 2020 21: 49 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        While no modern grenade launcher can overcome KAZ


        Here I will make two additions

        1. Proven to overcome. For example, there is an RPG-30 Hook that is claimed to be capable of overcoming KAZ. But even the practical tests of the general public are unknown, I am already silent about the combat use.
        2. This refers to the most modern KAZ. For example, KAZ "Afghanit".
  • rusmilphoto 2 May 2020 00: 23 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    each photo has its own author))) could indicate authorship)))
  • Cympak 4 May 2020 01: 24 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Albert1988
    It is doubtful, of course, that he has such a small angle, but even more so - what kind of fire is there for air targets? If only for those that fly "low-low" ...

    At 5:05 a video interview, there is a plate with the characteristics of the Terminator weapon systems, including given UVN