Military Review

"It was almost self-destruction": a Polish general on the crossing of NATO troops on the "Russian front"

90

In Poland, for many years, there has been a debate about whether combat vehicles intended for infantry should be able to overcome water obstacles. The Polish general Waldemar Skshipchak, the former commander of the ground forces, tried to sort out this issue.


"Russian theater of military operations"


According to him, earlier the buoyancy of armored vehicles was not questioned. This was demanded by the ATS (Warsaw Pact Organization) doctrine, based on the high maneuverability of troops, and the landscape of the western theater of operations, cut by rivers. In the east, things are the same, only the constantly encountered water obstacles are wider, reaching more than 20 m. In these conditions, it is necessary to draw up maps of the area, not limited to computer data, and in no case to prevent the loss of buoyancy by equipment.

Troops must be able to cross a water obstacle in the face of enemy fire resistance, go to the opposite bank and engage in battle to capture a bridgehead. Thereafter Tanks will be able to pass along the bottom of the river, and only when the enemy is pushed away from the coastline, it will be possible to start arranging ferries and building bridges.

The condition for successful maneuvering in our theater is the prompt passage of a dense network of rivers and canals

- considers the general.

However, he complains that only a few NATO countries have this opportunity.

During the Anaconda 2016 exercise [in which the alliance learned to operate on the so-called “Russian front”], overcoming the water barrier began with crossing the river ... with ferries loaded with Stryker armored personnel carriers [...] It was almost self-destruction. A helpless carrier is a great target, this is a tactical primer

- Skshipchak believes, pointing out that combat practice has been abandoned for many years for the sake of a show for ordinary people.



Maximum Armor Syndrome


In his words, after the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Western military focused on mine protection of armored vehicles, and the "maximum armor syndrome" appeared. The general considers it irrational, since an increase in the weight of a vehicle leads to a decrease in its mobility on the battlefield and an increase in size, which makes it easier to detect vehicles.

As he explains, in a large-scale war, troops will not be faced with single scattered traps, but with whole minefields. It is necessary to fight them not by increasing the thickness of the bottom of armored vehicles, but by creating systems capable of destroying obstacles:

Such, for example, as thermobaric systems weaponsspecially created by the Russians, which were used, among other things, to clear the passages of minefields for military vehicles [it is not clear what this is about; perhaps about "Solntsepёk"].


Therefore, the general urges not to allow the abandonment of buoyancy for the sake of increasing resistance to mines:

IFVs must be floating, as this is required by the current and future battlefield in the territory within which the Poles have lived for more than a millennium

- the general concludes on the pages of Defense24.

90 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Olddetractor
    Olddetractor 2 May 2021 04: 57
    +9
    The retired general, lover of women and Elbit Systems, is trying to get revenge in the media. An article on VO about him "Pan shalopai, Israel and counterintelligence: on the resignation of the Deputy Minister of Defense of Poland Skrypchak" https://topwar.ru/38311-pan-shalopay-izrail-i-kontrrazvedka-ob-otstavke-zamministra-oborony-polshi- skshipchaka.html
    Colorful personality
    1. Grandfather
      Grandfather 2 May 2021 05: 07
      -8
      here I WANT that the Poles attack, that is very direct ... well, let's psheki, well, let's cowards, well, attack ... wassat
      1. 210ox
        210ox 2 May 2021 06: 25
        +22
        Why click war? Lyakhi are not fools, albeit with ambition. Some will not go, but they will go in a crowd.
        1. Ross xnumx
          Ross xnumx 2 May 2021 07: 07
          +9
          Quote: 210ox
          Lyakhi are not fools, albeit with ambition. Some will not go, but they will go in a crowd.

          Will they go through the forest? So it was already ... wassat
          And I tell you all the time and confirm it definitely. Will they go alone; if they are afraid and decide to attack in a crowd, the result will be the same: a scorched area with pieces of charred flesh and warped equipment. Let them train on ... well, you get the idea.
          1. Vol4ara
            Vol4ara 2 May 2021 08: 46
            -2
            Quote: ROSS 42
            Quote: 210ox
            Lyakhi are not fools, albeit with ambition. Some will not go, but they will go in a crowd.

            the result will be the same: a scorched area with pieces of charred flesh and warped equipment.

            Both sides.
            1. Ross xnumx
              Ross xnumx 2 May 2021 09: 35
              +7
              Quote: Vol4ara
              Both sides.

              If they manage to cross the border - from both sides.
          2. figwam
            figwam 2 May 2021 09: 18
            +8
            Polish general on the crossing of NATO troops on the "Russian front"

            Previously, they covered up such exercises with the fight against global terrorism, and now NATO is openly preparing for a war with Russia.
          3. infantryman2020
            infantryman2020 2 May 2021 19: 44
            +4
            The Red Army men from the distant 1920 urge you to be more modest with slogans!
          4. Lynx-z
            Lynx-z 3 May 2021 11: 11
            0
            Will they go through the forest? So it was already ..
            With Susanin?
        2. Mountain shooter
          Mountain shooter 2 May 2021 07: 57
          +8
          Quote: 210ox
          Some will not go, but they will go in bulk

          They won't go at all ... Why go when you can push others? True, the Banderlogists are also reluctant to die. They do not even want to be drafted into the army.
        3. Cowbra
          Cowbra 2 May 2021 08: 27
          +1
          Quote: 210ox
          Some will not go

          So their anthem about what has not died out there - they will sing in chorus. With someone so inconspicuous
      2. 72jora72
        72jora72 2 May 2021 07: 01
        +20
        here I WANT that the Poles attack, that is very straightforward ... well, let's psheki, well, let's cowards, well, attack ..
        Hmm ...... Where were you in 14-15 when hundreds of Poles from various PMCs fought against us in Donbass?
        P.S. I will give you parabellum .... (c)
        1. Cowbra
          Cowbra 2 May 2021 08: 30
          -9
          Quote: 72jora72
          fought against us in Donbass?

          Were you alone, young man? Or to remind that someone shed blood, oops, and who?
          1. 72jora72
            72jora72 2 May 2021 09: 38
            +9
            Were you alone, young man?
            Well, I'm far from a young man, you flatter me. And secondly, I was not alone, and many of my comrades still serve the Republics (both in the front and in the rear).
        2. Olddetractor
          Olddetractor 2 May 2021 08: 31
          +3
          Were they real Poles or Polish citizens, Ukrainians? Something I have not met pro-Ukrainian Poles, but there are a little more than a lot of Ukrainians living on Polish territory.
        3. frruc
          frruc 2 May 2021 09: 09
          +2
          Psheki, and not only at the moment, are present there.
          Waldemar Skszczczak
          IFVs must be floating, as required present and future battlefield in the territory within which the Poles have lived for more than a millennium

          With such their (Poles) rhetoric, we will provide the future battlefield for them, where they will then collect the Polish smeared shit.
      3. Kaman
        Kaman 2 May 2021 07: 33
        +8
        Dedkastary, you want war for one simple reason: you will stay on the couch with popcorn, and young guys will entertain you with their death.
        1. dedusik
          dedusik 2 May 2021 09: 23
          -4
          Doesn't it seem to you, dear respected, that he wrote this with sarcasm, and even the appropriate smiley was delivered? repeat
          1. KLV
            KLV 3 May 2021 10: 16
            +1
            It does not seem. Here two expressions come to mind: "The bazaar must be monitored and responsible for it" and "My tongue is my enemy!" Which one do you like best?
            1. dedusik
              dedusik 3 May 2021 18: 33
              0
              Well, whoever can write so winked
      4. Thrifty
        Thrifty 2 May 2021 08: 07
        +5
        Dedkastary - give them the address so that they attack your dwelling, and you, riding on the battle couch, like on a tank, will crush them. ..
      5. My doctor
        My doctor 2 May 2021 09: 10
        +6
        "Well, I WANT the Poles to attack, that's very real ... well, let's psheki, well, let's cowards, well, attack ..."
        Do you see yourself in the role of Minin or Pozharsky? Or maybe the glory of Susanin haunts you.
    2. Dimy4
      Dimy4 2 May 2021 05: 47
      0
      I sat without glasses and the first word in Systems was read a little differently.
    3. Peak
      Peak 2 May 2021 05: 48
      +4
      Quote: Olddetractor
      Retired general, lover of women

      Under the current conditions, for a general, albeit a retired one, the traditional orientation is rather a plus, although it is becoming an increasingly rare phenomenon.
    4. Egoza
      Egoza 2 May 2021 06: 45
      +3
      Quote: Olddetractor
      Retired general, lover of women

      That's why he was dismissed and sent! ))))
      1. Revolver
        Revolver 2 May 2021 11: 36
        +1
        Quote: Egoza
        Quote: Olddetractor
        Retired general, lover of women

        That's why he was dismissed and sent! ))))

        I mean, were alternative orientations and gender identifications underrepresented? lol
  2. Murmur 55
    Murmur 55 2 May 2021 05: 00
    +6
    For some reason they think they will fight like in WWII ???
    1. AlexVas44
      AlexVas44 2 May 2021 07: 41
      0
      "... this is a primer of tactics" - Skshipchak believes,

      And the general studied, apparently, according to Soviet ABC books, that's why he thinks so.
    2. Ryusey
      Ryusey 3 May 2021 09: 40
      0
      And what are the preconditions for what will be different, what has fundamentally changed? What types of troops are the basis now and what were during WWII?
      Nothing has fundamentally changed since the days of Rome.
  3. The comment was deleted.
  4. Evil 55
    Evil 55 2 May 2021 05: 06
    +7
    "Shaitan-pipe" (RPG-7) does not matter what to burn closer than 400 meters .. And the tactics of partisan actions have justified themselves enough in Russian history, so that the guys from NATA will not be helped not by buoyancy, not armor protection ..
    1. Murmur 55
      Murmur 55 2 May 2021 05: 18
      +8
      Evil, and how many of our people will be ready for guerrilla warfare now, I'm not sarcastic, it's just that I used to be idiology for the state, but now it's the opposite.
      1. Egoza
        Egoza 2 May 2021 06: 30
        +2
        Quote: Murmur 55
        just before the idiology was that I was for the state, but now everything is on the contrary.

        Everything is correct. But you can also create sabotage detachments (from among the army), which will be partisans.
      2. Fedor Sokolov
        Fedor Sokolov 2 May 2021 06: 30
        -13%
        The Russian government elite, connected with the West, deliberately devalues ​​the life of Russian citizens so that later their masters could calmly walk on Russian soil, practically without encountering resistance. And during the Second World War, our ancestors really knew what they were fighting for and sincerely believed in the bright future of many generations of Soviet people.
        1. The comment was deleted.
          1. The comment was deleted.
            1. The comment was deleted.
              1. The comment was deleted.
              2. The comment was deleted.
                1. The comment was deleted.
                  1. The comment was deleted.
                    1. The comment was deleted.
          2. frruc
            frruc 2 May 2021 12: 16
            0
            Ward No. 6 is tired of waiting, it's time to be treated.
          3. Piramidon
            Piramidon 2 May 2021 12: 42
            +2
            Quote: Do Ger
            Now let the Buryats
            think hard.

            This nonsense is drawn to incitement to national hatred. Go to your Zhitomir and speak there.
        2. Ryusey
          Ryusey 3 May 2021 09: 44
          0
          Judas's position is understandable, but somehow it smells ...
      3. NDR-791
        NDR-791 2 May 2021 07: 07
        +3
        Quote: Murmur 55
        Angry, and how many of ours will be ready for guerrilla warfare now

        I think that everyone here can only be responsible for himself. So, personally, I will fit in.
        1. Ryusey
          Ryusey 3 May 2021 09: 45
          +1
          And you don’t think that it’s better not to bring this up, because this is what an army is needed for.
          1. NDR-791
            NDR-791 3 May 2021 09: 48
            0
            Quote: Ryusey
            And you don’t think that it’s better not to bring this up, because this is what an army is needed for.

            It seems. But somehow it has historically developed that not a single war can do without partisans. There is even a perfectly reasonable explanation for this.
      4. mark2
        mark2 2 May 2021 08: 18
        +6
        Evil, and how many of our people will be ready for partisan warfare now, I'm not sarcastic, it's just that earlier the ideology was that I was for the state, but now it's the other way around.

        1612 year. The invasion of the Poles. Time of Troubles. Let me remind you: 17th century, boyars (oligarchs) and zemstvo nobles (local princelings). For what ideology did the people's resistance rise, which grew into the people's militia.
        1812 The invasion of the united army of Europe led by Napoleon. Active partisan movement. Let me remind you. Serfdom, landlords, princes, boyars. What was then the ideology that could raise the peasants to fight?
        WWII. How much information I received on the actions of the partisan movement in the occupied territories, ideology was secondary. people defended and cleansed their homeland, contributed to the victory. but ideologists. have already been attributed by historians. They went to battle, for their mother, for their fathers, for their children, and only then on the 10th place did they remember Comrade. Stalin.
        In all cases, the ideology was the same: "The enemy is at the gates." And attempts to tie the current policy to the motivation of victims in favor of the Motherland shows the cowardice and commercialism of those who speak about it. For such, the Motherland is where they pay more. For such, any ideology will not be like that, because it is simply to be afraid of everything: to be afraid to die, to be afraid to change something, to be afraid to even try to do something. Such people always dream that they would be given something, and then they, yes, exactly how they stand up, yes, they will protect, or, yes, how they will do it.
        But in fact it will be like this: those for whom the Motherland is not an empty phrase will contribute to the liberation, maybe they will perish (as it was in the Second World War) and these are the best people of the Country. and the worst will remain, to whom give the necessary ideology. As a result, the country will receive a blow in the gut, now from its own. and so it happened with the USSR. The best died, and the worst brought her to the handle.
        1. Captain Pushkin
          Captain Pushkin 2 May 2021 11: 58
          +1
          Quote: mark2
          1812 The invasion of the united army of Europe led by Napoleon. Active partisan movement. Let me remind you. Serfdom, landlords, princes, boyars. What was then the ideology that could raise the peasants to fight?

          Napoleon, getting ready to go to war with Russia, printed fake rubles to pay for fodder and food. But it was ordered to pay only if it was impossible to take by force.
          In Russia at that time, the peasants lived on a subsistence economy, which they raised was what they ate. Money, as a rule, had a penny.
          When the Napoleonic horde of more than 600 thousand people, plus tens of thousands of their family members and civil servants, plus numerous bands of marauders from all over Europe, began, like locusts, to rake out peasants and landowners for clean food, livestock, fodder and horses, in part of the territory Russia with a population of several million people, then this very population had a simple alternative - either to die of hunger, or to defend their right to life with arms in hand. Someone died, someone defended.
          They got food by attacking foragers and small carts. And not only the peasants. Any landowner could arm and equip 20-30 courtyard people.
          And partisan raids on an ongoing basis of small detachments of Cossacks and hussars. There were several dozen of them. Denis Davydov was not the only partisan.
        2. sharp-lad
          sharp-lad 2 May 2021 12: 51
          +2
          I completely agree with you. Three wars in a row literally wiped out the best, the flower of the people and society, leaving a disproportionate number of townspeople without high aspirations and ideas. hi
        3. alexey sidykin
          alexey sidykin 2 May 2021 19: 52
          0
          After all, they wrote about the idea I am for the state and this idea does not belong to communism. It also existed before the revolution. Now, in many ways, not just the state but the country as a whole owes the individual.
        4. Ryusey
          Ryusey 3 May 2021 09: 47
          +1
          It is unlikely that the worst will succeed in serving, they will die from rocket attacks in jolts with their pants down, all in shit and sewage.
    2. Ryusey
      Ryusey 3 May 2021 09: 42
      +1
      That's just the detection and destruction systems jumped ahead, so guerrilla actions are certainly possible, but not for a long time and with necessarily lethal outcome for them.
  5. Guru
    Guru 2 May 2021 05: 41
    +8
    Such as, for example, thermobaric weapons systems, created specially by the Russians, which were used, among other things, to clear the passageways of minefields for military vehicles. [it is not clear what the speech is about; possibly about "Solntsepёk""].
    He apparently meant the UR-77 - a self-propelled demining installation for light armor, which can make passes 6 m wide in minefields, which are "stuffed" with anti-tank anti-track mines and mines with a pin target sensor.
    1. Eugene-Eugene
      2 May 2021 07: 31
      0
      Does the UR-77 have thermobaric charges?
      1. NDR-791
        NDR-791 2 May 2021 08: 04
        +3
        Quote: Eugene-Eugene
        Does the UR-77 have thermobaric charges?

        No, a large diameter detonating cord. But a TB charge in the affected area has a similar effect. So they can be cleared too
  6. Stanislav Grushchinsky
    Stanislav Grushchinsky 2 May 2021 06: 28
    +3
    Not a sunshine, I think, but a serpent
  7. Boromir1941
    Boromir1941 2 May 2021 06: 39
    +2
    right. Come visit, we will shoot you here. wahaha
  8. rotmistr60
    rotmistr60 2 May 2021 06: 58
    +15
    Wow, I remembered the ATS doctrine. But NATO lives according to its doctrines, which is why the general complains about ferry crossings, the lack of floating infantry fighting vehicles / armored personnel carriers, the need for systems capable of destroying obstacles. And at the same time, he still wants to fight on the so-called. "Russian front". It has been a long time since Europe got too tough to shut up for at least another 75 years.
  9. aszzz888
    aszzz888 2 May 2021 07: 08
    +2
    Troops must be able to cross a water obstacle in the face of enemy fire resistance, go to the opposite bank and engage in battle to capture a bridgehead. After that, tanks will be able to pass along the bottom of the river. and only when the enemy has been pushed back from the coastline will it be possible to start building ferries and building bridges.
    And what about the peshechnaya cavalry with lances, also "along the bottom of the river"? laughing
    1. alexey sidykin
      alexey sidykin 2 May 2021 19: 54
      +1
      Hats are just ridiculous.
    2. Ryusey
      Ryusey 3 May 2021 09: 49
      0
      Do they have cavalry?)
  10. K-50
    K-50 2 May 2021 08: 11
    +3
    IFVs must be floating, as this is required by the current and future battlefield in the territory within which the Poles have lived for more than a millennium

    The Poles may dread to the point that they will have nowhere to live and no one to live! fellow yes lol
  11. Crabong
    Crabong 2 May 2021 08: 33
    +2
    The bastard thinks ...
  12. 501Legion
    501Legion 2 May 2021 08: 54
    +2
    Well, yes, while the flags are being hung over the ferry, some su25 will arrive.
  13. werke326
    werke326 2 May 2021 09: 59
    +1
    I remember that we have been since 2009. rub into their ears about the impossibility of a large-scale war, even our army was redrawn for this. What, Akella missed? Or have you done it? The second is seen.
  14. Alsur
    Alsur 2 May 2021 10: 41
    +2
    Taught on their own in the days of the USSR, and knowledge, as you know, even a military man can not drink. Therefore, the common sense of the old servicemen would have remained better if they, of course, they did not suggest anything to the new owners. Let the expensive toys F-35 and M1 Abrams rivet.
  15. viktor_47
    viktor_47 2 May 2021 10: 55
    +1
    The Poles are preparing for some kind of war of their own, according to some conventionally "gentlemanly" rules. We must constantly remind morons that the response to the outbreak of aggression will be immediate and massive nuclear strikes on their strategic facilities and administrative-political centers and inflicting maximum damage on their existence.
    1. Ryusey
      Ryusey 3 May 2021 09: 50
      0
      Not a fact, far from a fact, although if you are from the breed of glaziers, then of course you personally glaze everyone, the main thing is to start with yourself.
  16. voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 2 May 2021 11: 44
    -1
    Not the fact that the retired general is right.
    Well, the tanks will successfully cross the bottom, and the BMP will swim across the river.
    Hooray!
    And there - with their weak armor - they will be burned by the enemy's anti-tank weapons. negative
    1. Eugene-Eugene
      2 May 2021 12: 22
      +1
      So how should it be? Look for a ford and lead a division through it? Although I can roughly guess about your answer: network-centric warfare will solve this problem too. wink
      1. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh 2 May 2021 12: 34
        +2
        We need to build pontoon bridges. Reliable and sufficient
        fast.
        And they must be covered with air defense and aviation.

        1) The passage of tanks along the bottom is effective during exercises. When the bottom is explored and
        everything is rehearsed beforehand. And then tragedies happened.
        And in combat conditions, an underwater traffic jam will occur. Enough
        getting stuck at the bottom of one tank - that's it.
        2) BMP amphibious, but with "cardboard armor".
        There are 10 people in it. I swam with a bang and received a shell from a 30 mm cannon. 10 corpses.
        1. sharp-lad
          sharp-lad 2 May 2021 12: 59
          +2
          And the enemy will pick in the nose at this time? Or the same will bring up aviation with air defense, as well as missile systems and artillery. Although .... if you choose countries like Nigeria as opponents .... then of course, pontoons are the best choice. what
          And there - with their weak armor - they will be burned by the enemy's anti-tank weapons.
          On the bridge and ferries, as well as when leaving them, it will be easier for the equipment to burn.
          1. voyaka uh
            voyaka uh 2 May 2021 13: 08
            -1
            "countries like Nigeria .... then of course pontoons are the best choice" ///
            ---
            Pontoon bridges are the safest choice with either Nigeria, Russia or the United States.
            1. sharp-lad
              sharp-lad 2 May 2021 21: 35
              +2
              Pontoon bridges are the safest choice with either Nigeria, Russia or the United States.
              And good targets. hi
              1. Ryusey
                Ryusey 3 May 2021 09: 52
                0
                If you have something to amaze ...
            2. abc_alex
              abc_alex 3 May 2021 02: 52
              +2
              Quote: voyaka uh
              Pontoon bridges are the safest choice with either Nigeria, Russia or the United States.

              Didn't it occur to you that the pontoon bridge is built between TWO banks? And in order to make a bridge, you need a bridgehead on the enemy coast? How are you going to capture and hold it? There are no beards in slippers, there real army, artillery of different calibers. And air defense. And the Air Force. AS?
              Floating Soviet military equipment was made according to the experience of the Second World War. And including so that she could support the infantry while holding the bridgehead. Yes, the bridge is certainly better than walking along the bottom. But building a bridge without capturing a bridgehead with a depth greater than the firing range of a 155-mm howitzer is suicide. To capture such a bridgehead, you need amphibious equipment and the ability to ferry tanks along the bottom. It is clear that the division cannot be transported like that.
              1. voyaka uh
                voyaka uh 3 May 2021 10: 11
                -1
                "And it never occurred to you that the pontoon bridge is built between TWO banks" ///
                ----
                This is a very serious remark ... recourse
                In fact, at first, groups are transported on single pontoons to capture the site.
                Then a group of engineering troops is transported on pontoons.
                And only then they connect the banks with a bridge.
                Note that at first, air dominance is ensured in this area.
                Without air supremacy, landing operations in their right mind do not begin.
                I hope this is clear?
                1. abc_alex
                  abc_alex 3 May 2021 23: 12
                  +1
                  Quote: voyaka uh
                  "And it never occurred to you that the pontoon bridge is built between TWO banks" ///
                  ----
                  This is a very serious remark ... recourse
                  In fact, at first, groups are transported on single pontoons to capture the site.
                  Then a group of engineering troops is transported on pontoons.
                  And only then they connect the banks with a bridge.
                  Note that at first, air dominance is ensured in this area.
                  Without air supremacy, landing operations in their right mind do not begin.
                  I hope this is clear?

                  And you think one could expect that someone would, with tears of affection, consider how
                  first, the groups are transported on single pontoons to capture the site.
                  Then a group of engineering troops is transported on pontoons.

                  The enemy will immediately begin to concentrate troops at the crossing point. It will transfer aviation from other sectors, air defense systems, artillery and missile systems. And he will mix with the ground, first, single "capture groups" without armored vehicles, and then "groups of engineering troops."
                  This was all verified many times during the Second World War. That is why amphibiousness was accepted as a condition for armored vehicles. The ability to independently cross the water barrier was just what was required to capture, hold and expand the a bridgehead, providing the very opportunity for the engineering troops to begin to establish a crossing.
        2. Eugene-Eugene
          2 May 2021 14: 38
          0
          It is necessary to build pontoon bridges

          And the NATO troops have no choice: the equipment is not capable of afloat, the current remains either to force the pontoons, or to assemble a bridge from them.
          1. voyaka uh
            voyaka uh 2 May 2021 14: 46
            +1
            You have confused cause and effect. smile
            NATO equipment is deliberately not made floating,
            preferring to invest in armor protection.
            Russian / Soviet armored vehicles are traditionally different
            weak armor. But, it is faster and knows how to swim.
            Once upon a time there was a bet on the number of armored vehicles:
            "Most will kill, but some will break through the defense and leave
            smash the rear and surround the enemy. "
            Now Russia has neither people (demography) nor money for a lot of equipment (many reasons).
            And the concepts remained from the 70s of the last century.
            1. Eugene-Eugene
              2 May 2021 14: 57
              0
              In general, NATO members, if they wish, may well create materiel for the crossing: modify the existing floating platforms in the world, form small units of them on floating equipment (for example, a couple of companies for a regiment such as a light component), send them in the first echelon to the opposite shore and equip ferries and bridges (as is customary in Soviet / Russian doctrine). Another thing is that no one will go for this - they are used to crushing the Papuans from the air or with art, and no one will change the OShS. Although the Poles have not completely switched to the NATO standard, their "Wolverine" is floating.
              1. voyaka uh
                voyaka uh 2 May 2021 15: 10
                -1
                "to finalize the existing floating platforms in the world, to form small subdivisions of them on floating equipment" ///
                ---
                Why would they? It is not planned to repeat the adventurous schizos of Napoleon and Hitler - to delve into the plains teeming with rivers.
                And to fight back - somehow - in Poland it is possible with the heavy equipment that is.
                Against China, for example, they have quite a few oceanic amphibians.
            2. The comment was deleted.
            3. abc_alex
              abc_alex 3 May 2021 03: 08
              +2
              Quote: voyaka uh
              Once upon a time there was a bet on the number of armored vehicles:
              "Most will kill, but some will break through the defense and leave
              smash the rear and surround the enemy. "

              Couldn't you have invented a more idiotic doctrine? I understand, not to spit on Russians and Soviets - this is now bad taste for some, but turn on the logic. If a most will deceive, then who will go to smash the rear? Two tanks and an infantry fighting vehicle?

              Quote: voyaka uh
              Russian / Soviet armored vehicles are traditionally different
              weak armor. But, it is faster and knows how to swim.

              Soviet technology was made fast and was not covered with armor, primarily based on the realities of a nuclear war. In which it was required to overcome the contaminated zone as quickly as possible, and even a tactical nuclear attack could not withstand any armor.
              And it was made floating because, unlike the Israeli army, the USSR army had to fight not with the Arab amateur, but with the best army in the world, which strove to turn EVERY water line into a line of defense. And the forcing of such lines by improvised means always led to a mass of victims.
              It is in your imagination in the USSR they strove to fill everyone with meat. In real life, no one thought so.

              The equipment of the NATO countries is overweight. There is no objective explanation for this. Modern anti-tank weapons do not matter 40 mm of armor on a tank or 400. I saw with my own eyes a cut of an armor plate with a cumulative pestle 1200 mm long. Meter twenty. Through. And this is NOT the limit of even modern, not promising, means of destruction. NATO tanks have already crossed the mass of 60 tons. And not every bridge will pass. You can hang another 10 tons on them, for a beautiful article in PopMech. Only this is all pointless. Dynamic protection and KAZ. It is not armor today that is protected by tanks.
              And the shtatovtsy have already reached moralism in the race for protection: a couple of years ago they designed an BMP weighing 70 tons.
              1. voyaka uh
                voyaka uh 3 May 2021 10: 05
                0
                "The equipment of NATO countries is overweight. There is no objective explanation for this" ///
                ----
                There is an objective explanation.
                Passive MBT armor helps against most common
                ground anti-tank weapons.
                1) 4 anti-tank missiles hit the side of one of the Merkava-5 tanks
                Cornet (the tank was immobilized). Punched metal-ceramic panels
                and the metal under them is two out of five rockets. This is a very good result.
                2) Three OBPS hit the forehead of one of the Abrams in Iraq. Close range
                , up to a kilometer. Not the slightest hint of penetration.

                Tons of armor are added for a reason. Although a full-fledged KAZ with all-round protection
                has become very relevant in connection with drone strikes from above along the vertical.
                1. abc_alex
                  abc_alex 4 May 2021 00: 15
                  0
                  Quote: voyaka uh
                  Five Kornet anti-tank missiles hit the side of one of the Merkava-4 tanks (the tank was immobilized). Two out of five rockets pierced the metal-ceramic panels and the metal under them. This is a very good result.

                  There are many legends and myths about Merkava tanks. It is strange that this time only 5 hits were counted. Sorry, but I don't have many reasons to trust your words. The opposite side of the Palestinian conflict gives you PRINCIPALLY different data on the losses of Israeli tanks, the number of ATGM launches and their effectiveness. I deeply respect the products and experience of Israeli gunsmiths, but knowing how fundamentally the Israeli military industry approaches the reputation of its technology, the story about five ATGMs into the side of an immobilized tank, two of which were pierced, and three, for some reason, do not have the same side. ..
                  It is more believable in the facts of the effective work of the Israeli KAZ.


                  Quote: voyaka uh
                  Three OBPS hit the forehead of one of the Abrams in Iraq. From a short distance, up to a kilometer. Not the slightest hint of penetration.


                  Same. During the Iraqi war, the US troops lost dozens of Abrams tanks. If Abrams was holding three BOPSs head on, then how did it happen?
                  Most notable was the clash between the M1A1 and Iraqi T-72s near the Iraqi air base Saman, 300 kilometers east of Baghdad. According to the Soviet military attaché in Iraq, Colonel V. Potsalyuk, in that battle the Americans lost 68 tanks, most of them were "Abrams"

                  I can imagine a coincidence, as a result of which 3 BOPS did not pierce Abrams' forehead. But there are a lot of photos on the net from the BV, with the Abrams tanks hit by BOPS. True, there are much more RPGs affected.
                  1. voyaka uh
                    voyaka uh 4 May 2021 00: 37
                    0
                    "that battle the Americans lost 68 tanks, most of them were" Abrams "" ///
                    ---
                    Well, if you trust such ... laughing
                    By the way, there were no others, except for the Abrams, there at all.
                    In 2003, the Iraqis suffered an enchanting defeat in tank-versus-tank battles. With an almost dry account.
                    Just a note (so as not to skimp on upgrades drinks ):
                    The T-72 is not capable of fighting Abrams in an oncoming engagement. Zero chances. Only from the side from ambushes. The T-90 has a chance, but it's not worth risking duels either.

                    "of which two struck, and three, for some reason, no" ///
                    ---
                    Sintered metal accepts kum. the jet is very bizarre. Not like metal. The panel breaks into splinters, but the remains of the jet continue to penetrate inward at different angles. Therefore, a little at a different angle, a little on the edge - and there is no break. Or vice versa.
        3. 3danimal
          3danimal 2 May 2021 16: 23
          0
          Recently in the sea BTR-80 sailed and drowned smile
          (Waves swept over)
        4. toha124
          toha124 2 May 2021 23: 45
          +2
          It is characteristic that Soviet military science did not make a choice between different approaches - and armored vehicles of motorized riflemen were able to swim, and floating transporters appeared, and pontoon-bridge parks were developed. For a wide river, a multi-stage system was obtained. Fighting vehicles of first echelon motorized riflemen are being transported on their own (if the coast allows). This is the moment when overcoming the water obstacle is precisely "forcing", the enemy is sitting on the other bank or his presence is assumed. The next step is the transfer of non-floating, but urgently needed equipment to the bridgehead by floating conveyors. And only later, when and if the columns of pontoon units pull up along the clogged roads, the bridges will be assembled. And then, if the situation does not allow, at first the links of the pontoon park will operate like ferries. Such is the system. It is clear that this was invented for a big war. And the "aluminum" character of the BMP is precisely a consequence of the approach - "we have no idea which battalion will be the first to reach the big river, but this battalion must be able to force the river on the move, the adversary is blowing up bridges; therefore, everyone should potentially" swim " It is very cruel to those crews and troops who were to die in the vehicles from the fire that the heavy infantry fighting vehicles would have calmly withstood. But it was just a concept, not a weird whim. Concepts may be erroneous, or they may simply be so outdated that they seem silly to descendants.
      2. Piramidon
        Piramidon 2 May 2021 12: 53
        -1
        Quote: Eugene-Eugene
        Although I can roughly guess about your answer: network-centric warfare will solve this problem too.

        "Bayraktars" will win any war. laughing Don't believe me? Ask the "Turkish Sultan" and Aliyev
        1. voyaka uh
          voyaka uh 2 May 2021 13: 12
          0
          Don't believe me? Ask the Armenians. Ask the Syrian army. Ask the Libyans.
          At least a stake on your head amuse:
          "We have ancient, proven, reliable technology.
          Than our grandfathers fought, so we will fight ... "
          1. alexey sidykin
            alexey sidykin 2 May 2021 19: 57
            0
            There is "Iskander" for Bayraktars, ask the Libyans
  17. TatarinSSSR
    TatarinSSSR 2 May 2021 13: 00
    +1
    The opinion of the retirees is not important. Even if he is a former defense minister. He is retired and does not have all the accurate, especially secret information, takes it, like all of us, from open access. And there, as they say - Thomas listens, but eats.
  18. Dimon Dimonov_2
    Dimon Dimonov_2 2 May 2021 16: 11
    +1
    The villagers will catch your soldiers and the equipment will be taken away ... as soon as you cross the border (also unlikely)
  19. Alexander T
    Alexander T 2 May 2021 16: 18
    +2
    The general talked about the UR-77, not about the sun. "Serpent Gorynych" based on sau "carnation"
  20. The comment was deleted.
  21. Artemion3
    Artemion3 2 May 2021 20: 06
    -2
    Quote: voyaka uh

    Now Russia has neither people (demography) nor money for a lot of equipment (many reasons).

    I agree with demography, but there is a heavy BMP Armata
    1. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 2 May 2021 22: 48
      -1
      Armata is the right concept. But unusual for the Russian army. And it will have to be transported across rivers on pontoons, like NATO tanks. There is nothing to be done: good armor - heavy weight - pontoons ..
      1. toha124
        toha124 2 May 2021 23: 55
        +1
        As, in fact, any MBT in marketable quantities. Overcoming the river by tanks along the bottom - a tool for commanders may be useful, but practiced, IMHO, just to be. It may come in handy, but well, nafig it. This is not for every width of the river, not for every bottom, not for every bank, and not for every level of crew training. So, the means of engineering troops will work, for the T-72, that for the T-14.