Military Review

The Russian Sprut-SDM1 was highly appreciated in Poland

97
The Russian Sprut-SDM1 was highly appreciated in Poland

The Russian Sprut-SDM1 self-propelled anti-tank gun, the probable purchase of which was announced in India, will help to effectively combat enemy armored vehicles in mountainous areas. This opinion was expressed by the Polish edition of Defense24.


According to Polish experts, the Sprut-SDM1 self-propelled anti-tank gun has a small mass and compact dimensions, but at the same time it is armed with a 125-mm caliber gun, which allows it to fight against enemy armored vehicles on equal terms.

"Octopus" due to its light weight, compact size and colossal firepower is able to demonstrate high efficiency as an alternative to the main tank armed forces of the country when using it on rugged mountainous terrain

- the newspaper writes, adding that the self-propelled gun is excellent for neutralizing the Chinese Type 15 tank, which the PLA uses to "work" in the mountains.

Earlier, Indian media reported that the Indian government had allowed the purchase of foreign light tanks abroad, which could be used in mountainous areas. It is noted that this is associated with the confrontation with China in East Ladakh, where the main PLA tank is Type 15. This light tank has a combat weight of about 34 tons and is equipped with a 1000-horsepower engine. The main armament is a 105 mm rifled gun - the Chinese version of the British Royal Ordnance L7 cannon. Ammunition - 38 rounds, automatic loading.

The Russian combat vehicle Sprut-SDM1 "is armed with a 125-mm cannon capable of using anti-tank guided weapons at a distance of up to 5000 m, a 7,62-mm machine gun paired with it, and a 7,62-mm machine gun mounted on a remote-controlled module. is intended for fire support of subunits, fighting armored vehicles, destroying enemy strongpoints and defensive structures, conducting military reconnaissance and combat security.
97 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. The leader of the Redskins
    The leader of the Redskins 31 July 2020 11: 18 New
    +3
    It's hard to deny the obvious!
  2. Zaurbek
    Zaurbek 31 July 2020 11: 24 New
    +3
    If you do not yet rest against the BMD chassis .. and using the BMP3 chassis will be even better and stronger
    1. 5-9
      5-9 31 July 2020 12: 54 New
      +5
      In theory, yes, but why? In the Airborne Forces, the unification of platforms is that one is another cardboard for obps and ATGM ...
      1. Zaurbek
        Zaurbek 31 July 2020 12: 56 New
        +2
        Cheaper and stronger armor
        1. 5-9
          5-9 31 July 2020 13: 41 New
          +1
          A BMdekha can be thrown from an airplane (the real need is questionable, of course), the armor is stronger on half a car, and the supply becomes more complicated
      2. avg
        avg 1 August 2020 19: 33 New
        0
        Quote: 5-9
        In theory, yes, but why? In the Airborne Forces, the unification of platforms is that one is another cardboard for obps and ATGM ...

        Zaurbek (Zaur) talks about India and the Himalayas. Zaurbek (Zaur) doesn't talk about the Airborne Forces. yes
    2. svp67
      svp67 31 July 2020 12: 55 New
      +2
      Quote: Zaurbek
      If you do not yet rest against the BMD chassis .. and using the BMP3 chassis will be even better and stronger

      Well, there is such a modification. Whatever the customer wants, they will deliver to him ...
    3. Grits
      Grits 31 July 2020 15: 09 New
      -1
      Quote: Zaurbek
      and using the BMP3 chassis will be even better

      So it seems there is such an idea as "Dragoon". But it seems, no further ideas went
  3. Doctor
    Doctor 31 July 2020 11: 24 New
    -3
    Nice gun. But she'd better not run into a tank.
    1. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 31 July 2020 11: 27 New
      -3
      Quite right. It is enough for a tank to hit it anywhere. And the self-propelled gun still needs to work hard to break through the MBT armor
      1. sabakina
        sabakina 31 July 2020 11: 33 New
        +9
        Quote: voyaka uh
        Quite right. It is enough for a tank to hit it anywhere. And the self-propelled gun still needs to work hard to break through the MBT armor

        Lesha, I understand that two Ds are strength, but not to the same extent! Why should an anti-tank gun be afraid of MBT armor? recourse
        1. newcomer
          newcomer 31 July 2020 11: 37 New
          +1
          It's a pity that ours don't know how to take it, not take it.
          1. Ru_Na
            Ru_Na 31 July 2020 11: 41 New
            +3
            Well, then it is already being operated in the ranks of our aircraft, as of January 2016 there were already more than 36 of them.
            1. newcomer
              newcomer 31 July 2020 14: 18 New
              0
              I know, colleague, but the Octopus has never been accepted into service. For operation in the troops, we have a version of SDM1, but so far the Ministry of Defense is thinking.
        2. mvg
          mvg 31 July 2020 14: 51 New
          -5
          Why should an anti-tank gun be afraid of MBT armor?

          Yes, simply because it is not even a 2A46M, and if she encounters type 96A or type 99A2, with KAZ, then nothing will shine for her without Reflex-M. And the ATGM's will be shot down. But on Sprut there is no KAZ and bulletproof armor. L7, let alone a copy of 2A46, is fatal to him in any projection. Well, the SSO on MBT is clearly more fun than on a light and cheap tank.
          The last time light tanks successfully fought MBTs was in Korea. Bulldogs, against T-54/55. The Octopus crew will be more busy looking for cover than fighting. How not Israel to know this, that is why they chose the English Chiefs instead of the AMX-30, since the quote “better stay on the battlefield”, it is the Jews who have the greatest experience in tank battles.
          PS: For me, a 57mm automatic gun, with a rate of fire of 150-200 high / min will be more dangerous in the mountains than this miracle. A line of 4-5 shots will not please anyone.
          1. 5-9
            5-9 31 July 2020 16: 08 New
            +1
            What are the Chiefs in Israel? Iran is also on And of course, but now you have done badly to your former compatriots
            1. mvg
              mvg 31 July 2020 19: 50 New
              -2
              What chiefs in Israel

              Centurions (made a mistake with Chieftain), the Yom Kippur War, about a hundred Centurions (at first 88 units, then pulled up) held back the attack of 500-600 Syrian T-54/55, and the next day another 200 T-62. Doesn't change the essence of my comment. A very successful British tank, appeared at the very end of the Second World War, did not fight.
              PS: My opinion is that all these pseudo-tanks, on the front line, in the presence of advanced anti-tank equipment, are simply mass graves. It doesn't matter whether it's in the mountains or in the desert. Too highly specialized technique.
              1. 5-9
                5-9 31 July 2020 20: 14 New
                0
                Well, the Javretian sturgeon must be cut down to the tail ...
                But yes, the AMX-30 showed that light tanks are a mistake ...
                But Octopus, like the Airborne Forces, is not opposed to a heavily armed and modern enemy ...
        3. 3danimal
          3danimal 31 July 2020 18: 27 New
          0
          So she is not afraid, she can just break through it only with a successful hit (from a suitable angle). And for MBT all self-propelled guns - "cardboard".
      2. 5-9
        5-9 31 July 2020 12: 58 New
        0
        Hmmm .... What is this MBT in the world not to take Lead? No, I understand that penetration is a probabilistic value and in M1 or Leo2 with the T-90 there are some places like a couple of tens of% of the frontal projection area, which may not be penetrated ...
        With a tank, just OK, whoever hit is a fine fellow ... Another thing is that 14,5-30 mm, and even more ATGM, is byad for the Octopus ..
        1. 3danimal
          3danimal 31 July 2020 18: 29 New
          -2
          Lead does not punch the latest modifications of Leo-2 or Abrams in the forehead. WITHOUT a canopy of reactive armor, which is being used on them.
          1. 5-9
            5-9 31 July 2020 18: 45 New
            +1
            Datysho .... Hotel drovishki, eh? Murzilki and toys? Yes, without taking into account the fact that according to our method, the BP of the projectile is 20% less than the enemy's and is compared to a round one with a green one? Or that 40% of Abrashi's frontal projection is cardboard? And the explosion on the Iraqi landmines showed that the cheekbones of the tower are a third of the air?
            1. 3danimal
              3danimal 31 July 2020 18: 54 New
              +1
              "It can't be", "they have cardboard" and no specifics.
              Do our tanks have 90% from the front with maximum protection ??
              1. 5-9
                5-9 31 July 2020 18: 59 New
                0
                Ohhhhh ... Everybody even has holes in their foreheads. Abrasha has norms only for the cheekbones of the tower (which in fact turned out to be with air inside instead of filler) and NLD. And the murzilochny resistance is even overestimated, after recalculation to the method by which the BP of our shells is estimated ... So more specifically?
                1. 3danimal
                  3danimal 31 July 2020 19: 08 New
                  +1
                  Still not enough. With air, or not, what is the armor resistance of the turret cheekbones? According to the declared characteristics (M1A3 ..), everything should be held except for a lead that is still in development.
      3. Zaurbek
        Zaurbek 31 July 2020 12: 59 New
        -3
        And she will not be able to shoot a tank at range
        1. 5-9
          5-9 31 July 2020 13: 43 New
          0
          Octopus with T-90 going to fight? Or does he not have a TOUR? It will start from 5-6 km, if the relief of course allows, to hit tanks without a tour.
          1. 3danimal
            3danimal 31 July 2020 18: 36 New
            0
            So the T-90 has a TUR. It's just that the Octopus is cheaper and more portable by air.
            1. 5-9
              5-9 31 July 2020 18: 46 New
              0
              I mean about Octopus VS. no-nash ...
              1. 3danimal
                3danimal 31 July 2020 18: 55 New
                0
                Ok, Leo-2, Leclerc or Merkava with Spike. Again, the LMS on tanks is much better.
                1. 5-9
                  5-9 31 July 2020 19: 02 New
                  +1
                  In M1 and Leo there are no TOURs, in Morkovka there is no Spike, but there is Lahat, he is not against tanks.
                  LMS in Octopus is also normal.
                  Again, the Airborne Forces does not imply a fight against an enemy with a modern MBT
                  1. 3danimal
                    3danimal 31 July 2020 19: 11 New
                    0
                    So in the T-62 it may seem like nothing smile
                    I agree with the latter, for them the Octopus was created. Cheap and air transportable good
      4. orionvitt
        orionvitt 31 July 2020 13: 42 New
        +1
        Quote: voyaka uh
        It is enough for a tank to hit it anywhere. And the self-propelled gun still needs to work hard to break through the MBT armor

        And then what to say about grenade launchers and ATGM operators. In general, from protection, they have only armor, and then, if there is one. It is clear, in your opinion, I saw a tank, surrender. laughing
    2. Pereira
      Pereira 31 July 2020 11: 41 New
      -1
      I would say on the contrary, it is better for tanks not to collide with anti-tank weapons. The PTO has a better gun, but it will not go into the attack.
      1. Doctor
        Doctor 31 July 2020 11: 45 New
        -1

        I would say on the contrary, it is better for tanks not to collide with anti-tank weapons. The PTO has a better gun, but it will not go into the attack.

        Yes, PTO, if smartly - ambush weapons.
        But overall, it's a cheap alternative to a tank, and that's how they came about. At the same time, the command put them in the same line with the tanks, like there was even an order prohibiting this.
        A neutered tank, even with a more powerful weapon.
        1. Pereira
          Pereira 31 July 2020 11: 47 New
          +8
          It's not a tank. it airborne PTO. It was not created for tank attacks.
    3. zadorin1974
      zadorin1974 31 July 2020 11: 46 New
      0
      So it was developed by Yuri to destroy (fight) tanks not in a frontal attack. From the tank there is also Sput, with its low silhouette and weight (into any crevice and swamp), in nature ( laughing ) will have to be found.
      1. Doctor
        Doctor 31 July 2020 11: 54 New
        -8
        So it was developed by Yuri to destroy (fight) tanks not in a frontal attack. The OBT is still Sput, with its low silhouette and weight (in any crevice and swamp), it will be necessary to find it outdoors (laughing).

        Alexey, my uncle started the war as the commander of a 45 mm anti-tank platoon.
        Now we see Mujahideen with RPGs and Javelins, but then if the Germans had at least a couple of Pz.Kpfw. IV, if the defense was broken, there was simply nothing to stop it.

        Self-propelled guns appeared as cheap mobile PT artillery, which is essentially a light tank with a non-rotating gun. Experienced soldiers refused to fight them on pain of a tribunal, so they usually imprisoned young people like the legendary Maleshkin.
        1. Hagen
          Hagen 31 July 2020 12: 08 New
          +6
          Quote: Arzt
          Experienced soldiers refused to fight them on pain of a tribunal

          Much was done in the war under the penalty of a tribunal. You give the source of your statements. The Su-100, on which Maleshkin fought, had protection at the level of the T-34. Give an example of a massive refusal to fight on this machine.
          Quote: Arzt
          and then if the Germans had at least a couple of Pz.Kpfw. IV, if the defense was broken, there was simply nothing to stop it.

          How did you win the war then? Near Moscow, the Germans had not two tanks in a chain, but somehow they stopped. Yes, there are enough other examples of defense, where German tanks were stopped ... Something you do not add up ...
          1. Doctor
            Doctor 31 July 2020 12: 27 New
            -5
            Much was done in the war under the penalty of a tribunal. You give the source of your statements. The Su-100, on which Maleshkin fought, had protection at the level of the T-34. Give an example of a massive refusal to fight on this machine.

            The source sat in front of me at the chessboard and told (sometimes) how everything really happened. wink
            I'm not talking about massive refusals to fight, but about isolated cases and the general attitude of experienced soldiers to self-propelled guns. Specifically, the SU-76, for which its developers were removed from their posts and sent to the front.
            SU-100 with 75 frontal armor is almost a tank, Fidel Castro will not let you lie.
            Comparing her with Octopus is stupid.
            1. zadorin1974
              zadorin1974 31 July 2020 12: 52 New
              +3
              Yuri, you are twisting again! Ginzburg was sent to the front not because of the creation of a bad self-propelled gun, but for the low quality of production. Moreover, not by a penalty box, but by the deputy brigade commander. Again, the chief designer Shchukin and his team were not injured.
              1. Doctor
                Doctor 31 July 2020 13: 23 New
                -2
                Yuri, you are twisting again! Ginzburg was sent to the front not because of the creation of a bad self-propelled gun, but for the low quality of production. Moreover, not by a penalty box, but by the deputy brigade commander. Again, the chief designer Shchukin and his team were not injured.

                In your interpretation, this sounds straightforward as a reward for good work. Still, the whole Zamkombriga! Can you remind me how he ended his career?
                1. zadorin1974
                  zadorin1974 31 July 2020 13: 34 New
                  +3
                  In your interpretation, it was Ginsburg and the designers who were punished for CREATING an SPG, which in fact was not. Replacing the brigade commander for failure is better than a penalty box or against the wall.
          2. Doctor
            Doctor 31 July 2020 12: 29 New
            -5
            How did you win the war then? Near Moscow, the Germans had not two tanks in a chain, but somehow they stopped.

            Good question. Answer yourself, how did the Germans get to Moscow? laughing
            1. 5-9
              5-9 31 July 2020 13: 14 New
              +4
              Let’s tell you first how the Germans, in 2 weeks with ridiculous losses, rolled out British Frenchies into a pancake, and relying on this we will look for an answer about Moscow time ..
              1. Doctor
                Doctor 31 July 2020 13: 34 New
                -2
                Let’s tell you first how the Germans, in 2 weeks with ridiculous losses, rolled out British Frenchies into a pancake, and relying on this we will look for an answer about Moscow time ..

                This is what we are talking about. The whole land WWII is an attempt to stop the tanks. Soldiers and snipers are ordered to shoot at viewing slots, designers are ordered to create anti-tank missiles, mines are even hung on dogs and taught to rush under tanks. All because he is ... armored! And there are not enough normal guns.
                1. 5-9
                  5-9 31 July 2020 13: 50 New
                  +2
                  Actually, the whole WWII is who will maneuver whom ... The front line is only solid on the map.
                  If the attacking side ran into a PTO, then it was its failure.
        2. zadorin1974
          zadorin1974 31 July 2020 12: 09 New
          +8
          Do not confuse Yuri with luminium, it's not beautiful. Self-propelled guns appeared not as a cheap substitute for tanks, but a mobile firing point. A quick transfer to dangerous directions, good maneuverability and protection of the crew. The same SU 76 fought well from ambushes and with T 4 in including if it was not sent in a frontal attack. No need to throw at the fan about the tribunal and self-propelled. We formed the Ural corps, so that we communicated with veterans in childhood not only on September XNUMX at the peace lesson, but in everyday life (grandfathers, relatives and neighbors). And I will believe THEM, and not your stupid swamp. And if you cite as an example the film "In war, as in war" then take the trouble to revise it, since there the division commander just argues with the tanker about the use of self-propelled guns according to the charter.
          1. Doctor
            Doctor 31 July 2020 12: 35 New
            -4
            The same SU 76 fought well from ambushes and with T 4, including if it was not sent into a frontal attack. There is no need to throw at the fan about the tribunal and self-propelled guns. We formed the Ural corps, so we communicated with veterans in childhood not only on the first of September at the lesson of peace, but at home (grandfathers, relatives and neighbors). And I will believe THEM, and not your stupid boggy.

            Wrote above, for SU - 76 its developers were removed from their posts and sent to the front.
            It was about her that I talked with my veteran. His conclusion is firewood. The closed hull creates the illusion of security for the crew, but experienced warriors cannot be fooled, they saw these hulls and what remains inside.
        3. 5-9
          5-9 31 July 2020 13: 01 New
          +2
          In fact, light self-propelled guns of the Su-76 type were used to support the infantry.
        4. 5-9
          5-9 31 July 2020 13: 05 New
          0
          Well, yes, of course ... Look at 28 Panfilov's men, there the battle is shown almost documentary .... Again, our 34 Germans burned something without RAC-40 in thousands ...
    4. svp67
      svp67 31 July 2020 12: 55 New
      0
      Quote: Arzt
      Nice gun. But she'd better not run into a tank.

      As well as a tank with her. It all depends on the correct tactics of using them.
      1. Doctor
        Doctor 31 July 2020 13: 12 New
        0
        As well as a tank with her. It all depends on the correct tactics of using them.

        If the Indians buy a batch of Octopus from us for full dollars, I’ll only FOR!
        Let's wish them good luck in the battle with the full-fledged Chinese tanks and a successful rebirth in their next life!
    5. orionvitt
      orionvitt 31 July 2020 13: 34 New
      +1
      Quote: Arzt
      But she'd better not run into a tank.

      In this case, following your logic, in a war with the enemy, it is better not to meet at all. You never know what.
      1. Doctor
        Doctor 31 July 2020 13: 41 New
        -1
        In this case, following your logic, in a war with the enemy, it is better not to meet at all. You never know what.

        Each business has its own tool. The same Nons in Chechnya showed themselves excellently. But as a mobile artillery, not a PTO. If the Indians want to buy Octopus to fight tanks, that's fine. You need to sell as much as possible.
        But if you release 100 T-72s and try to stop them with a hundred Octopus, the result is predictable.
        1. orionvitt
          orionvitt 31 July 2020 13: 48 New
          +1
          Quote: Arzt
          release 100 T-72s and try to stop them with a hundred Octopus, the result is predictable.

          I disagree. War is won by skill, not by the mere presence of military equipment. The times of frontal tank attacks, and fronts, ended long ago. In our time, the bets are placed on mobile combat operations, in small units. Right here, "Sprut-SDM1" as a support is very good. In addition, it is also floating. As they say, a trifle, but useful.
          1. Doctor
            Doctor 31 July 2020 14: 07 New
            -1
            In our time, the bets are placed on mobile combat operations, in small units. Right here, "Sprut-SDM1" as a support is very good. In addition, it is also floating. As they say, a trifle, but useful.

            Everything is correct. The infantry crew will carry on hand, still a 125 mm fool with you always!
            Need to clean the brilliant green? Please, but first two dozen shrapnel go there.
            Looming on the horizon dhihad-mobile with a thick machine gun? No need to wait for it to come closer, risking being discovered, from 2 kilometers with 2 shells - easy!
            Have you ordered to navigate a separate water pumping station? No problem, only first the guys will level it to the ground, and we will grind it.
            And there are chances against the tank, why not?
    6. NEXUS
      NEXUS 31 July 2020 23: 45 New
      0
      Quote: Arzt
      Nice gun. But she'd better not run into a tank.

      Nothing that the Octopus has a tank gun, and not a Makarov pistol?
      1. Doctor
        Doctor 1 August 2020 01: 01 New
        -1
        Nothing that the Octopus has a tank gun, and not a Makarov pistol?

        No armor. We often compare the T-90 with the Abrams and Leopards, we calculate the angles of inclination, millimeters of thickness, we are thinking about who has better KAZ.
        All for a few percent advantage.
        And then a cannon with cardboard armor. No, there are chances, of course, but globally only Indians can take Octopus to fight tanks.
        Although in general these are Polish stories, they are not facts at all.
    7. chingachguc
      chingachguc 1 August 2020 12: 10 New
      0
      and with whom to face? what else can it be useful for?
  4. iouris
    iouris 31 July 2020 11: 59 New
    0
    And how much is this "high" in hard currency? In which case Oboronexport is ready to deliver a test batch.
  5. Blue fox
    Blue fox 31 July 2020 21: 22 New
    +2
    The advantage of the Octopus in the mountain war is that it will rise to a height that the enemy's MBT cannot, and having saddled the command heights and driven into a caponier made of rock, covered with some air defense, it is able to hold a pass, a gorge and endure everything that will appear within the radius of its reach, and if it is possible to place positions in the dead zone of enemy artillery, which is not so difficult in the mountains, then weak armor will cease to be a problem.
  6. cat Rusich
    cat Rusich 31 July 2020 22: 11 New
    0
    ATGM Chrysanthemum-S firing range up to 6 km - farther than BOPS at Octopus.
  7. Lara Croft
    Lara Croft 1 August 2020 10: 29 New
    +1
    The self-propelled gun is excellent for neutralizing the Chinese Type 15 tank, which the PLA uses to "work" in the mountains.

    If it is so good for use in the mountains, then why is it not in our MRBR. (mountain) deployed in the Caucasus and Transbaikalia, in the Arctic brigades of the SCF RF, in the units of the MP of the Russian Navy?
    Judging by one of the articles on the VO, light tanks (PT-76) "Vovanov" were often used in Chechnya ....
    Tanks PT-76 in battles in the North Caucasus

    https://topwar.ru/24057-tanki-pt-76-v-boyah-na-severnom-kavkaze.html
    I must say that in the troops the retraining of the PT-76 into reconnaissance was perceived without much enthusiasm: wow, a scout, in size superior to the medium tank T-54, the most massive then in the Soviet Army. Even a trench for the PT-76 had to be dug larger than for the "fifty-four"! On the march, due to the lower power density, the PT-76 simply lagged behind the T-54. In addition, to perform reconnaissance functions, the PT-76 was not equipped with any special equipment (additional observation devices and communications), except for the standard one. What nicknames were given to the PT-76 in the army: "boat with a cannon", "quicksand" and quite contemptuous - "float". But in general, the appearance of the BMP-76 infantry fighting vehicle put an end to the career in the ground forces for both the PT-50 and the BTR-1. Adopted in 1966, it began to enter primarily the motorized rifle battalions of tank regiments and motorized rifle regiments of tank divisions, and at the same time into the reconnaissance units of these units and formations, gradually displacing the PT-76 and BTR-50 from them. Nevertheless, these machines, and primarily the PT-76, held out in service for quite some time. So, according to the data that the Soviet Union submitted to the signing of the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE), in November 1990, the USSR had 1030 PT-76 tanks on this continent. Of this number, in various zones of the treaty there were:
    • in zone IV-1 (European part of the USSR, Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, FRG) - 602 tanks;
    • in zone IV-2 (Germany, Hungary, Poland, Czechoslovakia, PribVO, BVO, PrikVO, KVO, MVO, Privolzhsko-Uralskiy VO) - 174;
    • in zone IV-3 (Germany, Hungary, Poland, Czechoslovakia, PribVO, BVO, PrikVO, KVO) - 168;
    • in the V-5 zone (flanks from the Atlantic to the Urals - LenVO, OdVO, ZKVO, SKVO) - 428.

    http://otvaga2004.ru/tanki/v-boyah/ekspluataciya-i-boevoe-primenenie-plavayushhix-tankov-pt-76-i-mashin-na-ix-baze/
    Did the Russian Sprut-SDM1 combat vehicle avoid the same drawbacks that were inherent in the PT-76, or did it become just a compact anti-tank vehicle for the Airborne Forces and the same narrow goosenecks as the BMD with flying them on rough terrain ...
    90% of the Russian airborne forces are deployed in the European zone of the Russian Federation and, like the Soviet airborne forces, are primarily intended for military operations in the European theater of operations, with the presence of good roads on it ...
    The USSR Airborne Forces located "beyond the river" were transplanted to armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles ....
    Therefore, the PLA has a "specialized" light tank for military operations in the mountains, so neither the PT-76 nor the Sprut-SDM1 is only partially suitable for use in military operations in northern India (escorting convoys, strengthening checkpoints and airfields, etc.) .....)
  8. chingachguc
    chingachguc 1 August 2020 12: 08 New
    0
    to be honest, I see no point in this rattletrap. She has a very narrow specialization: acting from ambushes against a tank. So with this, and the calculation of ATGM will cope even better. And after all, he can support the tank and the infantry (in the offensive and defense)