The Airborne Forces announced the timeframe for the adoption of the Sprut-SDM1 light amphibious tank

Light amphibious tank "Sprut-SDM1" will be adopted by the Airborne Forces (Airborne Forces) in 2023. Reported by RIA News citing a source close to the headquarters of the Airborne Forces.

According to the interlocutor of the news agency, the adoption and serial production of the self-propelled anti-tank gun (light tank) "Sprut-SDM1" is scheduled for early 2023.

State tests of the newest Sprut-SDM1 airmobile anti-tank gun are scheduled to be completed by the end of 2022. In 2023, the car should be put into service, at the same time its serial deliveries to the Airborne Forces will begin

- said the source publication.

According to him, "Sprut-SDM1", which has a 125-mm gun capable of using guided missiles, a new weapons control system and an automatic target tracking machine, is at the level of the main combat tanks.

In fact, the Airborne Forces will receive an airborne amphibious tank, unique in terms of combat capabilities.

- he added.

State tests of the Sprut-SDM1 light amphibious tank, intended for the Airborne Forces, began in August 2020, and will take a year and a half for them. According to the results of state tests, design documentation will be approved with the assignment of the letter "O1", which will allow the start of serial production. Earlier it was reported that the Ministry of Defense had already made a decision to adopt the Sprut-SDM1 into service, and the training of tank commanders for the Airborne Forces had already begun.

The Russian combat vehicle Sprut-SDM1 "is armed with a 125-mm cannon, a 7,62-mm machine gun paired with it and a 7,62-mm machine gun mounted on a remote-controlled module. destroying enemy strongpoints and defensive structures, conducting military reconnaissance and outposts.

Comments

[Pereira]

It's a tank after all.
Foreign classification won.
Or is it a commercial move aimed at finding buyers?

[novel66]

with the name of a cut ...

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Pereira

Foreign classification won.

Which side? There is a tower, there is a coaxial machine gun, a light tank in its pure form, with a very powerful cannon for its class, of course, well, that's great!

[Pereira]

The whole chip is in armor.
How VET will work. As support for the infantry, yes. But as a light tank in open space is no longer there. Protection is not enough. Holds only 12,7mm. A 20mm cannon is already fatal.
That's all the simple mathematics.

[Pashhenko Nikolay]

Yeah, full deja vu eighty years ago. About fast and light BT tanks. Jumping dilapidated bridges and rushing to the enemy. What they showed themselves and what their fate was in 1941, I think it is not necessary to tell.

[Leha667]

The slow and light Pz.II and III tanks performed amazingly with the right tactics. Because any tool must be applied correctly.

[Hermit21]

Anyone going to use the Octopus as a line tank?

[Pashhenko Nikolay]

And how will it be used? As an invisible tank? Even from an ambush after the first shot, it will be a target with zero chances of survival.

[Hermit21]

As an anti-tank reserve, a means of fire support for the airborne forces, possibly an MP. Nobody will drag him to the battlefield "with a saber bald", especially without support

[Doccor18]

Airmobile tank. Capturing and holding the bridgehead for some time, before the main forces of the ground forces approach. This is in theory ... But in practice ... it is very interesting where our airborne divisions will capture bridgeheads ...

[Andre___86]

Yeah, we landed in the rear, consider it not - the enemy UAV let loose and burned the boxes. Honestly, I can't imagine the use of this apparatus in modern conditions.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Andre___86

Yeah, we landed in the rear

You can also land on your own rear, in order to block the threatened direction. Although I can think in outdated concepts.

[Constanty]

Admittedly, this is a concrete example because the transmission took place by land, but even the airport in Pristina on June 12, 1999 shows that similar cases can sometimes occur.

And such infantry support as "Sprut-SDM1" will certainly come in handy, although on the other hand the BMD-4 seems more versatile.

[garri-lin]

BMDs with kinetic anti-tank weapons are bad. This is exactly what the Octopus is for.

[Vadim_888]

... But in practice ... it is very interesting where our airborne divisions will capture bridgeheads ...

Kuril Islands, possibly Transcaucasia ... Russia has a very long border, and the situation in the world is changing rapidly and you need to be ready for any challenges

[Bad_gr]

Quote: Vadim_888

Russia has a very long border ...

To the rear of their troops for reinforcement, in case of tension in this particular area.

[Hermit21]

The majority of foreign "light" tanks have the same cardboard. Only "Sprut-SDM1" is 1,5-2 times lighter, floats, can be parachuted (so-so advantage for the vast majority of potential buyers, but still), is more transportable, has an almost full-fledged tank cannon and an excellent control system. And if you remove the landing bells and whistles, such as hydraulic suspension and aluminum hulls, you can strengthen the protection with some additional kits and KAZ, and reduce the cost of production. Yes, and with the current chassis, I think you can portray something in terms of protection.

But as a light tank in open space is no longer

It does not depend only on the thickness of the booking

[voyaka uh]

A light tank means decent frontal armor.
And weak sides.
Look at WWII tanks: the Soviet T-70 or the American Stewart.
This Airborne Forces vehicle is a self-propelled weapon. Only work from an ambush.
A couple of shots and run away.
Any hit on it: RPG, small-bore cannon - anywhere! - deadly.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: voyaka uh

A light tank means decent frontal armor.

Decent against what? Both the T-70 and Stewart held the shells with their foreheads only conditionally.

Quote: voyaka uh

This Airborne Forces vehicle is a self-propelled weapon. Only work from an ambush.

The designers, I think, will argue with you:

conducting military reconnaissance and combat security.

Well, no one called the PT-76 or considered it any self-propelled gun.

[voyaka uh]

"Both the T-70 and Stuart held the shells with their foreheads only conditionally" ///
----
Both the T-70 and Stewart have the same frontal armor as the T-34.
Did the T-34 also hold shells only conditionally?

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: voyaka uh

Both the T-70 and Stewart have the same frontal armor as the T-34.
Did the T-34 also hold shells only conditionally?

Eh, yes, I confused it with the T-60. Are there any objections to the PT-76? ))

[voyaka uh]

"The designers, I think, will argue with you:" ///
----
These designers themselves must be put into this cardboard pseudo-tank.
and send to battle.
Say: "attack with the most powerful cannon, just know that there
somewhere in the bushes hid barmaley with RPG ... "
And look at their faces ...

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: voyaka uh

These designers themselves must be put into this cardboard pseudo-tank.
and send to battle.

You stubbornly ignore the PT-76, but you have already created it with vast experience in the use of tanks, including light ones.

[Sergey Sfiedu]

The PT-76 was more of a reconnaissance vehicle than a tank in the ground forces.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Sergey Sfyedu

The PT-76 was more of a reconnaissance vehicle than a tank in the ground forces.

Well, in the tasks for the Octopus there are

conducting military reconnaissance and combat security.

[Sergey Sfiedu]

The 125mm gun is superfluous for reconnaissance, and the SV had MBTs, while the Airborne Forces did not have MBTs, and the Octopuses will have to take the rap for them. Probably it would be worth sacrificing buoyancy in favor of better booking, and assigning reconnaissance tasks to BMD.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Sergey Sfyedu

125mm gun is redundant for reconnaissance

For reconnaissance and a machine gun is superfluous.

Quote: Sergey Sfyedu

The ground forces had MBT, but the Airborne Forces did not have MBT, and the Octopus will have to take the rap for them

Well, do not consider the paratroopers idiots.

Quote: Sergey Sfyedu

It would probably be worth sacrificing buoyancy for better booking

It will turn out to be a completely senseless sacrifice, because sane armor with the existing weight and functionality will not work, and more weight will not allow the car to be dropped with a parachute.

[Sergey Sfiedu]

It is not so often in war that you can parachute tanks - and when you can, then the BMD-4 will cope. In the West, they don't look at it at all - Western light tanks have already surpassed the T-34 in weight and are approaching the T-72, and if memory serves, then the Chinese are the same. The main thing here is air transportability, so that the IL-76 could carry .. However, this is purely my personal opinion.

[OgnennyiKotik]

Quote: Sergey Sfyedu

The most important thing here is air transportability, so that the IL-76 could carry ..

Our military maniacally demands the ability to swim and parachute relief from such equipment. Therefore, such requirements for the mass. And so light / medium tanks up to 35-40 tons with KAZ, the latest opto-electronic systems, developed BIUS, mine protection - what a modern army needs.

[D16]

Our military maniacally demands the ability to swim and parachute relief from such equipment.

Airborne troops need this unit to have the potential to fight any enemy armored vehicles. This Octopus should be viewed as an advanced VET. No more. No one develops light tanks with a full-fledged tank gun. Therefore, provided it is used correctly in combination with air defense and reconnaissance, it will be very useful.

[Hermit21]

How not? And the T-72B3 / B3M - who is given?

[Bad_gr]

Quote: Sergey Sfyedu

Probably it would be worth sacrificing buoyancy in favor of better booking, and assigning reconnaissance tasks to BMD.

"Sprut" was created for the Airborne Forces. That is, this is a compromise between what IM needs and industrial designers.
The Germans have "Wiesel". Can we put it next to ours?

[Ross xnumx]

Quote: Sergey Sfyedu

The PT-76 was more of a reconnaissance vehicle than a tank in the ground forces.

First of all, when creating the PT-76, the goal was pursued:

The tank was supposed to be armed with a 76 mm cannon, and in addition, it should be able to carry afloat troops of 20 people on armor.

And for reconnaissance in the ground forces there were BRDM.
Today there are questions about Sprut-SDM1:

Quote: Andre___86

Honestly, I can't imagine the use of this apparatus in modern conditions.

Quote: Doccor18

And in practice ... it is very interesting where our airborne divisions will capture bridgeheads ...

For example, I'm also interested in where Russia will need to hold the bridgehead and for what purpose?
As we have seen from the results of the war in Iraq, the task of seizing foreign territory is not a top priority. There are always forces loyal to the aggressor, who can only destroy the state's defenses and destroy the vertical of power.
In our case, "Sprut-SDM1" was created as an armored vehicle that can be delivered by air in the shortest possible time over a long distance; the vehicle is designed for airborne landing and combat on the move (the possibility of landing with a crew).
To be honest, I do not see the prospects for a large-scale landing. Destruction of enemy manpower by means of missile strikes ... The work of small sabotage groups ... Today the war no longer presupposes an echeloned defense, no tank columns, no trench lines, no bunkers. With the advent of new weapons, much has lost both the meaning and the meaning of creation. Therefore, real experts do not punish curiosity, but explain to the opponent the correct point of view.

[Hermit21]

What is the range of the RPG and what is the direct one for the 2A75? Or do we have a scenario "Lonely" Octopus-SDM1 "against a company of ATGMs"?

[Sergey Sfiedu]

Where have you seen an open RPG (and ATGM) duel against a tank? Anti-tank crews - they are such bad people, they try to shoot covertly, from an ambush, letting the tank (BMP, armored personnel carrier) at an effective firing distance. Yes, and 2A75 against RPGs. and against ATGM is clearly redundant.

[Hermit21]

Where have you seen an open RPG (and ATGM) duel against a tank?

In the fantasies of some perverts.

Anti-tank crews - they are such bad people, they try to shoot covertly, from an ambush, letting the tank (BMP, armored personnel carrier) at an effective firing distance.

Tankers are the same byaki and interact with motorized riflemen, UAVs, send out patrols and guards, and simply honor the regulations and instructions. If, of course, they have a head on their shoulders and know how to fight.

Yes, and 2A75 against RPGs. and against ATGM is clearly redundant

Pardon Mua, I didn't know that there was a knight's tournament. Will the D-10T do? Or F-34? Forty-five?

[Thomas N.]

Quote: Hermit21

What is the range of the RPG and what is the direct one for the 2A75? Or do we have a scenario "Lonely" Octopus-SDM1 "against a company of ATGMs"?

How did you mix RPGs and ATGMs - their firing range is generally incomparable. RPGs, many times inferior in range to the 2A75 cannon, will not find themselves fired until the enemy is at the desired distance of 200-300 m. The ATGM launcher, on the contrary, having superiority in effective firing range over the 2A75, will shoot from a maximum range of 3-4 km company "ATGM is not needed here.

[Hermit21]

Don't forget about the TUR in the 2A75 ammunition load.

will not detect themselves with a shot until the enemy is at the desired distance of 200-300 m

For this, interaction between the branches and branches of the armed forces is needed - in order to mutually destroy potential threats. It would be nice, of course, to polish with artillery, as it should be and prescribed in the regulations. But I think that in the conditions in which Sprut-SDM1 will most often operate, it will be a luxury. Although the Airborne Forces will have their own art

[bayard]

Quote: voyaka uh

Say: "attack with the most powerful cannon, just know that there
somewhere in the bushes hid barmaley with RPG ... "

The main feature of the Octopus is not that it is a light tank with a powerful cannon, but that it is FLOATING. For barmaleev in the desert, this is not needed, there is just MBT, but on the move to force the water barrier along with the BMP and armored personnel carriers, seize the bridgehead, bury, camouflage and use as an anti-tank gun until the main forces approach (organization of the crossing), that's the very thing.
The second plus of such tanks is air mobility. Can be thrown with conventional IL-76s in 2 - 3 pieces. on board. Or you can, in case of special need, and parachute to throw on the bridgehead.
Such tanks are useful in theaters with a large number of rivers and lakes, as in Europe and the European part of Russia. It can also be useful for the Marine Corps. But this tank is not for frontal attacks, but for a surprise attack in an unexpected place with the crossing of water obstacles. It would be very useful to have a company of such tanks in each tank division for special occasions (reconnaissance, capture of bridgeheads, rear guard). It is a special tool for special occasions.
Well, and fast airlift by medium-duty aircraft (Il-76, An-12).

[Krasnoyarsk]

Quote: voyaka uh

These designers themselves must be put into this cardboard pseudo-tank.
and send to battle.

The designers created what they were ordered to do. What are the claims to them?

[cat Rusich]

Quote: voyaka uh

Say: "attack with the most powerful cannon, just know that there
somewhere in the bushes hid barmaley with RPG ... "
And look at their faces ...

The threat to the Octopus is mainly represented by enemy infantry fighting vehicles (both NATO and Soviet infantry fighting vehicles). Any calibers from 14,5mm ... BTR-70 already has 14,5mm KPVT.
RPGs and ATGMs are also dangerous for MBTs (modern RPGs and ATGMs). Against the RPG-7 on the "Sprut", you can try to hang the DZ following the example of similar attempts on the BMP-2

BMP-2 with DZ. The weight will increase, the ability to jump with a parachute and buoyancy may disappear. Here in the DPR on BMPs they hang DZ

BMP with DZ in the DPR.

[Bad_gr]

If the DZ were hung themselves, and it is intended, for example, for a tank, then there is a possibility that after it is triggered, a piece of armor will be torn out in the place that this DZ covers.

[Hermit21]

A light tank means decent frontal armor.
And weak sides

Where does this criterion come from?

[svp67]

Quote: Vladimir_2U

There is a tower, there is a coaxial machine gun, a light tank in its pure form, with a cannon very powerful for its class, of course,

No armor ...

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: svp67

No armor ...

Like the overwhelming majority of light tanks, and one hundred percent of amphibious light tanks. PT-76, for example, you wouldn't call it a self-propelled gun, would you?

[Andre___86]

The Pt-76 was good in '76. Now, in the presence of high-precision weapons, UAVs, sniper rifles with a caliber of 12,5, the concept is strange. I don't see any real application.

[Vladimir_2U]

Let me just remind you that this is a floating and airmobile vehicle, I just don't remember whether it can be dropped with a parachute.

[novel66]

possible, but useless, without air defense this is a target and not difficult

[svp67]

Quote: Vladimir_2U

PT-76, for example, you wouldn't call it a self-propelled gun, would you?

No, but he also had other tasks ... he was in the reconnaissance divisions of the state and the Marine Corps, for landing in the first wave, by the way, he could also be used to organize an independent tank landing (up to four points withstood) and for transportation personnel, through water obstacles, there was a very necessary tank, but what could it be?
As soon as the "Boomerang" is brought, it will immediately replace the "Octopus"

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: svp67

by the Marine Corps, for the first wave landing,

The landing is the same.

Quote: svp67

what could it be?

Octopus can be dropped with a parachute. And let me remind you that the dispute is about what an Octopus is - a self-propelled gun or a light tank.

[svp67]

Quote: Vladimir_2U

self-propelled gun PTO

Self-propelled gun, which from "poverty" can be used as a tank ... God rest the souls of their crews.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: svp67

Self-propelled gun, which from "poverty" can be used as a tank

Many cases have been described when a self-propelled gun was used in battle as a tank, but no fewer cases when a tank was used from an ambush as a self-propelled gun, but I do not remember that self-propelled guns were used as patrol and security.

[svp67]

Quote: Vladimir_2U

but I don't remember that self-propelled guns were used as patrol and security.

This is how security, especially in tank-threatened directions, is for her.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: svp67

This is how security, especially in tank-threatened directions, is for her.

What about the watch? But this is already casuistry. A combat vehicle that has all the characteristics of a tank is a tank.

[svp67]

Quote: Vladimir_2U

What about the watch?

How do you imagine this? In general, there are BRMs for the patrol, they have a bunch of all kinds of equipment, and the SPRUT is on patrol, only as power support, that is, on the sidelines

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: svp67

How do you imagine this? In general, there are BRMs for the patrol, they have a bunch of all kinds of equipment, and the SPRUT is on patrol, only as power support, that is, on the sidelines

The Airborne Forces does not have its own BRM, it is only being developed. And the Octopus has a very developed sighting and survey optics, according to the sources, and the BRM, which does not yet exist and not the fact that it will be, is surpassed only by the presence, probably, of a locator.

[D16]

As soon as the "Boomerang" is brought, it will immediately replace the "Octopus"

How long ago did they start dropping the Boomerang with a parachute?

[svp67]

Quote: D16

How long ago did they start dropping the Boomerang with a parachute?

Yes, somehow they haven't dropped it without it, this year state tests will be held

[D16]

He, at least, was created for the existing parachute systems. A boomerang in such a cannon will weigh under 40 tons. What is he for landing?

[svp67]

Quote: D16

What is he for landing?

Why would the landing troops need tank battalions on the T-80?

[D16]

They complement, not replace, airborne vehicles. Why an oversized, undefended, with limited maneuverability Boomerang with a tank gun, if you already have a full-fledged T-80? The Acacia Tower would be more useful.

[svp67]

Quote: D16

limited traffic Boomerang with a tank gun

Do you have data on its passability?

Quote: D16

if you already have a full-fledged T-80?

The mass of which is growing. And who has a good "appetite"

[D16]

Do you have data on its passability?

Of course not, but with a load of 8-10 tons per axle on wet ground, it is definitely worse than that of a tank.

The mass of which is growing.

Ruslan does not care. He will take 2 tanks away anyway.

And who has a good "appetite"

Actually, now the Airborne Forces are not T-80, but T-72B3.
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Список_вооружения_и_военной_техники_Воздушно-десантных_войск_Российской_Федерации
Their appetite is moderate.

[Bad_gr]

Quote: svp67

As soon as the "Boomerang" is brought, it will immediately replace the "Octopus"

"Octopus" is unified to the maximum with "BMD-4m", with "Shell" and other landing equipment based on them. What is the need for a cannon to switch to wheels?

[svp67]

Quote: Bad_gr

What is the need for a cannon to switch to wheels?

Mobility. And there are parts not on BMD, but on armored personnel carriers

[Bad_gr]

Quote: svp67

And there are parts not on BMD, but on armored personnel carriers

In units where the equipment is mostly wheeled, and the ACS should be on wheels, I do not argue here.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: svp67

As soon as the "Boomerang" is brought, it will immediately replace the "Octopus"

With such a silhouette, neither in ambush, nor in reconnaissance and patrol "Boomerang" has nothing to do. And the mobility / patency, even by eye, is a couple of times less than the Sprutovskaya, at least because of the requirements for the slope.

[Kuroneko]

Quote: Vladimir_2U

Which side? There is a tower, there is a coaxial machine gun, a light tank in its pure form, with a very powerful cannon for its class, of course, well, that's great!

A couple of years ago, I was at VO in a grater about Octopus and said that it was a light tank and that it would be reclassified. If something looks like a duck, swims like morning, quacks like a duck - then the duck is. But no, I was told that this is EXACTLY a self-propelled anti-tank gun. True, what is real the difference between such an intricate term and a light tank - opponents for some reason were in no hurry to reveal. = _ =

[Bad_gr]

Quote: Vladimir_2U

There is a tower, a coaxial machine gun, a pure light tank, ...

And what a shame, it has something that the main T-72 lacks even after modernization:
panorama at the commander,
remotely controlled AGS,
and even the cap on the gunner's sight is made according to the mind, on hinges, with an opening from the inside, and not on bolts, like in the T-72B3M

[URAL72]

Why foreign? Forgot your PT-76?

[rocket757]

Speed, power, pressure ... to fight according to the Suvorov precepts.
Serious fire support on the battlefield is never superfluous.
The main thing is to correctly apply the forces and means that are available ... i.e. learns, train

[Mountain shooter]

Quote: rocket757

The main thing is to correctly apply the forces and means that are available ... i.e. learns, train

At first, the Su-76 was used to attack enemy positions ... Wild unjustified losses, and complaints - weak armor, open wheelhouse ... Well, it was not a tank, it was never ... And from the point of view of towed artillery, high mobility and much better cover crew - serious advantages ... The same can be said about light tanks. There was an episode during the Vietnam War. The PT-76 attack on the Americans showed that the Bazooka cumulative ammunition was not effective against the thin armor of these tanks. The large reserve volume canceled out the reserve effect of the cumulative jet, and thin armor did not add a mass of metal to the jet, to enhance this effect ...

[rocket757]

The real and greatest application of such a technique was in Vietnam, although we had to meet it even further away.
Appreciated positively and are not going to refuse it ... to upgrade it to modern conditions and use it as directed.
It was well designed for its purpose.
A self-propelled gun to launch an attack on tanks, fortified positions, it's ... not worth it. For another it is meant.

[Sergey Kulikov_3]

And why would a self-propelled gun be used on tanks, although in this case the self-propelled gun has every chance of winning. But the fortified positions are just for self-propelled guns, I shot at the identified positions from cover and into the bushes at a fast pace.

[Kerensky]

Why focus on buoyancy? It seems that the task of the Airborne Forces is ".. to capture and hold the main forces until the approach ..". It is these forces that need buoyancy. And the Airborne Forces must be delivered directly to the enemy ...

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Kerensky

Why focus on buoyancy? It seems that the task of the Airborne Forces is ".. to capture and hold the main forces until the approach.

Dumping or landing is not possible everywhere, and from there you need to quickly, without going over bridges and fords, get to the "capture and hold" object.

[Kerensky]

you need to quickly, without going over bridges and fords, get to the object

I agree on the contrary. But ... If you sacrifice buoyancy, you can raise the rest of the characteristics. The main one is that airmobility is certainly preserved. But you can raise the ammo, which is very important for amphibious operations. There are no extra shells in such cases. Reservations again ..
In fact, this is VET. He needs fuel for 300 km. A trick for self-digging and "hold on until the approach ..."
Here, earth-moving equipment is more important than buoyancy. If the landing force was able to gain a foothold, it will hold out.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Kerensky

The main one is that airmobility is certainly preserved.

But no, because our MBTs can also be considered airmobile, because by weight it is quite possible to transfer VTAs, but unlike the Octopus, they cannot be dropped with a parachute.

[Kerensky]

but unlike the Octopus, they cannot be parachuted.

Well, the delivery of MBT BTA is a separate topic. I find fault with buoyancy by a sinful deed. Is it really necessary for a vehicle that is parachuted from the air? The Marines, of course, need it - a lot of rivers flow into any bank. But the Airborne Forces? Doubts take ...

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: Kerensky

I find fault with buoyancy. Is it really necessary for a machine that drops from the air?

Let me remind you once again that even with a parachute it is not possible to throw equipment everywhere. And from the place of dropping / disembarkation, the landing force on its armor should as quickly as possible, bypassing the nodes of resistance (the bridge is just such a node), to reach the designated lines.

[Lara Croft]

Quote: Kerensky

Why focus on buoyancy? It seems that the task of the Airborne Forces is ".. to capture and hold the main forces until the approach ..". It is these forces that need buoyancy. And the Airborne Forces must be delivered directly to the enemy ...

Apparently, it will subsequently be supplied to the MP units and to the SV reconnaissance boots ...
The PT-76, for example, was in service with the Vovans ...

[novel66]

right, and if you still seal it, then it is suitable for PLO

[Lara Croft]

Quote: novel xnumx

right, and if you still seal it, then it is suitable for PLO

Your bathtub is also suitable for PLO, in essence, what did you want to write or so a sketch for a fan ...?

[novel66]

Yes, I'm naughty, don't take it seriously, it's just that everyone is somehow overexcited, and the car is controversial

[Lara Croft]

Quote: novel xnumx

Yes, I'm naughty, don't take it seriously, it's just that everyone is somehow overexcited, and the car is controversial

Well, put on display to the kind and trusting members of the forum and similar light tanks from the Empireists ... maybe they will have indisputable tanks ...

[novel66]

in my opinion - this is a dead-end branch, God forbid me to be wrong, and our resources will go to work ...

[novel66]

for PLO my bath, by the way, is so-so GAK is weak in active mode

[Magic archer]

Since the days of the PT-76, we have not had a full-fledged light tank. I wonder what it has with the FCS, does it have a thermal imager, or is everything just as bad? I won't say anything about the panoramic viewer

[Blackgrifon]

Quote: Magic Archer

OMS, is there a thermal imager or is it still bad? I won't say anything about the panoramic viewer

Just with this all he has all the rules. Security issue. If they buy without additional armor, it will be sad.

[Hermit21]

MSA there is almost a Kalina with a T-90M

[Lech from Android.]

The cannon is cool ... but it's not childish to push the car.
With such a weapon, it's not scary to shoot at Abrams.

[novel66]

it's scary if the return line arrives, however, you won't have time to get scared

[V1er]

State tests of the Sprut-SDM1 light amphibious tank intended for the Airborne Forces began in August 2020

According to the interlocutor of the news agency, the adoption and serial production of the self-propelled anti-tank gun (light tank) "Sprut-SDM1" is scheduled for early 2023.

Why so long? It's not some kind of battleship. And the sprud-sd, so to speak, the progenitor in the troops from 1984 to 2010. The long-proven BMD-4M platform and the proven 2A75 gun are used. And the terms of testing and acceptance, like some new corvette. Can anyone name objective reasons why it is impossible to carry out a full range of tests in 1 year, that is, 12 months, and order a batch of at least 20-50 cars for the next year?

[Blackgrifon]

Quote: V1er

Why so long?

Money (in addition to the Airborne Forces, we also have ground forces), the strangeness of the concept.

[fa2998]

Quote: Lech from Android.

With such a weapon, it's not scary to shoot at Abrams.

And if you do not hit the first time, he can shoot in response.

[Lech from Android.]

And if you do not hit the first time, he can shoot in response.

I will climb into a ravine and a lowland ... the speed of the car allows you to quickly escape from the place of armed violence against the enemy.

[Andre___86]

Have you played tanks? Abrasha will not be alone, covered by infantry with ATGM and RPG, all sorts of drones will be roaming, etc. Shot - didn't hit. A corpse found itself.
Read the Soviet calculations about the lifetime of units and combat vehicles in modern combat.

[Hermit21]

"Octopus" will not be alone either. And the lifetime depends on many factors.

[Comrade I]

State tests of the newest Sprut-SDM1 airmobile anti-tank gun are scheduled to be completed by the end of 2022. In 2023, the car should be put into service, at the same time its serial deliveries to the Airborne Forces will begin

Every time you read the news about a new sample, you see a similar quote. As if not the results of the state are awaiting for a decision on acceptance into service. And immediately, the completion date and as much as the adoption date are approved.
As if there could not be such a situation that the customer would definitely not like the sample, or they would not be able to bring it to conformity with the requirements.
Oh yeah, and this one

newest

pop everywhere.

[Radical]

The Airborne Forces announced the timeframe for the adoption of the Sprut-SDM1 light amphibious tank

Now the news release on the MO channel has begun, I thought they would say about this news, but no - the main first news in the announcement was ... Kim Kardashian is getting divorced ... Interestingly, this is very important news for people in uniform, their level of combat training will drop without it?

[il-z]

"The commander's panoramic sight ..." in the video (2:46) what is it ...

[Hermit21]

Commander's panoramic sight

[Victor Wolz]

For a floating tank, it is too expensive a product. For the paratroopers, it is clear, expensive because it is airmobile, but for the marines, the suspension is hydropneumatic, with a variable ground clearance, why? The Marines need a different hull, wider for buoyancy and cheaper than the paratroopers, without hydropneumatic suspension.

[Vladimir61]

Well yes! Today is the day of "open doors". All day "friends" insist that the Russian troops do not need either "Tosochka" or "Octopus", where there is already a low-power "Derivation" and an incomprehensible monster "Terminator". Many people want to leave Russia exclusively with sapper shovels! Only, as they say in the East, the dogs bark, and the caravan moves on!

[SID]

"... this is a breakthrough tank, which is the main task of the Airborne Forces."

I'm flying away from modern "military correspondents" ...

[Vitaly Pogrebnyak]

Let's remember the next victim of the saw, have I already waited for the T-14 and the Boomerang?

[Xenofont]

Despite all the criticism, it is better to have such fluff than not. There was a plot on the Star, where the tactics of the Octopus were shown in detail. Several positions, their quick change: the principle is "hit and run".

[Warrior MorePhoto]

Heart bleeds.
Now there is a radar station with a detection range of 3-5 km by air, satellite reconnaissance on the ground, drones with a range of 000-2 km, well, why go down to the concept of 3000 wars ... why ???
If there is a blitz krieg, then it will be an air raid of planes and uavs, and a missile strike with a range of 1500-2500 km, in any case, it is suicide for planes with Octopus and the Octopus themselves to go into the thick of it, but even so, then ...
The only thing to do in these 3 years is BMD Shell with a vertical launch kamikaze UAV.
Advantages:
1. Versatility - for ground forces, MP, etc., including support for tank forces, military reconnaissance, etc.
(As well as installation on wheeled vehicles and container (hidden) execution) + use as a scout.
2. Range - the Kalashnikov's UAVs (Cube, Lancet) "pass" 30-60 km. Will increase to 100 km? Fine! Ideal for a tactical purpose, my opinion is 150 km.
3. Impact force - in terms of power it is comparable to a shot of 125 mm, but at the same time it is better. can hit a target from above, for example, behind a house, in a ravine, trench, etc.
4. Accuracy - video confirmation of the accuracy of the UAV is in the public domain, it is no longer a secret, but most importantly, the defeat of moving targets!
I will add that the use at night in search-destroy mode is also very effective.
5. Security is generally point number 1 !!!

The vertical installation in the BMD Shell, I believe that it will fit 4 rows of 8 Kamikaze UAVs, total ammunition is quite enough to stop a tank company or hit the company fortifications, etc.

To carry out the development, testing, bringing to mind this direction in 3 years and launch a series, this is the case.

If you put a minus, write what Octopus is better than my scheme, maybe I will agree with you.

[OgnennyiKotik]

Octopus has its own tasks, your scheme has its own. They do not replace each other.
The fact that complexes with kamikaze drones are vital is a fact. On different platforms. Wheeled MRAP has its advantages.

[Rusticolus]

If you put a minus, write what Octopus is better than my scheme, maybe I will agree with you.

And the position of the enemy after the strikes of the UAV, you apparently propose to occupy the calculations of the same radar, and the operators of the UAV？

[Warrior MorePhoto]

Quote: OgnennyiKotik

Octopus has its own tasks, your scheme has its own. They do not replace each other.
The fact that complexes with kamikaze drones are vital is a fact. On different platforms. Wheeled MRAP has its advantages.

I assume that the existing BMD 4 will solve the problems of the Octopus, again with the support of the BMD Shells with kamikazas, both in the firing sense and in the reconnaissance sense.

[Warrior MorePhoto]

Quote: Rusticolus

If you put a minus, write what Octopus is better than my scheme, maybe I will agree with you.

And the position of the enemy after the strikes of the UAV, you apparently propose to occupy the calculations of the same radar, and the operators of the UAV？

BMD 4, BMD Shell with personnel occupy positions, while at a distance of the Kamikaze UAV, control the territory. As it is now (according to the sources of Kalashnikov), this is already 30-60 km, and this is quite enough to take a defensive position within 30 minutes, go into cover, disguise, etc., and the most important thing is to stop the movement from sabotage groups , to the tank "fist".

After all, we understand that if there is a landing

Quote: Rusticolus

If you put a minus, write what Octopus is better than my scheme, maybe I will agree with you.

And the position of the enemy after the strikes of the UAV, you apparently propose to occupy the calculations of the same radar, and the operators of the UAV？

Do you offer l / s Octopus?
There is a BMD 4, in any case, the landing will not be 2-3 units of equipment.
And still explaining those 5 above described advantages, I want to say that just the BMD Shell with vertical kamikaze drones will cover both the ground group and will perfectly cope with reconnaissance and strikes against hazards for the helicopter train.

[Sergey Kulikov_3]

A light, landing, amphibious tank is certainly good, but for me a light SPG is better, it has more capabilities. Fighting in line of sight isn't a very smart decision, even if you have a super duper gun.

[Biggi_2006]

For about 20 years it has been mutilated and every year "adopted".

[Castro Ruiz]

Dumayu ego primut na voruzhenie dla poderzhki eksporta. Dla IN samoe to na granici s CN. I drugie interesenti v Azii naydutsa.