Symmetric Russian response: MPF vs. Octopus-SD


Light tank M8. Photo BAE Systems


In 2015, the U.S. Army launched the Mobile Protected Firepower (MPF) program. Its goal is to create a promising “lung tank»With the maximum possible firepower and mobility, as well as with a combat weight of not more than 35-38 tons. In the future, such equipment will have to supplement the main M1 Abrams tanks, the subsequent modernization of which led to an increase in mass and a decrease in mobility. In addition, the MPF program can be seen as an attempt to create an answer to the Russian self-propelled gun Sprut-SD.

Classification Issues


In the context of challenges and answers, three types of armored vehicles will have to be considered: the Russian self-propelled anti-tank gun (SPTP) 2C25 Sprut-SD, as well as the American armored vehicles BAE Systems M8 MPF and General Dynamics Griffin II. Moreover, their consideration and comparison must begin with some reservations.

The MPF program’s armored vehicles are positioned as a light tank, but the combat weight is limited to “only” 38 tons. In the past, medium and main tanks weighed so much, and this fact gives rise to ambiguous estimates or irony. Russian "Octopus-SD" in our classification is considered a model of self-propelled artillery intended for airborne troops. However, foreign experts often call it a light tank, which is facilitated by a combination of basic characteristics.

There is a curious situation. Formally, three products do not belong to the same class, but in fact they are close to each other. And accordingly, they can and should be compared - at least according to the declared tactical and technical characteristics and combat capabilities.


One of the experimental tanks GD Griffin II. Photo US Army

Mobility issues


Both American light tanks receive modular armor, affecting the actual combat weight. Depending on the level of protection, they can weigh up to 30 tons or more. Engine parameters are not specified, but it was reported that the M8 and Griffin II are able to show high mobility and mobility in all landscapes. In addition, they surpass the later versions of Abrams in such characteristics.

SPTP 2S25 in the basic version weighs only 18 tons and is equipped with a 2V-06-2C diesel engine with a capacity of 510 hp. Power density over 28 hp per ton provides acceleration to 70 km / h and the ability to swim at 9 km / h. The power unit in combination with an individual hydropneumatic suspension provides good dynamic performance and high throughput. A new modification 2S25M "Octopus-SDM1" has been developed, which is still at the testing stage. It has a different chassis with similar technical and improved performance.

All samples in question can be transported by military transport aircraft. However, the American "light tanks", due to the large mass, cannot be parachuted - in contrast to the Russian "Octopus-SD." In addition, it should be borne in mind that the smaller mass simplifies transportation by all means of transport and gives other advantages.

Booking issues


The light tank from BAE Systems was developed on the basis of the M8 armored car from the nineties. It is likely that the main technical solutions of the old project, including in terms of protection, moved to a new one. So, the old M8 had an aluminum armor case, additionally covered by various types of mounted modules. In the basic configuration, bulletproof and anti-shatter protection were provided, and with the most powerful modules the M8 withstood small-caliber armor-piercing shells. Perhaps the new version of the M8 for MPF shows similar characteristics - however, accurate data on this subject has not yet been announced.


SPTP 2S25 "Sprut-SD". Photo by Vitalykuzmin.net

As a platform for Griffin II, the ASCOD 2 multi-purpose chassis with bulletproof steel armor is used. The hull and turret can also be supplemented by overhead blocks providing protection from shells. At the same time, as in the case of a competing project, the installation of additional armor increases the dimensions and weight of the tank, up to the limit provided by the technical specifications.

"Octopus-SD" has an aluminum body and a dome of the tower with steel reinforcement of the frontal projection. The forehead of the hull and turret withstands hit by 12,7 mm bullets, the remaining projections protect against weapons normal caliber. The chassis for the upgraded "Octopus-SDM1" is based on the BMD-4 and also has aluminum armor. As far as we know, the installation of additional modules is not provided, however, this allows you to keep the dimensions and weight at the required level and not impair mobility - one of the main survivability factors.

Arms issue


The new version of the M8 tank receives a 105 mm M35 rifled gun with an ammunition load of 45 shots and an automatic loader. It also provides for the installation of a coaxial machine gun, a remotely controlled combat module on the tower and smoke grenade launchers. The customer requires the use of a modern fire control system that provides actions day and night, including in hunter-killer mode.

Griffin II has a slightly different set of weapons. "Main caliber" - 105-mm gun. Instead of a DBM, the commander’s hatch has an open turret under a heavy machine gun. As can be judged by the prototypes, the General Dynamics project provides for the use of a panoramic command sight. It should be part of a modern and perfect SLA.


Under construction M8 demonstrate leadership of the Ministry of the army. Photo US Army

SPTP 2C25 line equipped with a 125-mm smoothbore gun-launcher 2A75 - modification of the tank 2A46. There is an automatic loader with 22 cartridges, another 18 rounds of separate-shell loading are in "manual" styling. In terms of ammunition, the 2A75 cannon is fully unified with the 2A46 - it can use a wide range of shots, including guided missiles. Additional weapons include one or two PKT machine guns (2C25 and 2C25M, respectively). The MSA provides observation and search for targets day and night, as well as firing using any available ammunition.

Comparison issues


It is easy to see that among the three samples under consideration there is no unequivocal leader. Any of them outperforms others in some respects and lags behind others. In addition, there is a significant difference in the age of the projects, the proposed role on the battlefield, etc.

From the point of view of mobility and mobility, the SPTR "Sprut-SD" is the clear leader. This machine is lighter than two MPFs, making it easier to use higher power density. In addition, it can not only be transported by air, but also parachuted on a parachute system. Thus, there are great advantages in tactical and strategic mobility.

However, the severity of the two American "light tanks" is due to the presence of powerful protection - and in this regard, the M8 and Griffin II bypass the Russian self-propelled guns. "Octopus-SD" is protected only from large-caliber bullets, while foreign models with mounted modules can withstand shells. Which of the tanks of the MPF program is better protected is unknown. Moreover, the available data and the appearance of the additional reservation do not allow to determine such characteristics of the equipment.


Griffin II from a different angle. Photo US Army

A curious situation is developing in the field of armaments. The 125A2 75-mm smoothbore gun is definitely superior to the M35 products of American tanks. It compares favorably with caliber and energy, as well as a range of compatible ammunition. The use of shells and missiles allows you to confidently hit targets at ranges of several kilometers.

Despite all the progress in the context of 105-mm tank guns, the M8 and Griffin II look very weak against the background of the "Octopus-SD". However, they can be distinguished by a newer and more advanced SLA. American firms are recognized leaders in this area, and MPF tanks can have advantages in target detection and guidance, which partially offset the loss in gun power.

The reasons for these differences are obvious. SPTP 2S25 "Octopus-SD" and the modernized 2S25M were created for the airborne forces and according to their characteristic requirements. The latter provided for restrictions on dimensions and combat weight, which ultimately affected the level of protection. American MPFs are created for the ground forces, which do not have such stringent requirements. The available stock of mass was used to improve protection and solve other problems.

In the current situation, American industry is able to evaluate foreign developments and take the necessary measures. In practice, this leads to the fact that the new MPF tanks have significant advantages of various kinds over the older "Octopus-SD." On the other hand, the US Army finds itself in the position of catching up, trying to adapt to new challenges.

Perspective issues


The present of Russian self-propelled guns is well known, and their prospects are defined. The troops have several dozen serial "Sprut-SD", and in the near future the appearance of new machines "Octopus-SDM1" is expected. Such equipment suits the customer, remains in service and will not leave the army in the foreseeable future. At the same time, the possibility of new modernizations, including taking into account the development of foreign designs.


The modernized "Octopus-SDM1". Photo by Tractor Plants / tplants.com

With Mobile Protected Firepower, things get more complicated. At the moment, it is at the stage of production of experimental equipment. Until September, two participating companies must submit for testing 12 light tanks in a complete set and 2 buildings for testing reservations. After that, the army will hold the necessary events and choose a more successful model. Which of the tanks will be chosen is unknown.

According to current plans, the selected winner of the MPF program by 2025 will go into series and reach operation in the army. By this time in our country the appearance of serial SPTP 2S25M is expected. However, this will not be the only novelty of this decade in the Russian army. It is possible that next time the light tank MPF will have to be compared with the main T-14. And it seems that the results of such a comparison are obvious and predictable.
Author:
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

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

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Kote Pan Kokhanka 30 June 2020 05: 40 New
    • 9
    • 4
    +5
    In fact, the "Americans" are medium tanks. Something close to the Argentine "Tamam" of German development and the Chinese "mountain tanks". In fact, a “ersatz” Abrams with a hint of savings.
    Octopus - a self-propelled gun of the Airborne Forces!
    So if they meet on the battlefield in their roles. Octopus as an anti-tank gun, and the Americans as classic tanks. You won’t be the last to envy. Click out of an ambush.
    1. Graz 30 June 2020 06: 14 New
      • 6
      • 1
      +5
      the medium tank is still a T-54 with a forehead in a 100mm case and a forehead of a turret under 200 mm of armor, the comparison is not equivalent in terms of protection nevertheless despite the obsolescence of Soviet tanks, and if we compare the weight of modern Western tanks at 70 tons, and our 45- 48 tons, in this context it can be said that ours are precisely the very average ones, although such a gradation is not accepted now
      1. 5-9
        5-9 30 June 2020 10: 01 New
        • 5
        • 1
        +4
        The word "average" implies weaker booking and the presence in the line of more serious "heavy" ones, and all Soviet tanks after WWII with significantly lower weight were armored much better than Western ones.
      2. avg
        avg 30 June 2020 11: 10 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: Graz
        the comparison is not equivalent in terms of protection yet despite the obsolescence of Soviet tanks

        The armor of light tanks protects against 30 mm of armor-piercing shells, and given the tendency (well visible at the parade) of the transition to 57 mm, this booking does not solve the problem.
    2. Sergey_G_M 30 June 2020 07: 12 New
      • 19
      • 0
      +19
      In the article, the comparison is not complete.
      Here's an example, when comparing the mobility of tanks, forget that the Octopus-SD can swim, but the rest cannot! ???
      Forgot that the Octopus has a suspension with a variable clearance.
      Considering this and landing, we get that the Sprut-SD is an excellent machine for the airborne forces, and the M8 and Griffin II are a cheap replacement for the main tank, there is nothing to compare completely different cars here.
      1. Grazdanin 30 June 2020 09: 29 New
        • 4
        • 4
        0
        Quote: Sergey_G_M
        Octopus-SD can swim


        This is important for our theater, where they fight they do not need to swim. They have to occupy Russia and have no plans
        1. Sergey_G_M 30 June 2020 10: 07 New
          • 5
          • 2
          +3
          With Octopus, everything is clear how it will be used and who.
          But with the M8 and Griffin II is not very. Their meeting with ANY modern main tanks will end sadly for them. It turns out they are suitable mainly for the mobile introduction of democracy in third world countries. And even then 105 mm for fights in the city will come off of course, but better is bigger.
          The dimensions of the tanks are not small, well, that’s why they should have shoved 120 mm there, it’s completely incomprehensible, although they have a unitary and rather long projectile.
          In general xs, very controversial cars.
          1. Grazdanin 30 June 2020 10: 09 New
            • 4
            • 2
            +2
            Quote: Sergey_G_M
            Well, what they should have shoved 120 mm there is completely incomprehensible

            This is the problem of the article, according to this program two guns 120 and 105 are considered i.e. there are modifications with 120 mm.
          2. Sanichsan 30 June 2020 23: 11 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            Quote: Sergey_G_M
            With Octopus, everything is clear how it will be used and who.
            But with the M8 and Griffin II is not very.

            Duc is a common topic in the American defense industry wink first push something through Congress, get money, release a batch, and only then figure out how to use it. F-35, Zumwalt, LCS, etc ...
        2. avg
          avg 30 June 2020 11: 31 New
          • 2
          • 1
          +1
          This is important for our theater, where they fight they do not need to swim. They have to occupy Russia and have no plans

          First of all, they customize all their equipment to the NATO standard, and this is the European theater of operations with many rivers, streams and bridges over which MBT cannot pass, and when approaching, they mine ambushes and away., And in case of undermining which swimming for light tanks would be very useful. The latest exercises in Poland, from which Abrams was suspended, illustrate this.
          1. Grazdanin 30 June 2020 11: 37 New
            • 2
            • 2
            0
            Not one army in the world does not rely on bridges; they will be destroyed in the first place. Everyone has the means to cross rivers.
            1. avg
              avg 30 June 2020 11: 47 New
              • 2
              • 0
              +2
              When BTG overcomes a water barrier immediately, this is one thing, and when it requires the deployment of engineering units, it is another, i.e. two big differences :))
              As for the bridges, they are needed by both, therefore they are destroyed in the last turn. Yes, and not bridges, but we are talking about light tanks.
    3. Grazdanin 30 June 2020 09: 27 New
      • 5
      • 12
      -7
      Quote: Kote Pan Kokhanka
      You won’t be the last to envy. Click out of an ambush.


      First you need to get into this ambush. By intelligence, the United States is in full order. If ambushed, the first shots will be shot by KAZ, the octopuses will not do the second shot yet, the US tanks will deploy towers and return fire and all this on the move.
      1. Lopatov 30 June 2020 09: 58 New
        • 9
        • 2
        +7
        Quote: Grazdanin

        First you need to get into this ambush.

        You can not get it. For example, pull back 8)))))

        Quote: Grazdanin
        If ambushed, KAZ will hit the first shots

        If you are ambushed, it will start with mines. Which POS will install.
        Then from artillery strike with PDO. And then "Octopus" and SPTRK from the composition of the anti-tank forces will work. Supported again by artillery. Including guided weapons of the "Kitolov" type. Well, then the anti-tank reconnaissance force will retreat behind the paratrooper battalion that has deployed into battle formation. With their own anti-tank equipment.
        1. carstorm 11 30 June 2020 10: 05 New
          • 1
          • 2
          -1
          ahead) and it is strange how a person understands an ambush. apparently from the movies)
        2. Grazdanin 30 June 2020 10: 15 New
          • 6
          • 4
          +2
          You mean an ambush organized by the RF Armed Forces. I do not even consider such an opportunity. Considering reality. This can happen in the Middle East, in Africa, in Asia, where the enemy of the United States, even in theory, will not have the means that you indicated, where the presence of an Octopus of export modification is possible.
          1. Lopatov 30 June 2020 10: 34 New
            • 5
            • 2
            +3
            Quote: Grazdanin
            You mean an ambush organized by the RF Armed Forces. I do not even consider such an opportunity. Given the reality.

            That is, the US Army is by default unable to fight with an opponent of the RF Armed Forces level and above?
            Powerfully you applied them laughing laughing laughing
            1. Grazdanin 30 June 2020 10: 44 New
              • 4
              • 9
              -5
              Quote: Spade
              RF Armed Forces and above?

              And who is above the level of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation?
              Quote: Spade
              The United States, by default, is unable to fight with the enemy level of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation

              In Russia, no one can fight with us. If you remove the nuclear weapons out of the picture, the maximum border conflicts and air strikes.
              Here the main question is why? Russian authorities have long betrayed Russia. Sells resources, people flee from our country, no economic competition, at the request of the United States we are participating in wars in Syria and Libya, quarreling with the closest peoples Ukraine and Georgia, etc. The current situation is ideal for the United States.
              1. Lopatov 30 June 2020 10: 49 New
                • 2
                • 1
                +1
                Quote: Grazdanin
                And who is above the level of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation?

                For example, the army of China
                Incidentally, the main enemy of the American army.

                Quote: Grazdanin
                Here the main question is why?

                And why should Tzahal fight for Israel?
                1. Grazdanin 30 June 2020 11: 03 New
                  • 2
                  • 5
                  -3
                  The Chinese Navy is even weaker than the Japanese fleet, and there is also South Korea, Taiwan, Indonesia and are gaining strength. And the US Pacific Fleet is superior to all of them combined. In general, China is greatly overestimating that they have 60% of the reserves of rare-earth metals and because of this production of electronics from around the world and 1,5 billion people, it does not give them a critical advantage.
                  The United States does not have a task to occupy the territory, it had enough of Iraq, it gives little profit. But to unleash the Civil War where both sides are under the control of the United States, as in Libya, they love it.
                  1. Lopatov 30 June 2020 11: 07 New
                    • 3
                    • 2
                    +1
                    Quote: Grazdanin
                    The Chinese Navy is even weaker than the Japanese fleet, and there is also South Korea, Taiwan, Indonesia and are gaining strength.

                    What is "typed"? The attempt to blockade of China, which will be easily overcome thanks to Russia?

                    Quote: Grazdanin
                    US has no task to occupy territories

                    laughing
                    Yeah ... "The grapes are green."

                    Quote: Grazdanin
                    they had enough of Iraq

                    Because they are weak. And they are not even able to cope with Afghanistan.
                    1. Grazdanin 30 June 2020 11: 15 New
                      • 1
                      • 5
                      -4
                      Quote: Spade
                      The attempt to blockade of China, which will be easily overcome thanks to Russia?

                      How will Russia help? Food and goods in China for 10 Russia will be enough for 100 years in advance. Goods to transport? So they are wrapped at the border. All our access to the sea easily overlap.
                      And the main question is why the US is armed with a conflict with China? Particularly dangerous companies can be crushed, Huawei
                      example.
                      1. Lopatov 30 June 2020 11: 22 New
                        • 1
                        • 1
                        0
                        Quote: Grazdanin
                        How will Russia help?

                        Providing transportation services.

                        Quote: Grazdanin
                        All our access to the sea easily overlap.

                        That is, to fight not only with China, but also with Russia? And pull, if even Afghanistan is too difficult for them?

                        I remind you, article 3 paragraph "c" ... blockade of ports or coasts of a state by the armed forces of another state;

                        Quote: Grazdanin
                        And the main question is why the US is armed with a conflict with China?

                        At you ask the Americans. Why do they actually half a year after the "victory in the Cold War" began to prepare for aggression against the former ally.
                      2. Grazdanin 30 June 2020 11: 29 New
                        • 0
                        • 1
                        -1
                        Quote: Spade
                        Providing transportation services.

                        Where to?
                      3. Lopatov 30 June 2020 11: 30 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Yes, anywhere.
                        The world is slightly larger than the territory of the United States.
                      4. Grazdanin 30 June 2020 11: 34 New
                        • 1
                        • 1
                        0
                        To Europe? Which will immediately join the blockade, in Africa? To transport cargo across the entire continent to load in the Black Sea ports? Yes, do not tell. Military cargo can still be moved like this, civilian goods will become gold.
                      5. Lopatov 30 June 2020 11: 37 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Quote: Grazdanin
                        to Africa?

                        To Africa, to South America. And Europe cannot be ruled out.
                      6. Grazdanin 30 June 2020 11: 39 New
                        • 1
                        • 1
                        0
                        Quote: Grazdanin
                        To transport cargo across the entire continent to load in the Black Sea ports? Yes, do not tell.
                      7. Lopatov 30 June 2020 11: 40 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Quote: Grazdanin
                        Transport cargo across the entire continent

                        To Vladivostok?
                        What is your geography?
                      8. Grazdanin 30 June 2020 11: 47 New
                        • 1
                        • 3
                        -2
                        In geography 5, as well as in logic. Vladivostok port is blocked for the transport of civilian goods at one time and within the framework of existing rules and regulations. Get down to the ground.
                      9. Lopatov 30 June 2020 18: 16 New
                        • 1
                        • 1
                        0
                        Quote: Grazdanin
                        Vladivostok port is blocked

                        This is war.
                        Once again, the definition of "Aggression" is article 3 paragraph "c" ... the blockade of ports or coasts of a state by the armed forces of another state;

                        Quote: Grazdanin
                        and within the framework of existing rules and regulations.

                        According to "rules and regulations" this is a pure act of aggression laughing
        3. Sergey_G_M 30 June 2020 11: 31 New
          • 2
          • 1
          +1
          Yes, after the majority of industries were exported to Asia, America was a bit overdue.
          In Afghanistan, calves are still fine.
          But the fact that Kim Jong-un does not read Twitter and does not know that Trump fought with him and won is already ridiculous.
          Iran was offended by the assassination of its general and a little shot missiles at the American base, all pretended not to notice.
          And what is even more surprising, Iran delivers oil to China under sanctions, and again, everyone was blinded and they do not see this.
          With Venezuela, the same kind of circus.

          If anyone will fight in the near future, then China will return Taiwan to itself.
          America is not up to war now.
          And Ukrainians have been at war with us for seven years, so we also have an excuse))
        4. Grazdanin 30 June 2020 12: 00 New
          • 2
          • 5
          -3
          Quote: Sergey_G_M
          Iran was offended by the assassination of its general and a little shot missiles at the American base, all pretended not to notice.

          Iran seems to have agreed on the agreement, first of all for its citizens, so they shot in the field near the bases. This is not a problem for anyone.
          Quote: Sergey_G_M
          In Afghanistan, calves are still fine.
          But the fact that Kim Jong-un does not read Twitter and does not know that Trump fought with him and won

          The US does not give a damn about these countries, what they did in Afghanistan is not clear to anyone at all.
          Quote: Sergey_G_M
          And what is even more surprising, Iran delivers oil to China under sanctions, and again, everyone was blinded and they do not see this.
          With Venezuela, the same kind of circus.

          What's the problem? The US has defended its markets.
          In the near future there will be no conflicts in Iraq. Ukraine, Syria, Libya such wars. Alien hands, supporting both sides, capturing only the necessary territories and sectors of the economy. This is much more profitable and safer than waging a full-fledged war.
  • The comment was deleted.
    1. Lopatov 30 June 2020 10: 54 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      Quote: Sergey_G_M
      If nuclear weapons are excluded, then NATO troops will first fight with missiles and aircraft to capture air superiority and suppress ground forces, and then deploy ground troops.

      They can try ....

      Quote: Sergey_G_M
      We lose the war in the air, but not immediately, but still lose.

      And evidence of "losing the war in the air" will be nuclear attacks on airfields and other infrastructure in Europe. To which the Americans will not react, fearing a nuclear escalation that will lead to the destruction of the United States as a state.
      So our "loss in the war in the air" will mean an end to the war as a whole. If we go to accept the surrender of the US European allies.
      1. Sergey_G_M 30 June 2020 11: 07 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Well, a war between the big powers is not expected in the near future. In the Russian-US war, China wins with any outcome (it turns out that the third party will always win, though the victory will be Pyrrhic - the economy will collapse, this is of course, provided that we don’t ditch all life on earth).
        So yes, the US army is now imprisoned in a war with third world countries.
        1. Lopatov 30 June 2020 11: 08 New
          • 1
          • 1
          0
          Quote: Sergey_G_M
          Well, a war between the big powers is not expected in the near future.

          But at the same time it is very likely. Because of the constant bad attempts by the United States to provoke Russia.
        2. Grazdanin 30 June 2020 11: 22 New
          • 2
          • 2
          0
          Quote: Sergey_G_M
          Well, a war between the big powers is not expected in the near future.

          That's right, now is the time of regional conflicts and hybrid wars. The Great Powers have too strong weapons, and most importantly no one needs it.
          1. Blackgrifon 1 July 2020 17: 37 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: Grazdanin
            That's right, now is the time of regional conflicts and hybrid wars.

            It does not interfere. It can start with a regional conflict (Ukraine, Kaliningrad, Asia, the Kuril Islands, the Arctic), and then smoothly (or suddenly) pass, if not nuclear, then using nuclear weapons, easily.
  • PROVINCIAL 1 July 2020 08: 57 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Hello colleague on the site !!! Recall September 2019 and my comment on a similar article.
    Quote: PROVINCIAL
    "Attempts to create an analogue" Octopus "which is made for the Airborne Forces of the Russian Federation"
    Lopatov (Lopatov) September 25, 2019 19:23
    Is Octopus an attempt to create Sheridan?
    In fact, the machines are completely different and when they were created, they started / come from different settings.
    Octopus is an anti-tank self-propelled gun.
    "Grifin" - direct fire fire support vehicle
  • Grits 30 June 2020 15: 02 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Grazdanin
    If ambushed, KAZ will hit the first shots

    And what, on all American tanks installed KAZ?
  • chingachguc 30 June 2020 18: 46 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    that's it, the anti-tank gun, which is in ambush. What advantage does it have over the calculation of ATGMs?
  • Free wind 30 June 2020 06: 02 New
    • 3
    • 3
    0
    Today, transport aircraft are a tidbit for any air defense system, starting from anti-aircraft guns of the Second World War, and by any means now. There is no sense in landing from the air, everyone knows this very well, the only thing is to drop troops on an unprepared site far from the front line. The use of aluminum is interesting, I remember the British on the Falklands the aircraft carrier burned when superstructures made of aluminum began to burn, especially since it is part of many incendiary mixtures, starting from termite - electron.
    1. PilotS37 30 June 2020 08: 14 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: Free Wind
      I remember the British on the Falklands, the aircraft carrier burned down, when superstructures made of aluminum began to burn

      Aircraft carriers in the Falklands did not burn!
      [media = https: //ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland WarfareLosses_of_states]
      1. Free wind 30 June 2020 14: 07 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        And why in 82 every news showed how brave Argentines drown and knock down stupid English? And there were publications about the destruction of the aircraft carrier, I remember for some reason. And it was precisely because of the aluminum superstructures that the great injuries of the stupid British were explained .. Maybe they gave out wishful thinking in our press, maybe the same transporter that the Chinooks transported gave out for an aircraft carrier, I don’t know. But we had graters with England at that time. England blamed the USSR for supporting the IRA, for the red brigades, for Afghanistan, and Thatcher did not burn with love. Ours blamed England for Afghanistan, for India, for everything, and Thatcher watered a day later.
        1. PilotS37 2 July 2020 13: 37 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: Free Wind
          And why in 82 every news showed how brave Argentines drown and knock down stupid English? And there were publications about the destruction of the aircraft carrier, I remember for some reason. And it was precisely because of the aluminum superstructures that the great injuries of the stupid British were explained .. Maybe they gave out wishful thinking in our press, maybe the same transporter that the Chinooks transported gave out for an aircraft carrier, I don’t know. But we had graters with England at that time. England blamed the USSR for supporting the IRA, for the red brigades, for Afghanistan, and Thatcher did not burn with love. Ours blamed England for Afghanistan, for India, for everything, and Thatcher watered a day later.

          Colleague, here the key phrase "I remember for some reason ..." Almost 40 years have passed (Forty years) - during this time a lot of things get confused and generally forgotten. Therefore, I specifically attached a link for the loss in that war.
          You just messed up everything: the Argentines, indeed, tried to sink the English aircraft carrier Hermes. But “something went wrong ...”: according to one version, they made a trivial mistake with the identification of ships, according to another, the electronic warfare system of the English squadron worked, but it didn’t work very well: they “blinded” the missile, but it found a new target (mistaking it for the old one) ... In short, they got into a container ship ... And then the Soviet press described this episode quite plausibly, so you sank the “aircraft carrier” absolutely on your own (but there’s nothing wrong with it: in time, there’s not such a thing starts to soak - I know for myself).
    2. arkadiyssk 30 June 2020 10: 19 New
      • 5
      • 1
      +4
      Maybe there is no parachute landing and will not be anymore, but there is air mobility - for example, you can simply move it with the help of MI-26. But for some reason, we don’t practice such things in the military sense. The Americans over in Syria a year and a half ago, when they squeezed the Tabka dam from Black, at night they threw equipment and marines by helicopters through the reservoir to a depth of 20 km, then they consolidated their strength by floating means up to the artillery and took the nearest air base and power station in 3 days. Would the commander have the eggs, take risks and carry out landing operations. And here, for example, an attempt to overcome the same dam and go to Raqqa ended in nothing, or rather a shameful flight.
    3. Coward 30 June 2020 10: 27 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Pure aluminum will not be used in marine hull structures. An AMg 3 or 5 alloy is used there. The self-combustion process does not support, unlike AMts, but these alloys are no longer used, just after a fire, it seems a guard. I don’t know what kind of alloy aluminum armor is, but it’s hardly AMG.
    4. The comment was deleted.
    5. Passing 30 June 2020 14: 47 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Free Wind
      No sense in airborne landing

      Why such an air strike on enemy territory is possible and even necessary, but it is impossible to carry out airborne operations there? What prevents air defense? If you are able to overcome air defense for strike missions, then you automatically clear the field of activity for transport operations. If not, then you will soon lose the war, give up immediately.
      1. Free wind 30 June 2020 15: 06 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Here you can either talk about the fact that air defense knocks down any goals, which is said at every corner about our means, and they offer to buy to everyone. Or any means are destroyed. But by any chance a jihadmobile with an anti-aircraft gun poses a mortal threat to a transporter.
        1. Passing 30 June 2020 15: 15 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Something I doubt that a 12,7 / 14,5 / 23 mm caliber can drop a transporter flying at a speed of 500 km / h. And there can be no other calibers on a jihadmobile.
  • Graz 30 June 2020 06: 15 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Well, M8 is preferable for American airborne forces, it has already been dropped from an airplane, a griffin for land explorers or kmp
  • K-50 30 June 2020 06: 23 New
    • 7
    • 5
    +2
    The new version of the M8 tank receives a 105 mm M35 rifled gun with an ammunition load of 45 shots and automatic loader.

    Is it now so politically correct blacks are called, or have they developed the necessary mechanism? laughing
    1. Grazdanin 30 June 2020 09: 16 New
      • 1
      • 2
      -1
      Quote: K-50
      Have you developed the necessary mechanism?

      They have AZ since the late 60s
  • rocket757 30 June 2020 06: 41 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    All this "firewood" in the furnace ...
    Then, are they going to meet somewhere in a real confrontation, a battle ???
    1. Free wind 30 June 2020 07: 01 New
      • 2
      • 4
      -2
      No where. The Americans let them out. We have destroyed the Volgograd Tractor. Maybe a little in this workshop and life is warming, I don’t know.
      1. rocket757 30 June 2020 07: 12 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        Stalingrad Tractor ... production transferred to another place. It is sad for the employees of the enterprise ... but on the banks of the Volga it is better to arrange a recreation area for the townspeople.
        And for production, we have a lot of steppes around! If they will build something like that.
    2. Grazdanin 30 June 2020 09: 18 New
      • 2
      • 2
      0
      Quote: rocket757
      are going to meet in a real confrontation


      Such types of equipment are not created for a duel among themselves, it is very strange to read
      1. rocket757 30 June 2020 09: 35 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        And where is it written about DUEL?
        The words confrontation, battle have a broader meaning than the unambiguous DUEL!
        It seems like something is wrong with the Russian language .....
        By the way, in a real battle, it can happen whatever you like, rarely when EVERYTHING happens as the strategy intended, according to plans. It happens.
        1. Grazdanin 30 June 2020 10: 03 New
          • 1
          • 3
          -2
          Quote: rocket757
          are they going to meet somewhere in a real confrontation, a battle?


          OPPOSE, -Oh, -Oh; inconsistent. to whom (what) (book).
          1. Resist the action of something., While maintaining a stable position. P. to the wind. P. to someone I press (trans.).
          2. To be opposed, to differ in essence, in essence. Opposing opinions.
          | noun confrontation, Wed, Wed>

          duel 1. The same as a duel (in 1 value). call on the village killed nadueli. 2. trans. struggle, competition of two parties. chess d. verbal d. artillery d. (shootout). ii adj - dueling, -th, -th (to 1 value). dueling pistols.

          You can also see the meaning of the word “Fight” in Ozhegov’s dictionary.

          The use of the word confrontation implies a direct opposition, a competition between two parties, like a duel i.e. Octopus is opposed to MBP. Those. in the text that you wrote are synonyms.
          If what you wrote does not correspond to what you had in mind, then you have problems with the Russian language, not mine.
          1. rocket757 30 June 2020 10: 16 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Okay, military confrontation, on the one hand, against the other, in the broad sense of the word. Those. confrontation between states .... someone specifically is ready to oppose a nuclear power, this is not real.
            But, in a real battle there can be anything ... only the reality of this battle seems doubtful. Although, if the equipment is sold to the side, then anything can be.
            1. Grazdanin 30 June 2020 10: 26 New
              • 0
              • 1
              -1
              Quite such a battle could be, the US expeditionary forces around the world. Africa, the Middle East themselves are asking themselves, especially since there are a lot of developments of this class of tanks. In the same Turks, medium tanks went into the army. https://topwar.ru/169432-tureckie-voennye-poluchili-pervye-serijnye-srednie-tanki-kaplan.html
              As far as it is now noted the most fashionable type of tanks, MBT only research.
              1. rocket757 30 June 2020 10: 36 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                Modern, effective means of defeating armored vehicles are very common and affordable, for irregular associations. In cities and rugged terrain, MBT often becomes a target ...
                Now, in general, there is a tendency to outstripping the development of attack means, and defensive ones are lagging behind. This is problem.
                Linear, classic wars ... are not foreseen, but various hybrid and other small-town conflicts allow the use of everything easier, simpler, cheaper.
                1. Grazdanin 30 June 2020 10: 48 New
                  • 0
                  • 1
                  -1
                  I agree. If you look at the losses, then they are mainly from mines and svu. In this case, no matter how much armor in the forehead)
                  1. rocket757 30 June 2020 11: 02 New
                    • 2
                    • 0
                    +2
                    The skin of even the largest mammoth can be torn off in different ways!
  • Sakmagon 30 June 2020 07: 30 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    One "expert" has already compared the Il-2 attack aircraft with the Ju-87 dive. Here it seems the same story laughing
    1. tnc17 30 June 2020 17: 45 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      It’s even worse here, the author compares the airborne airborne assault launcher with an light fire support tank for infantry brigades.
  • IS-80_RVGK2 30 June 2020 07: 43 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    Ryabov replaces Damantsev who went on vacation? laughing
  • silberwolf88 30 June 2020 07: 46 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    Our industry does not stand still ... fire control systems are developing on a new elemental base and new principles (including AI and the possibility of network-centric use during hostilities) ... and in this case more powerful weapons ... an obvious advantage ...
  • smaug78 30 June 2020 08: 45 New
    • 4
    • 1
    +3
    other projections protect against weapons of normal caliber.
    what it is? What caliber is abnormal? Or is the author embarrassed to say that the other projections have bulletproof protection? Or he’s afraid to write that the “competitor” is better protected by starting to pour water about
    mobility is one of the main survivability factors
    which is the "overseas" competitor at the same level?
  • Grazdanin 30 June 2020 09: 23 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    The logical decision. The main losses are caused by tanks from mines, KAZ systems will protect against several shots, they are easier to transfer and their mobility is higher.
  • VicktorVR 30 June 2020 09: 39 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    Weight and price tag are not compared. Most likely for the same money and tons you can take two of our self-propelled guns instead of one "not our" light tank.

    It’s not entirely clear what they wanted to receive and received under the guise of a light tank? Something with armor from bullets of all calibers and small-caliber HE shells, with a 100mm anti-tank missile in the turret, but with a weight almost like a T-72? Or just sawed the budget?
  • 5-9
    5-9 30 June 2020 09: 59 New
    • 2
    • 2
    0
    Why do we need Octopus - I see. It is transported / landed together in other airborne vehicles and swims.
    And why is a US tank weighing T-62-T-64 with a 105-mm gun, not taking MBT in the forehead, with armor only from small-caliber guns (far in level from T-55 and 62) - it is not clear ....
    T-55/62 with a normal new SLA or their extreme Chinese clones will break this misunderstanding and will be cheaper (if we are talking about export)
    1. tnc17 30 June 2020 14: 16 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Just the same, everything is very well understood, because the entire US is undergoing strong metamorphoses. The KMP refuses heavy weapons in the direction of mobility, and the army saturates infantry and striker brigades with heavy weapons. And this machine will go to the balance of the infantry brigades.
      1. 5-9
        5-9 30 June 2020 14: 27 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Replacing a 62-ton tank with a 38-ton one will certainly increase mobility, but not very straight forward. And if something, then the ILC was the first to fight .... on this .... A cardboard tank with a weak gun “heavy weaponry” is hard to say how it will help linear brigades it’s not very clear what is against a full-fledged opponent, what is against insurgents with HE mines and ATGM ..

        I understand the meaning as a whole, but it lies more in the field of economics. These nedotanki are cheaper to operate, and the Abrams are worn out and replacement is not expected at all. From purely military aspects, it can be assumed that the mobility and cross-country ability of CEPv.2 and B.3 with their weight below the baseboard, and the StrikerMGS is generally slag, so at least something ... (although M1A1 without ammunition and weight gain would be suitable more).

        The answer to the question why such a nedotank is needed by a normal army, if it is not mountain / floating, remains unanswered.
        1. tnc17 30 June 2020 14: 38 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          And where is the economy? And where are the abrams? And even more so with kmp? These vehicles will go into the arsenal of infantry brigades, which until then, of self-propelled heavy weapons had only Humvi with the Tou, the Abrams, just as they were armed with the tank brigades, will remain there. Kmp, the abrams are no longer needed, his ideology of application is completely changing, and there is no such place and method of application there.
          1. 5-9
            5-9 30 June 2020 14: 43 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            That's only in the United States the number of heavy brigades is reduced ... therefore, savings.
            1. tnc17 30 June 2020 15: 02 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Not only tank brigades are being reduced, infantry also went under the knife. Yes, and the savings here are dubious, because by reducing the composition they increase the saturation of heavy weapons.
  • Pavel57 30 June 2020 10: 05 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: Kote Pan Kokhanka
    Octopus - a self-propelled gun of the Airborne Forces!


    As such, the military agreed to accept this tank, which logically grew out of the PT-76.
  • garri-lin 30 June 2020 10: 36 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    100 as a VET is illogical. The forehead is weak in excess aboard. In support of the infantry, it is more logical and analogous to our Bahce.
  • Sahalinets 30 June 2020 11: 10 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    Practice shows that the mobility of light tanks on the battlefield is lower than that of the main ones, because it ends at the first shelter.
    Well, the stubborn desire of our MO to make parachute-landing equipment is amazing. Well, where are they going to dump their cars?
    1. Grazdanin 30 June 2020 11: 26 New
      • 3
      • 1
      +2
      Where? On the exercises! This is so beautiful!
    2. Lopatov 30 June 2020 11: 38 New
      • 4
      • 4
      0
      Quote: Sahalinets
      Well, where are they going to dump their cars?

      If the Georgians were a little smarter, then in 2008 they would have to "reset"
      1. Sahalinets 30 June 2020 12: 50 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        To dump? Under the fire of Georgian beeches?
        1. Passing 30 June 2020 14: 58 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          So suppressed the same Georgian air defense. After a couple of days, but crushed. The main danger was not Buki, but MANPADS, including in the hands of our fighters.
        2. Lopatov 30 June 2020 18: 17 New
          • 2
          • 1
          +1
          Quote: Sahalinets
          To dump? Under the fire of Georgian beeches?

          They still had to be dragged to Java laughing laughing laughing
    3. 5-9
      5-9 30 June 2020 14: 30 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Well, I think this possibility of dropping itself broadens the scope, at least in the eyes of the adversary ... and so, the Octopus is in the same weight and on the same base as the BMD-4, which is convenient ... and swimming is more important than dumping.
      1. garri-lin 30 June 2020 18: 15 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        You can discard not only behind enemy lines. You can also reset on the way of breaking through the wedges of the enemy and just in your rear for reinforcement. In places where there is stress with airfields. You can drop it into the territory of third countries and then strike from there. Drop a lot where and how you can.
  • Grits 30 June 2020 14: 58 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    But the "Octopus" in the parade was not shown. Why such a disgrace?
  • chingachguc 30 June 2020 18: 50 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Personally, I don’t like Octopus. The time for anti-tank guns has passed. An ATGM can also shoot from an ambush, and more efficiently. The attack does not go. Not even against BMPs.
  • Comrade Kim 4 July 2020 22: 49 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Plans, plans ...