Military Review

Getting ashore is a non-trivial task for floating armored vehicles

130

BMD-4M. Source: mil.ru


Still a dead end


For skeptics assessing the skill level of the author of the material "Floating armored vehicles - a dead end branch of evolution", I had to draw on data from serious scientific studies. Let's try to answer the question about the futility of floating armored vehicles, using the work of scientists from military technical universities. At the end of the article are links to materials that have become the basis for reflection.

The authors, who substantiate the great difficulties in the operation of floating equipment, work at the Omsk Armored Engineering Institute of the Military Academy of Logistics named after General A.V. Khrulev at the Department of Combat Tracked, Wheeled Vehicles and Military Vehicles. And also in the Siberian State Automobile and Road Academy. With a great deal of confidence, we can state that these are quite reputable universities with professional scientific and teaching staff.


Source: war-book.ru

First, a little theory. Why do troops need floating armored vehicles? Especially which is armed with anti-tank weapons and artillery. Of course, to maintain a rapid offensive and overcome the water barrier on the move, that is, with minimal preparation. But here the first difficulties begin. Domestic infantry fighting vehicles, armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles know how to swim very well, but getting ashore from the water can sometimes be quite difficult. If you believe the publication "Methodology for assessing water barriers" (author - V. M. Kryat), dated 1978, then three-quarters of the natural banks of the rivers are inaccessible to any amphibious equipment. Since that time, if something has changed, it is insignificant.

Difficulties when going ashore arise due to marshy soil, steep slopes, ledges and the presence of vegetation. Yes, and the driver is desirable to be a jeweler. First of all, he must approach the shore strictly perpendicular to the plane of movement, which is extremely difficult when crossing the river. If the wheels or tracks go ashore unevenly, this will complicate the already difficult task of lifting out of the water.

You can, of course, increase the speed of approach to the shore and thereby try to jump ashore on the move. But here, pardon the pun, there are pitfalls. For example, to double the speed of the BMD-4M on water, you need to increase the engine power by 8 times! And this entails an increase in the dimensions, mass of the floating machine and the reserves of transported fuel. In general, the circle closes.

As noted in a number of studies, in most cases, the water area is generally insurmountable for floating equipment, just because of the difficulties with getting out of the water. This, in particular, is mentioned in the "Results of comparative tests of BT equipment in marine conditions" (Kubinka, 1978).

The tactics of using ground forces implies strikes against the least protected sectors of the enemy's front. In the overwhelming majority of cases, none of the commanders will decide to attack the superior forces of the dug-in enemy just because behind him there is a reliably explored river, which, if the attack is successfully developed, will be easy to overcome on floating armored vehicles and drive the enemy further.

In reality, as soon as the offensive hits a river barrier, the engineering units look for a suitable place to build a pontoon bridge or raft. The thing is that no one can guarantee that an infantry fighting vehicle, armored personnel carrier or infantry fighting vehicle will be able to successfully climb to the opposite bank. Yes, even under enemy fire. Then again the question arises - why initially sacrifice armor for the sake of buoyancy?

Heavy Shores and Rockets


For several years, the Omsk Armored Engineer Institute has been conducting interesting modeling of the mechanics of the exit of various types of floating equipment to the coast. The main work is carried out by Candidate of Technical Sciences, Associate Professor O. A. Seryakov. As the author rightly points out, the main factors for the success of armored vehicles coming ashore are: low pressure on the ground, high adhesion of the mover (wheels or tracks) to the coastal soil, and the presence of a traction force not associated with a land mover.

In the latter case, a water jet or propeller is used, which has a significant impact on the success of the landfall. For a comparative assessment, a wide range of armored vehicles was used - domestic BMP-2, BMP-3, BMD-4M, BTR-82M, American M113A3 armored personnel carriers, LVTP7 armored personnel carriers and the French AMX-10P infantry fighting vehicle. In a good way, full-scale tests should be carried out, but this is far from always possible, and if possible, it is very expensive. And where can you get foreign combat vehicles in working order? Therefore, the authors limited themselves to mathematical modeling of processes.

For reference: the full name of one program sounds like "Program for calculating the probability of overcoming a shallow section of a water barrier by a floating vehicle of armored weapons." The date of registration in the All-Russian Register is January 13.01.2021, 7. In one of the series of studies, where the LVTP3, BMP-113, M3A82 and BTR-15A armored personnel carriers virtually participated, they chose a sandy seashore with a slope of 7,2 degrees. On the conditional sea, a conditional calm was provided. By the way, the slopes of the landing-accessible sections of the sea coast usually should not exceed 3 degrees. And excitement is allowed in XNUMX points.

As it turned out, tracked vehicles with water cannons had the greatest advantage, and the relatively light BMP-3 turned out to be noticeably more successful than the American amphibian for the Marine Corps LVTP7. According to calculations, the domestic vehicle did not get stuck at the beginning of the landfall with a 100% probability and did not stop at the end of the landfall with a 97% probability. The heavier "American", despite two water cannons (the BMP-3 has only one), showed, respectively, 79% and 97% of the probability of landfall.

Worst of all things were with the M113A3 armored personnel carrier, deprived of a water cannon or propeller, which did not go ashore in half the cases. Ukronazis who are now using Lend-Lease tracked armored personnel carriers are advised to heed the conclusions of the Omsk military researchers and not use vehicles to overcome water barriers, but immediately surrender along with the equipment to the allied forces.

The most interesting findings concern the BTR-82A, which demonstrates 79% efficiency at the beginning of landfall, but declines to 51% by the end. The reason is the unfortunate location of the water cannon, which “at this stage, due to the exposure of the intake hole, stops its work, and the wheel propulsion unit cannot provide sufficient traction for traction on the ground with low bearing capacity.” As a result, the authors generally do not recommend using the BTR-82A in amphibious assault. A Russian armored personnel carrier can confidently climb only ashore, the slope of which does not exceed 10 degrees.


BMD-2. Source: mil.ru

From the works of Omsk scientists, a logical pattern is revealed - the lower the weight of the floating machine, the higher the probability of going ashore from the water. Of course, if it is a tracked vehicle with a water cannon, or better with two. Obviously, mounted floats will not help here either, which only increase the displacement and buoyancy of armored vehicles, but in no way affect the ability to go ashore. Rather, they even interfere due to the size and excess weight. That is why the French AMX-10P weighing 14 tons is somewhat more successful than the Russian BMP-3 weighing almost 19 tons.

In modeling landfall with a slope of 5-15 degrees, the vehicles are still comparable, but the BMP-20 takes a 3-degree slope in 70% of cases, and the French one in 78%. Moreover, the Russian vehicle has a great chance of getting stuck just at the end of landfall due to the fact that the hull has almost completely emerged from the water, and the BMP is stuck in the ground due to its greater mass. If we talk about testing the BMD-4M, then this machine turned out to be even better than the BMP of the third series due to less pressure on the ground and higher power density.


Source: function.mil.ru

Now about the BMP-2, which, as you know, is devoid of a water cannon and moves afloat due to caterpillars. A separate study was conducted for the car, comparing the probability of landfall with different soils - hard rocky, sandy, silty on a solid base and swampy. The angle of inclination is the same - 15 degrees. The BMP-2 coped most easily with a rocky bottom, in 64% of cases with sand and 68% with muddy soil. But the swampy coast turned out to be an insurmountable obstacle for an armored vehicle in 100% of cases. According to the results, the BMP-2 is also not suitable for the Marine Corps, like the BTR-82A. In fairness, we recall that the conclusions are made by the authors solely on the basis of mathematical modeling.

The authors see a way out of such a depressing situation in the installation of jet boosters or winches with ejection anchors on armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles. The second, of course, is from the realm of fantasy, but you can think about impulse rocket launchers in the stern of floating armored vehicles. According to Omsk residents, accelerators with a thrust force of 15 kN increase the probability of reaching a 15-degree shore from 51% to 95%. A rocket launcher of 20 kN guarantees an almost 100% probability. Plus it's not that expensive. For the BMP-2, such powerful boosters are not needed - according to calculations, 10 kN of thrust is enough.

Based on these calculations, the reader can draw a conclusion about the prospects for the further use of floating armored vehicles in the ground forces. Or is it much more reasonable to leave such a specific technique only for the marines.

List of some sources for reference:
Seryakov, O. A. Probabilistic mathematical model in the problems of assessing the patency of amphibians in a shallow water zone: article / Science and Military Security No. 3 (18), 2019. - p. 46–52.
Seryakov, O. A. Mathematical modeling of amphibious vehicles getting out of the water with a different combination of propellers / Science and Military Security. - 2019. - No. 4 (19). – P. 16–21.
Seryakov, O. A. Investigation of the BTR-82AM shore exit from the water / Science and Military Security. - 2018. - No. 1 (12). – P. 32–36.
Author:
130 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Saboteur_Navy
    Saboteur_Navy 26 May 2022 18: 13
    -2
    Well, pay attention to the Afghan experience of the 103rd Vitebsk Airborne Division and the 145th Airborne Regiment, they were armed there with BMP-2, tanks, and artillery, there were only two parts of the Airborne Forces in Afghanistan
    1. Nestorych
      Nestorych 26 May 2022 18: 37
      +14
      It is high time! It has long been clear to all reasonable people that the beauty of airborne assault landings during exercises is not feasible in a real battle, taking into account the development of air defense systems.
      1. Saboteur_Navy
        Saboteur_Navy 26 May 2022 19: 10
        +3
        But not everyone understands this
        1. Genry
          Genry 26 May 2022 19: 29
          +7
          Quote: Saboteur_Navy
          But not everyone understands this

          I do not understand!
          Was equipment successfully abandoned in Gostomel? To meet them, they began to punch a corridor for the exit with heavy equipment? Did they complete their task?
          Yes! Yes! Yes!
          (and "nonsense" comes to mind repeat )
          1. Saboteur_Navy
            Saboteur_Navy 26 May 2022 19: 35
            +10
            Gostomel is a raid, and without equipment at all, there in the morning the Marines made their way to them, there was a report
            Now in the fields in the operational space of the BMD, an excellent target, one tank from an ambush of 4-5 km can knock out a whole battalion ...
          2. Saboteur_Navy
            Saboteur_Navy 26 May 2022 19: 50
            +27
            By the way, for Gostomel, I would give the Star of the Hero to the commander of the combined detachment of the special forces, everything was brilliantly done
            1. Nestorych
              Nestorych 26 May 2022 19: 54
              +14
              All the guys there are great, two light companies against heavy brigades - the elite!
            2. max702
              max702 27 May 2022 09: 47
              +16
              And the commanders from the General Staff who sent them there to be shot .. And there is no need for tales about the fact that they fettered the actions of the troops there, preventing them from being transferred to the Donbass .. This is from a series of your illness, we will define a feat .. The task was to capture the airfield in order to organize a full-fledged base with runways without restrictions .. Only now the generals forgot that we are fighting not against the barmaley, but against the army, which is armed with all possible means of artillery, aviation, tanks and other things, with the exception of nuclear weapons .. How did they want to ensure the security of the base / airfield? it is necessary to do a safe zone with a diameter of 100 km, but if you look at the map? As for reinforcements, demolish all bridges across the Dnieper in the first three days, and today our troops would already be standing along the banks of the Dnieper ..
          3. Nestorych
            Nestorych 26 May 2022 19: 53
            +9
            Just Gostomel, this is a great example of how it is possible to use the landing force today. Unfortunately, BMD does not climb into 8-ku.))
            1. Saboteur_Navy
              Saboteur_Navy 26 May 2022 20: 20
              0
              Raid operations are always a risk, they must be carried out simply and not think about the consequences ... of course, after analyzing intelligence ...
              It’s a pity that the second stage didn’t follow after the capture of Gostomel, I would have risked partially throwing it out from the air, most of it by landing, well, there it was necessary to suppress the artillery of the Air Force.
              If the Airborne Forces are in the field, then it is necessary to rearm unambiguously ...
              1. Nestorych
                Nestorych 26 May 2022 20: 31
                +4
                Two weeks ago, they wrote that 40% of Ukraine's air defense had not yet been suppressed, but did you want to drop troops there at the very beginning on the Il-76?
                1. Saboteur_Navy
                  Saboteur_Navy 26 May 2022 20: 43
                  -2
                  Tactics ... We won’t, it all depends on the availability of means of suppression and intelligence
                  I haven't seen a massive Air Force strike for a long time, except in Vietnam
                  1. Nestorych
                    Nestorych 26 May 2022 20: 51
                    +5
                    This is written by a former bomber, the date is mid-May.
                    Let's get back to the SAM.
                    Two dozen S-300s and three dozen Beeches are serious. This is about 40% of what it was at the beginning of the war, but it's a lot.
                    Ukrainians do not actually use air defense systems to cover their facilities, they use them to destroy our aircraft. I deliberately omit work on cruise missiles, this is another topic. There is a significant difference between covering objects and destroying aircraft. You can catch on the run, work from ambush, work for sure with a short turn-on time for radiation guidance locators.
                    You can try to swoop down in a couple of days with the available forces and means to demolish all these air defense systems, but after that operational-tactical aviation will cease to exist. And there is little left of the army.
                    Therefore, hard work is now underway to detect and destroy every three hundred and every BUK.
                    How long this work will take, I do not know.

                    The time of mass air strikes is over, too expensive.
                    1. Saboteur_Navy
                      Saboteur_Navy 26 May 2022 20: 58
                      -3
                      The United States is constantly training, lifting a lot of planes, this is skill
                      You can’t suppress air defense in a pair of planes, especially layered and mobile
                      Yes, and about the price ... And effective managers penetrated the army
          4. CTABEP
            CTABEP 26 May 2022 20: 56
            +8
            How many BMDs were dropped there in Gostomel?
          5. KVIRTU
            KVIRTU 27 May 2022 20: 58
            0
            Abandoned, no, maybe they planned the landing method, changed their minds. In Ukraine, 1 BMD2 was replicated, it was no longer found.
      2. Saboteur_Navy
        Saboteur_Navy 26 May 2022 19: 12
        -10
        By the way, it’s better to give the Airborne Forces the T-62 tank instead of the BMD, personnel according to any on the armor
        1. Genry
          Genry 26 May 2022 19: 18
          +13
          Quote: Saboteur_Navy
          T-62 tank

          By today's standards, the T-62 is no longer a tank, but an SPG.
          It withstands close high-explosive fragmentation bursts very well, but is useless in battle, where it can collide with RPGs or ATGMs.
          1. Saboteur_Navy
            Saboteur_Navy 26 May 2022 19: 19
            -2
            Anything is better than BMD, so it’s not bad T-90
          2. Saboteur_Navy
            Saboteur_Navy 26 May 2022 19: 23
            -1
            With ATGMs and RPGs, the Marine Corps showed how to fight in Marik, where the armored personnel carrier covered the tank with a high-speed cannon, the reporter Filatov has a lot of reports
            1. Genry
              Genry 26 May 2022 19: 55
              +2
              Quote: Saboteur_Navy
              The armored personnel carrier covered the tank with a rapid-fire cannon

              Here both crews play "roulette". There is a very high probability that he covered the wrong side .....
              1. Saboteur_Navy
                Saboteur_Navy 26 May 2022 20: 21
                +3
                War is roulette
    2. max702
      max702 27 May 2022 09: 38
      +7
      Here one would pay attention to the concept of the Airborne Forces in the field of parachute landing .. The same picture will be, or rather much more sad, there is the possibility of parachute landing, but there is no landing! And how many people have died in all the years because of this requirement for airborne equipment? It is small armor that leads to high losses .. There are no landings, but there are battles a la motorized rifles, and so on for 80 years ... The same way out is to leave the MTR parachutes and reconnaissance to the rest of normal equipment at the level of motorized rifles .. Air transportability? All questions to aircraft designers! We need aircraft capable of carrying well-protected equipment.
      1. KVIRTU
        KVIRTU 27 May 2022 21: 07
        +2
        Yes, they did. As I understand it, 70 percent of the Airborne Forces are airborne assault, the rest are airborne, let the specialists correct it.
        1. max702
          max702 28 May 2022 08: 09
          +3
          Only parachute training (for all airborne forces) takes up to 40% of the funds and standard weapons are intended just in time for a parachute landing, which results in losses in real databases ..
          1. KVIRTU
            KVIRTU 29 May 2022 20: 44
            0
            Apparently, not only with a parachute, since the planes were not sent to Gostomel, they went on their own.
      2. igor_sabadah
        igor_sabadah 29 May 2022 12: 56
        0
        It’s just that the paratroopers are the most trained part, but if it’s wise, then they don’t need to be thrown on standard airborne equipment, but transferred to ordinary heavy
  2. Konnick
    Konnick 26 May 2022 18: 14
    +22
    From the works of Omsk scientists, a logical pattern is revealed - the lower the weight of the floating machine, the higher the probability of going ashore from the water.

    Omsk scientists made an incredible discovery...
    1. Genry
      Genry 26 May 2022 18: 36
      +10
      Quote: Konnick
      Omsk scientists made an incredible discovery...

      And the author generally has alternative physics:
      to double the speed of the BMD-4M on water, you need to increase the engine power by 8 times!

      Author, 4 times. quadratic dependency.
      Only in the relativistic model does the mass increase, and then the dependence can grow to infinity - it is impossible to overcome the speed of light.
      1. Johnson Smithson
        Johnson Smithson 27 May 2022 11: 00
        +4
        Author, 4 times. quadratic dependency.

        can you link to the formula?

        Only in the relativistic model does the mass increase, and then the dependence can grow to infinity - it is impossible to overcome the speed of light.

        and suddenly, ships with a displacement hull (like trawlers) also have a speed limit, the ship cannot move at infinite speed

        as the speed increases, the wave in front of the vessel grows and you need to spend more and more power to climb it and not increase the speed further, then you already need a glider or hydrofoils

        but I’m generally silent about the tank, there the seaworthiness is near zero, therefore there is nothing strange in the text about the increase in power by 8 times
      2. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 27 May 2022 12: 18
        +1
        Quote: Genry
        Author, 4 times. quadratic dependency.

        In the first approximation - cubic: the power of the installation increases in proportion to the cube of the speed.
    2. DenVB
      DenVB 26 May 2022 19: 00
      +3
      Quote: Konnick
      Omsk scientists made an incredible discovery...

      Actually it's not that obvious. The tank, for example, is very heavy, but somehow crawls out onto the shore from the bottom.
      1. Genry
        Genry 26 May 2022 19: 05
        +7
        Quote: DenVB
        The tank, for example, is very heavy, but somehow crawls out onto the shore from the bottom.

        It should crawl out onto a slope of 30 degrees. But not every slope surface can support the weight of a tank. Therefore, the easier - the more real.
  3. bk316
    bk316 26 May 2022 18: 15
    +17
    I didn’t have to ride the military, but I traveled a lot on gas 34039.
    Rushing through the swamp and through the snow and swims normally, BUT.
    Always the same problem, getting out of the river to the shore.
    Sometimes I had to swim several kilometers to get out, and this despite the fact that he normally walks through the swamp.
    1. Konnick
      Konnick 26 May 2022 18: 27
      +1
      Sometimes I had to swim several kilometers to get out, and this despite the fact that he normally walks through the swamp.

      A good winch is needed.
      1. bk316
        bk316 26 May 2022 18: 28
        +8
        Yeah, and why hook her in the tundra? laughing
        1. Konnick
          Konnick 26 May 2022 18: 31
          +4
          Yeah, and why hook her in the tundra?

          There are so-called anchors
          1. bk316
            bk316 26 May 2022 18: 34
            +9
            There are, but they do not keep in the swamp - they crawl.
            Imagine: a river, a vertical bank half a meter high - a meter of peat, a moss swamp begins immediately behind the bank. Typical picture.
    2. Alekseev
      Alekseev 26 May 2022 18: 41
      +15
      Quote: bk316
      the same problem, to get out of the river to the shore.

      In our country, they often want to "shove in the unimpressible" in assessing the capabilities of weapons and military equipment.
      If an infantry fighting vehicle or, even more so, a tank, then it should be possible to drive around under enemy fire without risk ... Sit freely, as in a Mercy, and exterminate the adversary, as in a computer game.
      And if an armored personnel carrier or infantry fighting vehicle has the ability to swim, then they must cross turbulent streams and go ashore like climbers on a steep. Can not? So it's a dead end!
      But it's not possible that way. no one canceled the choice of the place of forcing or crossing a water barrier, you understand engineering intelligence. Sometimes elementary additional equipment is necessary, for example, to make a path from a dozen tree trunks and there will be equipment to go ashore, etc.
      As for a successful offensive by a tank unit, tank-accessible terrain is necessary, and for crossing rivers, it is necessary to choose and, sometimes, elementarily equip the coast. There are not so few places available for going ashore, they must be searched for, and not shoved onto a steep yard or into a swamp under fire from a fortified enemy with a sufficient amount of firepower.
      All of the above is not new at all, but tactics are first class. The study of the possibility of crossing the river by the officer of the General Staff A.A. Ignatiev up to his neck in a muddy and cold river in Manchuria during the Russo-Japanese War, he well described in his "50 years in the ranks."
  4. Bogalex
    Bogalex 26 May 2022 18: 22
    +19
    As a result, it is still not clear to me personally, as, indeed, from the author’s previous article, why, after all, “floating armored vehicles are a dead end branch of evolution.”
    The fact that when planning to overcome a water barrier, the commander is obliged to take into account the nature of the soil of the opposite bank and its steepness, is told in any combined arms school.
    Yes, modern AFVs are not without flaws and they must be overcome. But what really is a “dead-end branch of evolution” is the refusal to develop floating armored vehicles with hope, as the only remaining way out, exclusively on bridges and the possibilities of pontoon-bridge parks.
    1. Konnick
      Konnick 26 May 2022 18: 28
      +11
      The fact that when planning to overcome a water barrier, the commander is obliged to take into account the nature of the soil of the opposite bank and its steepness, is told in any combined arms school.

      And this is called engineering intelligence.
      1. Bogalex
        Bogalex 26 May 2022 18: 41
        +8
        Yes sir!
        PS I cannot but answer, despite the fact that "The text of your comment is too short and, in the opinion of the site administration, does not contain useful information."
    2. Dart2027
      Dart2027 26 May 2022 18: 47
      +3
      Quote: Bogalex
      The fact that when planning to overcome a water barrier, the commander is obliged to take into account the nature of the soil of the opposite bank and its steepness, is told in any combined arms school.


      The tactics of using ground forces implies strikes against the least protected sectors of the enemy's front. In the overwhelming majority of cases, none of the commanders will decide to attack the superior forces of the dug-in enemy just because behind him there is a reliably explored river, which, if the attack is successfully developed, will be easy to overcome on floating armored vehicles and drive the enemy further.
      1. Bogalex
        Bogalex 26 May 2022 19: 47
        +3
        none of the commanders will decide to attack the superior forces of the entrenched the enemy

        NEVER at all, regardless of whether there is a reliably explored river behind him or not.
        1. Dart2027
          Dart2027 26 May 2022 21: 40
          +3
          Quote: Bogalex
          regardless of whether there is a reliably explored river behind him or not

          But the enemy also knows how to think, and those places where you can immediately transfer armored vehicles will be fortified.
          1. Bogalex
            Bogalex 26 May 2022 22: 20
            -1
            You do not understand the essence of the answer, apparently? smile It's a pity...
            1. Dart2027
              Dart2027 27 May 2022 18: 14
              0
              Quote: Bogalex
              You do not understand the essence of the answer, apparently?

              That is, there is nothing to argue.
              1. Bogalex
                Bogalex 28 May 2022 11: 24
                0
                Well, if you want to be poked...
                You see, you wrote nonsense:
                In the vast majority of cases, none of the commanders will make a decision to attack the superior forces of the dug-in enemy only because there is a reliably explored river behind it

                Think carefully, and if there is no river behind the enemy, but completely autobahns and steppe, even as a table, then there are no problems with making a decision tread on(!!!) on the "on the superior forces of the dug-in enemy" Can't you see, is everything okay? Do women still give birth?
                1. Dart2027
                  Dart2027 28 May 2022 12: 05
                  0
                  Quote: Bogalex
                  Think carefully, what if

                  Quote: Dart2027
                  That is, there is nothing to argue.

                  It discusses specific actions in a specific situation. If completely autobahns and the steppe, then no one needs floating equipment.
                  1. Bogalex
                    Bogalex 28 May 2022 12: 16
                    0
                    It is being discussed here that you, when you are about to attack the superior forces of the entrenched enemy, seem to be sincerely surprised why I have nothing to offer you regarding the solution of the task of forcing water barriers after the troops entrusted to you successfully break through the enemy’s defenses.
                    Dear Dart2027, You don't have to solve such a problem! Under the conditions proposed to you, it does not matter at all whether your armored vehicles are floating or not, because you cannot solve the immediate task - breaking through the defense. Why in your example talk about the seaworthiness of infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers? They don't fit...
                    But you still do not seem to understand me, which, I repeat, is a pity.
                    1. Dart2027
                      Dart2027 28 May 2022 12: 42
                      0
                      Quote: Bogalex
                      Here it is discussed what

                      Quote: Dart2027
                      the enemy also knows how to think, and those places where you can immediately transfer armored vehicles will be fortified.

                      And that is why it does not matter whether floating armored vehicles or not. When breaking through a serious defense, this will not help much, and if it is not there, then there is nothing to worry about.
                      1. Bogalex
                        Bogalex 28 May 2022 12: 48
                        0
                        That is, on the merits of the topic you have designated, since you are hastily transferring to another, there is nothing to object to?
                      2. Dart2027
                        Dart2027 28 May 2022 13: 02
                        0
                        Quote: Bogalex
                        That is, on the merits of the topic you have designated

                        Quote: Dart2027
                        But the enemy also knows how to think, and those places where you can immediately transfer armored vehicles will be fortified.
                      3. Bogalex
                        Bogalex 28 May 2022 13: 46
                        0
                        Dear Dart2027, why are you once again in the topic where MY COMMENT is being discussed, sticking your stupid answer to a question that you were not asked?
                        Here it is Here
                        But the enemy also knows how to think ...

                        and further down the text had nothing to do with my comment. From the word "absolutely". And it was nothing more than an attempt to get out of the puddle in which you yourself put yourself in the previous "opus".
                        Will not work.
                        You wrote nonsense and be kind enough to admit it, if you still consider yourself a man, and not spin like a frying pan.
                      4. Dart2027
                        Dart2027 28 May 2022 17: 50
                        -1
                        Quote: Bogalex
                        Why are you already once again in the topic where MY COMMENT is discussed

                        Which is part of the discussion of the article.
                        You wrote nonsense and be kind enough to admit it, if you still consider yourself a man, and not spin like a frying pan.
          2. max702
            max702 27 May 2022 09: 57
            +1
            Quote: Dart2027
            Quote: Bogalex
            regardless of whether there is a reliably explored river behind him or not

            But the enemy also knows how to think, and those places where you can immediately transfer armored vehicles will be fortified.

            "It was smooth on paper, but they forgot about the ravines!" this should be written in the headquarters in meter letters in the most prominent place. The fact that all such exits from the rivers will be taken on a pencil, mined, shot at, and so on, apparently rarely guess, and then once and with artillery fire they cover a fair unit because it has nowhere to go to attack here or here .. And not long ago this happened .. Waterfowl technology expands such bridgeheads and no more.
          3. KVIRTU
            KVIRTU 27 May 2022 21: 13
            +2
            And the most suitable for the exit are heavily mined and shot. The author is right, there is something to think about ...
    3. DenVB
      DenVB 26 May 2022 18: 54
      +8
      Quote: Bogalex
      The fact that when planning to overcome a water barrier, the commander is obliged to take into account the nature of the soil of the opposite bank and its steepness, is told in any combined arms school.

      Do they tell in the combined arms school that the enemy on the opposite bank is also not an idiot? He, too, can find places on his shore suitable for exit, and prepare to repel attempts to overcome the water barrier in these places.
      1. Krasnoyarsk
        Krasnoyarsk 26 May 2022 19: 51
        +10
        Quote: DenVB
        on the opposite bank, too, is not an idiot? He, too, can find places on his shore suitable for exit, and prepare to repel attempts to overcome the water barrier in these places.

        And he can also gouge a pontoon crossing with difficulty. And if so, then "pontoons" are generally unnecessary troops in the army. tongue
        1. DenVB
          DenVB 26 May 2022 20: 04
          +3
          Quote: Krasnoyarsk
          And he can also gouge a pontoon crossing with difficulty. And if so, then "pontoons" are generally unnecessary troops in the army.

          Getting off the pontoon is easier than getting out of the water. Consequently, there are more suitable places for establishing a crossing than for forcing a swim. This means that the enemy will have to control a much greater length of the coast and stretch his forces. This makes it easier for the attacker.
          1. d4rkmesa
            d4rkmesa 26 May 2022 20: 42
            +3
            More, however, with modern reconnaissance and terrain study capabilities, everything is calculated by the enemy, unfortunately.
            1. DenVB
              DenVB 26 May 2022 21: 25
              -1
              Quote: d4rkmesa
              everything is calculated by the enemy, unfortunately.

              No, it's impossible to calculate everything.
      2. Bogalex
        Bogalex 26 May 2022 19: 52
        +3
        Of course they tell.
        Outplaying, misleading, deceiving the enemy is one of the foundations of operational and tactical camouflage.
        By the way, did it occur to you to think why the discipline that teaches commanders the basics of combined arms combat is called "military art" and not "military craft"?
        1. DenVB
          DenVB 26 May 2022 20: 06
          0
          Quote: Bogalex
          why is the discipline that teaches commanders the basics of combined arms combat called "military art" and not "military craft"?

          It would be better to teach them the trade. And then, without having studied the basics, they already think of themselves as masters. We regularly have the opportunity to observe the results.
          1. Bogalex
            Bogalex 26 May 2022 21: 14
            +3
            It is probably not very appropriate at the present time to state such things without showing a clear example by one's own actions.
            1. DenVB
              DenVB 26 May 2022 21: 23
              -2
              Quote: Bogalex
              It is probably not very appropriate at the present time to state such things without showing a clear example by one's own actions.

              How is that, sorry? Who can you appoint me so that I show a good example with my own actions? Chief of the General Staff? Minister of Defense? Or at once by Himself?
              1. Bogalex
                Bogalex 26 May 2022 22: 18
                0
                And the fact of the matter is that it’s not me, but you, who think of yourself as a judge of those who
                without having studied the basics, they already think of themselves as masters. We regularly have the opportunity to observe the results.
                1. DenVB
                  DenVB 26 May 2022 22: 37
                  -4
                  Quote: Bogalex
                  And the fact of the matter is that it’s not me, but you, who think of yourself as a judge of those who

                  I'm sorry if I offended you in the best loyal feelings.
  5. Ross xnumx
    Ross xnumx 26 May 2022 18: 27
    +13
    The BMP-2 coped most easily with a rocky bottom, in 64% of cases with sand and 68% with muddy soil. BUT the marshy shore turned out to be an insurmountable obstacle for an armored vehicle in 100% of cases.

    It reminded me of a joke:
    Somehow they bought a harsh Siberian lumberjacks a Japanese chainsaw.
    Gathered in a circle lumberjacks, decided to test it.
    They brought her, slipped her a tree.
    “Whack,” the Japanese saw said.
    "Oh, damn it ..." - said the lumberjacks.
    They slipped her tree thicker. “Wha-zhik!” Said the saw.
    "Wow, damn it!" the lumberjacks said.
    They slipped her a thick cedar. "Vzh-zh-zh-zh-zh-zh-zh-zhik!!!" - said the drink.
    "Wow, damn it!!" the lumberjacks said.
    They slipped her an iron crowbar. "COCK!" - said the drink.
    "Yeah, damn it!!" - the stern Siberian lumberjacks said reproachfully! And they went to cut the forest with axes ...

    Even in ancient times, they prepared ahead of time to force water barriers !!! And they didn’t squirm in the swamp ... yes
  6. Alex Kron
    Alex Kron 26 May 2022 18: 34
    0
    For the capture of bridgeheads, floating armored vehicles are indispensable.
    1. DenVB
      DenVB 26 May 2022 18: 57
      +3
      Quote: Alex Kron
      For the capture of bridgeheads, floating armored vehicles are indispensable.

      It remains to calculate how many percent of the battles take place according to the "seizure of a bridgehead" scenario, and we will get the required percentage of floating armored vehicles in the troops.
      1. Alex Kron
        Alex Kron 26 May 2022 19: 41
        +2
        Is it better to wait for crossings? Moreover, almost all BT in the NE is floating.
        1. d4rkmesa
          d4rkmesa 26 May 2022 20: 47
          +4
          Maybe it's enough to draw obvious conclusions? Well, BTG cannot overcome even an average ford river. There is an abyss and shores of 30+ degrees. Everything that has been seen on TV so far is a special window dressing, well, maybe it would have worked in Omsk.
          1. Alex Kron
            Alex Kron 28 May 2022 10: 09
            0
            To direct the crossings, it is necessary to cover the guidance from the enemy shore. It can be either on the square. technology, or on improvised means as in the Second World War. The first one is better. Even if the equipment is not able to go ashore everywhere, it can come close to the shore and the infantry, and with them spotters of artillery fire and aircraft controllers, may well reach the shore in shallow water. In general, there is engineering reconnaissance of the area.
          2. Ivan 1980
            Ivan 1980 22 July 2022 10: 32
            0
            What do you want to say about Omsk, come look at the right bank above the left, it was 2 meters lathered and we have our own tank factory, we have an armored institute, you obseray your city
            1. d4rkmesa
              d4rkmesa 31 July 2022 10: 10
              0
              Hehe, well, I'm not against Omsk itself, and I don't even laugh at it.
              You did not understand. Last year, special exercises were held near Omsk, including the crossing of the Irtysh by swimming, as far as I remember. That's what I meant when talking about window dressing.
      2. Saxahorse
        Saxahorse 27 May 2022 00: 29
        +1
        Quote: DenVB
        It remains to calculate how many percent of the battles take place according to the "seizure of a bridgehead" scenario, and we will get the required percentage of floating armored vehicles in the troops.

        When attacking in the middle lane, in 100% of cases you will certainly stumble upon some kind of river. And before building some kind of pontoon crossings, someone (and who?) Will have to drive the enemy away from the other side. This is called - to seize the bridgehead.
        1. DenVB
          DenVB 27 May 2022 00: 39
          +2
          Quote: Saxahorse
          And before building some kind of pontoon crossings, someone (and who?) Will have to drive the enemy away from the other side. This is called - to seize the bridgehead.

          This is called artillery, not a foothold.
          1. Saxahorse
            Saxahorse 27 May 2022 23: 40
            +1
            Quote: DenVB
            This is called artillery, not a foothold.

            The enemy also has artillery. Until you move the enemy away with his gunners and spotters, there will be no crossing.
            1. DenVB
              DenVB 28 May 2022 00: 15
              0
              Quote: Saxahorse
              Until you move the enemy away with his gunners and spotters, there will be no crossing.

              Given the range of modern artillery, it will be necessary to move back forty kilometers. On floating technology, according to your method.
              1. Saxahorse
                Saxahorse 28 May 2022 10: 52
                0
                Quote: DenVB
                Given the range of modern artillery, it will be necessary to move back forty kilometers.

                May be so. And we recently saw an alternative near Belogorovka.
                1. DenVB
                  DenVB 28 May 2022 11: 04
                  0
                  Quote: Saxahorse
                  And we recently saw an alternative near Belogorovka.

                  And after all, interestingly, there was no shortage of floating equipment.
                  1. Saxahorse
                    Saxahorse 28 May 2022 12: 23
                    0
                    Quote: DenVB
                    And after all, interestingly, there was no shortage of floating equipment.

                    Exactly! We decided that it would be faster to restore the crossing and fell under the second blow.
                    1. DenVB
                      DenVB 28 May 2022 12: 38
                      0
                      Quote: Saxahorse
                      Exactly! We decided that it would be faster to restore the crossing and fell under the second blow.

                      And they didn’t want to sail into battle without tanks solely out of ignorance that this was possible.
        2. max702
          max702 27 May 2022 10: 05
          +2
          Alas, those who will drive away will be burned by the current anti-tank weapons, this allows you to either clear the landing with artillery fire from aircraft and let you set up a crossing to throw heavy equipment, or get defeated when trying to cross, disrupting a combat mission with unacceptable losses .. Accordingly, what the author and says a certain percentage of specialized equipment is needed but not to the detriment of the combat stability of the rest ..
          1. Momotomba
            Momotomba 27 May 2022 22: 22
            0
            And why can’t artillery prepare a place for a swim crossing, light BT with infantry to drive away the surviving adversaries, and then establish a crossing and transport tanks with trucks? Before all this, some kind of intelligence can look at what is happening on the other side ...
          2. Saxahorse
            Saxahorse 27 May 2022 23: 47
            0
            Quote: max702
            Alas, those who will drive away will be burned

            Alas, this is war.

            In a modern war, the chances of a smooth crossing are generally close to zero. The means of reconnaissance and surveillance have advanced too much. And long-range and high-precision weapons allow you to strike from afar. Without a good foothold, pontoon crossings will become a trap.
            1. max702
              max702 28 May 2022 08: 10
              0
              Everything is possible but it is EXPENSIVE!
              1. Saxahorse
                Saxahorse 28 May 2022 11: 34
                0
                War is never cheap.
                1. max702
                  max702 28 May 2022 12: 28
                  0
                  Quote: Saxahorse
                  War is never cheap.

                  So they save money by solving problems due to the "cheap" infantryman
            2. DenVB
              DenVB 28 May 2022 12: 43
              0
              Quote: Saxahorse
              Without a good foothold, pontoon crossings will become a trap.

              Such wisdom can be generated in any quantity. For example: without a good pontoon crossing, any bridgehead will become a trap. Because long-range and high-precision weapons allow you to strike from afar. The means of reconnaissance and surveillance have advanced too much.
    2. kamakama
      kamakama 26 May 2022 19: 27
      +2
      Well, can they make a technique that is specially designed for this? And not from EACH this demand. Or why is the airborne regiment bad for capturing a bridgehead? It doesn’t matter at all, their task will last 3 hours until the pontoons bring
      1. Alex Kron
        Alex Kron 26 May 2022 19: 43
        +4
        "Make technique" is not a constructor to assemble. Basically, everything has been unified for a long time, and absolutely new equipment is a rarity.
        1. The comment was deleted.
          1. Alex Kron
            Alex Kron 26 May 2022 20: 18
            0
            Great. Only a decoder is needed.)
            1. The comment was deleted.
      2. max702
        max702 27 May 2022 10: 07
        +2
        Where did you see this in the current NWO so that the airborne regiment would capture a bridgehead across the river? Reality shows otherwise.
        1. kamakama
          kamakama 27 May 2022 10: 18
          +3
          Why is he needed then? To pacify political unrest in Kazakhstan and that's it? In terms of the composition of weapons, he is not capable of anything else - to work only under conditions of air supremacy (when they are supplied from the outside, preferably not from parachutes, but from an airfield) or against a weak enemy (land, dig in and hold out until external forces approach). He completely lacks heavy weapons and he simply cannot stand a long battle against a full-fledged regiment. Just the task - we land on the other side, take control of an area of ​​​​kilometers that way 5, so that at least they don’t get out of the small arms and everything, hold on until the engineers build a bridge and full reinforcements arrive along it. The capture will not cancel the impact of artillery and aircraft, but engineers must work in such conditions.
          And like fur meat to Gostomel - as they sent it, they got such a result. They held out as long as they could, and even the airfield did not help. But supplying the grouping in unfriendly territory with a delivery distance of 100 kilometers (in a straight line from the Belarusian border, in reality more) did not work out. So yes, they captured the bridgehead, external help did not come - I had to turn off
          1. max702
            max702 27 May 2022 20: 21
            +2
            Quote: kamakama
            Why is he needed then?

            You ask the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation this question .. 5x5 bridgehead will be covered by MLRS or artillery and amba ..
            1. kamakama
              kamakama 27 May 2022 22: 40
              +1
              And not a bridgehead will be covered, but just a bridge. What's the difference on what area to peel? With the bridge, by the way, it’s still more difficult - it can’t be hidden especially (if only the pontoons are sunk and that’s of little use) and not moved. Yes, and there are few places for its construction and they are all known (suitable soil, slope, assembly sites). So, if there is suitable reconnaissance from the air, the bridgehead will not help much. Another tactic is needed, which one is unclear. On the basis of electronic warfare, if only, jam intelligence
              1. max702
                max702 28 May 2022 08: 03
                +1
                The tactics are simple, electronic warfare and air defense do not let UAVs in, strike weapons destroy everything that can interfere with the crossing in the required radius .. Just like that! The rest will lead to losses and disruption of the combat mission. Yes, all this will be very expensive, but there is no other way.
  7. nonsense
    nonsense 26 May 2022 18: 48
    +8
    for some reason, some kind of outrageous calculations among the "Omsk scientists" ... EMNIP is such a Soviet IRM "Zhuk" on an elongated base of the BMP-1. Equipped with just the same rocket boosters for going ashore and uphill. There is clearly not 10 kN of tractive effort, but much more modest. The car weighs as much as 18 tons (like the BMP-3) ... Nothing prevents them from equipping all floating equipment with accelerators ...
    PS: but there is one "trouble" ... The "waterfowl" equipment itself has a rear even of a battalion level non-floating. And how long will this armored vehicle last on the battlefield without logistical support?
    1. agond
      agond 26 May 2022 19: 12
      -6
      On floating equipment, it is necessary to install low-speed propellers of large diameter with a partial immersion depth (so as not to touch the bottom of the reservoir near the shore), or make the propeller in the form of a very short auger (with variable immersion depth), in the calculation that it will touch the bottom and thereby pushing the car ashore, and the notions of Omsk candidates with associate professors are too childish.
    2. EvilLion
      EvilLion 27 May 2022 09: 13
      +2
      Separation from the rear is a regular situation for mobile forces. By the way, a huge number of BMP-1s can be converted into banal ammunition carriers, which will be able, among other things, to follow the equipment that has crossed the water.
      1. nonsense
        nonsense 27 May 2022 13: 21
        +1
        Quote: EvilLion
        a huge number of BMP-1s, it is quite possible to convert them into banal ammunition carriers,

        What for? There are normal regular floating conveyors - PTS-M, 2, 3,4 ... They are designed for this very task. Only now they are full-time in HMB divisions and higher! If you make a separate SME in the division on floating equipment (or a regiment in AK), then these devices can be included there on a regular basis ...
        1. DenVB
          DenVB 28 May 2022 12: 56
          0
          Quote: nespich
          There are normal regular floating conveyors - PTS-M, 2, 3,4 ... They are designed for this very task.

          For what? Transportation of ammunition? Hardly.

          Quote: nespich
          Only now they are full-time in the HMB division and above!

          What divisions do we have full-time ISB?

          Quote: nespich
          If you make a separate SME in the division on floating equipment (or a regiment in AK), then these devices can be included there on a regular basis ...

          The reconnaissance battalion should also be on floating vehicles. And yes, the General Staff should think carefully and decide at what level it is necessary to have units or units equipped with floating armored vehicles. But for this, someone else must finally think and give the order to abandon the concept of a "floating" army.
  8. ved_med12
    ved_med12 26 May 2022 18: 48
    0
    the "triumphant" landing of the US Marine Corps on the Portuguese beach during the exercise Trident Juncture-2015. The "triumph" of the landing is that immediately after it, several armored vehicles got stuck in deep sand,


    https://topwar.ru/84955-amerikanskiy-oficer-popytalsya-obyasnit-zastryavshie-v-portugalskom-peske-amerikanskie-broneviki-chastyu-plana-ucheniy-trident-juncture-2015.html

    Then, all armored vehicles are a "dead end branch of development"?
  9. Genry
    Genry 26 May 2022 18: 54
    0
    In fact, when people go to mountain glaciers, they wear crampons or spiked shoes. With bald soles there will be a "cow on ice" performance.
    So for equipment that goes to the unsteady shore, you need your own shoes: wide and with developed lugs.
    1. DenVB
      DenVB 26 May 2022 19: 14
      +13
      Quote: Genry
      As well as for equipment that goes to the unsteady coast, you need your own shoes: wide and with developed lugs.

      And from here a logical conclusion arises: to force water barriers and capture bridgeheads, specially created equipment is needed for this. Which should be in service with specialized units. And an attempt to please "both ours and yours", that is, to swim, and, for example, to storm cities, leads to the saturation of the troops with equipment that is not really suitable for either one or the other.
      1. Genry
        Genry 26 May 2022 19: 44
        0
        Quote: DenVB
        a logical conclusion suggests itself: to force water barriers and capture bridgeheads, specially created equipment is needed for this.

        For the first wave!
        Then we need heavy main equipment (on landing boats, amphibious transporters ....), but also adapted to the terrain.
      2. Scharnhorst
        Scharnhorst 26 May 2022 19: 49
        +1
        Even the kit of the ancient ATS-59 included lugs for movement on soft soils and snow. In preparation for forcing, it is useful to equip individual units with something similar (say, in a group spare parts kit).
  10. Mustached Kok
    Mustached Kok 26 May 2022 19: 49
    0
    I would consider designing and building a machine specifically built to form rivers/lakes/bogs. And the existing armored personnel carriers and armored personnel carriers to strengthen and consolidate in the ground units as "light mobile" forces to reinforce the infantry and its safe transportation across the battlefield and between the centers of hostilities. As for the special machine for forcing water barriers. Attach a squad of such vehicles to each armored or motorized infantry division (choose the optimal number). When divisions need to form a water barrier on their sector of the front. It forms a forcing group. The group consists of two teams, one on forcing vehicles and the second on pontoon troops. The first force the barrier and seize the bridgehead. And the second build a pontoon crossing immediately after the capture of the opposite bank.
    The forcing machine must have a hull optimized for sailing. Air boules simultaneously act as floating buoys for less draft and anti-cumulative screens (the internal distance between opposite walls of the boules can be the same as the distance between the anti-cumulative grid and the hull, or even more). Let the car also have Silena's frontal projection and be made at an angle. This and swimming will facilitate and strengthen frontal booking. As well as the entire upper plane of the "roof of equipment". Since during the formation of the side barrier, the front and the "bumper" of the machine will be immersed, and it will itself become an additional layer and protection. And on land, as already described above, the front is already reinforced. And the sides are additionally shielded with boules. The car is open from above. Therefore, it is possible to strengthen the body from the inside in order to place armor capable of withstanding large-caliber bullets and an explosion of dynamic protection. Also, for emergency evacuation, several wide and reinforced hatches can be provided in the upper part of the hull. If there is no threat from the air, return machine-gun fire can be fired through the hatches. And if there is a threat of bombing or shelling, the hatches are closed and open only during evacuation. Arm the equipment itself with a heavy machine gun and several anti-tank systems. Such a combat module will not weigh much and will allow equipment to quickly overcome the water surface and go ashore. Put two propellers behind (water cannons are of course more powerful and give more noise, but there is a higher chance of breaking it if it gets inside the garbage, which is full in swamps and rivers) And make the platform itself wheeled. Wheels can handle landfall better due to their lower dead weight and the ability to adjust pressure for shaky and soft ground. At the same time, the forcing group must always be supported by self-propelled guns from the shore. Therefore, light self-propelled guns and self-propelled mortars (which we use in the Airborne Forces) can be attributed to the forcing groups, which, according to the commands and tips of the forcing group, fire at the enemy through the pregoad from "their" coast. That is, this support artillery crosses to the other side only along the pontoon along with the main forces. And most importantly, such a machine and the marines will be very necessary, although of course with the appropriate modification for marine conditions.
    1. agond
      agond 26 May 2022 20: 58
      -2
      On the topic of going ashore of floating equipment or amphibians, for reference, it is known that a port tug is capable of developing a specific force of up to 17 kg of thrust per horsepower, (at zero speed) this means that, for example, an engine from a BMP-3 installed on a tug will develop traction the force of 17kgx500l / s = 8500kg is almost half the weight of the BMP-3, which is a lot, (for comparison, the specific force developed by amphibian water cannons is many times less) this means that the use of a large towing propeller dramatically increases the chances of pushing the amphibian ashore By the way, the screw can be removable ....
      and not any rocket boosters from Omsk for 20 kN, 1 ton \u9.80665d 20 kilonewtons (kN), and 2 kN is only XNUMX tons
  11. kamakama
    kamakama 26 May 2022 20: 11
    +3
    The issue of waterfowl technology was decided radically and long ago by the Japanese. Ka-Mi. This is a tank, not a boat or a boat.


    1. DenVB
      DenVB 27 May 2022 01: 22
      0
      Quote: kamakama
      Ka-Mi. This is a tank, not a boat or a boat.

      Our PT-76 was also quite good. The Indians and Israelis worked wonders on these tanks.
  12. iouris
    iouris 26 May 2022 20: 12
    +3
    Why isn't the machine gun firing?
    - Comrade Commissar, the cartridges are over!
    - But you are a communist!
    And the machine gun rumbled with renewed vigor.
    It is necessary to correctly pose the problem, correctly formulate technical requirements, correctly design and correctly apply.
  13. K-50
    K-50 26 May 2022 20: 26
    +4
    Getting ashore is a non-trivial task for floating armored vehicles

    No one simply "overclocks" into the water, even on floating equipment.
    Engineering reconnaissance of the reservoir and banks is being carried out. Slopes, bearing capacity of soils, flow velocity and depth are determined. Route alignments are established, a rescue team is formed, as a rule, at the TCPs, and only then, after checking the technical condition of the means, is the crossing allowed.
    Well, at least it used to be like that. repeat
    1. antivirus
      antivirus 26 May 2022 20: 37
      0
      Everything is over.
      There was a time and there were times.
      Number of bridges and other infrastructure.
      We needed swimming.
      No anti-tank missiles and UAV kamikaze.
      The tank and infantry fighting vehicles decided everything in alliance with Fri art and helicopters.
      Lightweight for an expedition.
      Now new trends and TVD.
      Who considered the outskirts an enemy with its landscape?
      + you can drive into NATO on the wheels of an armored personnel carrier, etc.
      Twilight of consciousness.
      When does afterknowledge meet foresight? Not fortune telling
    2. PSih2097
      PSih2097 27 May 2022 01: 03
      +2
      Quote: K-50
      Engineering reconnaissance of the reservoir and banks is being carried out. Slopes, bearing capacity of soils, flow velocity and depth are determined. Route alignments are established, a rescue team is formed, as a rule, at the TCPs, and only then, after checking the technical condition of the means, is the crossing allowed.

      And all this with the opposition of the enemy belay , as a maximum, an inspection with the help of optics is not complete - even the very fact of mining will be difficult to detect there, the fact itself, and not the types of mines installed.
      1. K-50
        K-50 27 May 2022 06: 36
        +2
        Quote: PSih2097
        And all this with the opposition of the enemy

        For this, the engineering troops have reconnaissance divers, special equipment and equipment. And yes, forcing water barriers under enemy fire is a plan of engineering troops, their cross, like parachuting with the Airborne Forces and amphibious landing with the Marines. Also, after all, under enemy fire, but the tasks are completed.
        1. PSih2097
          PSih2097 30 May 2022 23: 05
          0
          Quote: K-50
          For this, the engineering troops have reconnaissance divers, special equipment and equipment.

          Yeah, in my platoon there were already two such comrades - an ensign, and they had equipment ...repeat as far back as the late 70s...
          1. K-50
            K-50 31 May 2022 08: 43
            0
            Quote: PSih2097
            Quote: K-50
            For this, the engineering troops have reconnaissance divers, special equipment and equipment.

            Yeah, in my platoon there were already two such comrades - an ensign, and they had equipment ...repeat as far back as the late 70s...

            Of course, I don’t know what equipment is now, but in my time the IDA-64 was a very normal apparatus for secret movement under water. GK-ashki, of course, was full of crap, especially compared to modern ones.
  14. EvilLion
    EvilLion 27 May 2022 09: 08
    +2
    In a good way, full-scale tests should have been carried out, but this is far from always possible, and if possible, it is very expensive.


    Considering that there were amphibious tanks before the Second World War, and after the Second World War there was a massive PT-76, the author is simply delirious. The whole question has long been tried along, across and diagonally. Including in hostilities.

    The difficulty of going ashore is, of course, interesting, but the same problem is also encountered in the construction of pontoon crossings, the places where they can be made must also be chosen wisely. From my city, for example, a road leads to the industrial zone, several kilometers. This road is crossed by two rivers with very severe ravines. That is, movement on the ground is generally possible only along the road. Now don’t make tanks, because it’s not possible to drive everywhere off-road?

    And what the author is just delirious about is that armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles are easy to swim. On the contrary, they are made buoyant, because they are light. And they are light because it will not be economically possible to give each motorized rifle squad an armored vehicle equal in weight to a tank, or even more, because a large internal volume is needed for landing. And this situation is typical even for wealthy armies, the same American "striker" does not even have a tower, not to mention an anti-fragmentation lining and an uninhabited combat module. I am silent about the "Humvee", in the fighting, sitting in such a car, you will dream of at least the BTR-80. And also an open machine gun on the roof. And that the head of the arrow will be blown off by a bullet or a fragment, well, American women still give birth. With the same success, you can run into differentiated armor of tanks, it’s physically impossible to book something other than the forehead, but in the sides, it’s good if there is 80 mm. This does not take into account the problems of bridges, because driving a brigade across the bridge for 20 tons, separately resolving the issue with a tank battalion is one thing, but if the whole brigade gets up from such an obstacle, then this is another. And such delays cost more blood than the low security of a number of classes of equipment.

    In fact, no one in the world except Israel uses infantry fighting vehicles with tank armor, even the German "puma" is not designed for RPGs in the forehead.
    1. Sergey Aleksandrovich
      Sergey Aleksandrovich 27 May 2022 09: 27
      0
      The bearing capacity of existing bridges is not yet taken into account, as if there is no such problem. There are places where all bridges hold no more than 10 tons, there is no choice at all, only BMD-2 or even BMD-1.
  15. bk0010
    bk0010 27 May 2022 10: 47
    0
    Difficulties when going ashore arise due to marshy soil, steep slopes, ledges and the presence of vegetation.
    The author, the river is a long thing, here the bank is bad, there they shoot, but in a kilometer or two there will be a bank suitable for exit.
    Before you convince us of the uselessness of floating equipment, try to convince the US to disband their Marine Corps, as there are problems with landing without pontoons.
  16. Ratmir_Ryazan
    Ratmir_Ryazan 27 May 2022 13: 54
    +3
    Judging by the latest wars and conflicts, infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers did not have to swim at all, but it would be very useful to withstand the blow from RPGs, ATGMs, 30-mm shells and fragments of 122 and 152 mm shells.

    If there is already a need for floating infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers, then leave them only with reconnaissance companies, and shock battalions must be transferred to heavy and protected armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles.
  17. Marlboro64
    Marlboro64 27 May 2022 18: 04
    -2
    In his youth (mid-80s) he served in the technical support battalion of the combined arms command school as a BMP-2 driver. Every summer we drove the equipment "for rafting". The cadets of the school trained to cross the river on the BMP-2. It lasted 6-7 days, 30-40 crossings a day. The river - Kuskilenka near the town of Kapchugai, 40 km from Alma-Ata (Kazakhstan). Width, approximately 100 - 130 meters. Shore - about 18 - 20 degrees, very muddy bottom, current.
    So, for the entire time of these exercises, only 4 times it was necessary to use the BATM to pull the BMP-2 ashore. And perpendicularity to the shore - nonsense! The exit was more successful, when one caterpillar clings to the bottom, the BMP begins to turn around and it just flies ashore like a bullet.
  18. lazy
    lazy 27 May 2022 18: 37
    0
    a brief conclusion the technique should not be light waterfowl, but heavy walking under water (well, except for amphibious assault)
  19. ultra
    ultra 27 May 2022 20: 57
    +1
    SVO showed that it is necessary to carry out a complete change of generations of armored vehicles.
  20. Donbass Russia
    Donbass Russia 28 May 2022 00: 41
    0
    The author raised the issue of floating and non-floating armored vehicles. It's just a matter of comparing light and medium armored vehicles. Light vehicles have bulletproof armor, weapons are about the same as medium ones - 30 mm AP and ATGM (or 100 mm cannon), can swim and, most importantly, cost - 400-500 thousand dollars. And the middle one, having received ceramic armor and cool sights and a more powerful engine, got the opportunity to hold 30-40 mm guns in the forehead and sometimes 14,5-30 mm in the sides. But the cost is about 5 million dollars. Heavier type Puma and 9 million euros. Conclusion: the countries of the West, in Europe, are buying a few hundred of 200-300 medium armored vehicles. The United States is the only country that has purchased thousands of them, because money, stupidly, prints. And Russia, having a large army, with the SV, Airborne Forces, MP, RG, is forced to have massively light armored vehicles due to the limited military budget, and the purchase of medium and heavy armored vehicles will be limited and, anyway, supplemented with cheap light ones - such as BMP-3M, BMD -4M, BTR-82A, BTR-MDM, maybe even modifications based on them. But the current war has shown the correctness of this approach. Arta and helicopters with UAVs destroy equipment of any mass, as well as massive anti-tank systems, RPGs, and tanks. The presence in combat units and storage bases of thousands of units of light armored vehicles simply saves the infantry, otherwise they would have walked on foot with an expensive infantry fighting vehicle.
  21. Evgesha
    Evgesha 28 May 2022 20: 47
    0
    Getting ashore is a non-trivial task for floating armored vehicles
    Damn, this has been known for a long time! I'll just say - this problem is still in the program for schoolchildren "I Serve the Soviet Union!" illuminated and showed what needs to be done.
    Am I the only one watching this show?
    You are discussing a pancake here a problem that has been known since ancient times. And in this regard, the designers know everything.
    What's the point of asking this question??? Or are you like grandmas on a bench - just to talk?
  22. Ruslan Sledkov
    Ruslan Sledkov 13 July 2022 21: 03
    0
    Very few people said their thoughts about jet boosters for landfall. Thanks to the author for an interesting article.