Military Review

In modern wars it is necessary to exclude the possibility of contact fire collision.

40
In the context of countering modern means of anti-tank warfare, the principle of preventive defeat of the enemy without entering into contact combat should be put in the forefront. But creating an absolutely universal armored vehicle to achieve this goal is impossible. The fact is that the volume of tasks facing it is extremely large. Obviously, it will be necessary to spread the necessary functions to a number of combat complexes.

The armed conflicts of the last 20 years (in particular, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yugoslavia) do not provide grounds for rethinking the actions of armored fighting vehicles, the tactics of which are based on the experience of the Second World War. However, it is becoming more and more obvious that the use of guided weapons systems has replaced the squall of artillery fire that paved the way for its troops in past years. So, today, more than ever, unmanned aerial vehicles are widely used, as well as qualitatively different ammunition of means of direct infantry fire support.

Punch through any armor

At the same time, armored vehicles remain the main type of armament of the ground forces.

However, the model used today for analyzing the results of the impact on anti-tank weapons against armored combat vehicles cannot claim objectivity in view of the depravity of its logic itself. Indeed, if you exclude these funds from the research chain, you will not be able to form the necessary requirements for the technical appearance of the BMP, armored personnel carrier or tank. In other words, to formulate from what and how these machines should be protected.


However, the thesis that the latter always wins in a dispute between armor and ammunition is beyond doubt. Especially considering the absence of the possibility of equipping the already developed, arriving in the troops and existing BBM models there with new reservation systems capable of effectively resisting the promising means of fire destruction.

This became finally clear after the appearance of sub-caliber armor-piercing ammunition with a core of depleted uranium, one of the heaviest metals. Moreover, its use in comparison with previously used tungsten in the cores of sabot shells is economically more profitable.

A critical analysis of the current situation makes it possible, as the expert, who had the opportunity to talk with the author of this article, to draw a simple conclusion: the tactics of conducting combat operations using BBM should exclude or make the possibility of using anti-tank weapons unlikely. An example illustrating the effectiveness of this approach is the operation “Desert Storm” (1991), when the Americans, being outside the range of fire assets of heavy motorized units of the Iraqi army, managed to completely defeat them without engaging in a direct clash.

Need a new platform

According to experts, there are two ways to create a combat armored vehicle with tactical and technical characteristics that will enable to solve the whole complex of tasks put forward by the conditions of a modern war. The first is the development of a protection complex that will be capable of disrupting the use of anti-tank weapons working on specific cyclograms. The second is to equip a BBM with a system that pre-empts the use of anti-tank weapons with their fire attack.

Thus, according to experts, it can be concluded that small units armed with tanks, infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers should be considered not as an aggregate of one-type machines, but as an aggregate of AFVs with individual and group protection.

There is also a need to develop machines capable of operating in the collective defense zone as well. This is due to the fact that already in the short-term perspective, the armies of a number of leading world powers will have at their disposal reconnaissance complexes capable of remotely and in real-time monitoring and analyzing the composition, position and character of the actions of enemy troops on the battlefield. For example, Americans are developing in the field of guided munitions TERM (Tank Extended Range Munitions), which using the FSCS (Future Scout Cavalry System) reconnaissance and targeting system of the RAH-66 Comanche helicopter can be used for over-the-horizon shooting at ranges up to six kilometers.

Avoid contact

In this regard, military experts noted in a conversation with the author, when forming a new image of a combat armored vehicle, individual protective functions should be given to it based on promising technologies, to formulate a qualitatively new concept of interaction of such vehicles on the battlefield.

That is, new BBM (both tanks, infantry fighting vehicles, and armored personnel carriers) must rely on the information-intelligence system, the capabilities of which will be sufficient to provide conditions for conducting contactless combat (without direct contact with the enemy). In this regard, it is noted that the armament complex installed on these machines will maximize the use of all the information necessary to achieve success in such battles.

It is characteristic that in this direction all the leading global manufacturers of armored machines are developing. For example, the ADATS self-propelled complex (Canada, Switzerland) is able to hit not only ground armored (range up to 8 km), but also air targets. A ATGM on the Polypheme wheelbase (France, Germany) is guided over an optical cable by an operator and can strike at a distance from 15 to 60 kilometers, thus avoiding contact fire fighting, which means radically reducing losses.

Experts agree that it is necessary to ensure that such units as the squad, platoon and company act “in the defense environment”. Obviously, it should include the anti-tank anti-tank system and individual defense systems for armored combat vehicles. In the aggregate, this will ensure the formation of a "protective umbrella" over the terrain where the company (battery) fights. At the same time, units will be able to become elements of the reconnaissance system in the context of contactless fire clashes.

However, experts consider it impossible to equip motorized rifle units with the same type of armored fighting vehicles. First of all, this is impractical due to the need to counteract the means of direct aviation supporting a potential adversary. In other words, it is necessary that at the company-battery level there should be a technique capable of effectively interfering, which does not allow turning the general intelligence into a detailed one (optoelectronic mode). In addition, territorial defense complexes are needed (counteraction to strike complexes of the operational link), systems for suppressing the radar of a potential enemy operating in the millimeter range, and also capable of stably counteracting the so-called backlight. This is of utmost importance due to the fact that modern general-purpose radars have as their main target not a unit of military equipment, but a company and a battery. The only truly effective answer to this, according to expert circles, should be anticipatory informational suppression of the enemy’s fire and reconnaissance assets.

It should also be noted that modern combat operations imply a considerable autonomy for the actions of the motorized rifle division, which is separated from the main group of forces. This, in turn, requires solving the tasks of suppressing enemy firepower with small forces in the shortest possible time, and therefore, as far as possible from a distance. Thus, the task before the division at the BMP of the task of independent maneuvering actions in the depth of the potential enemy’s defense makes it expedient to equip these machines with automated fire support systems capable of adequately replacing artillery systems such as Nona, Vienna and Sprut.

Yes, we can say that we have mortar units. However, the level of training of the gunner, the weight of the mortar with the base plate and three dozen mines (120 – 150 kg of additional load on the platoon), the risk of large losses among infantrymen in the case of contact clashes testify in favor of the fact that in conditions of modern combat the maximum of infantry functions should be transferred to technology. The mortar is suitable only for covert firing at roadblocks, open clusters of manpower or lightly armored vehicles of the enemy at a distance of from two to four kilometers.

The current emphasis on the use of infantry units only reduces maneuverability, which negates the advantage in military equipment and its armament. An example of this is the 31 December situation of 1994 in Grozny and in March of 1996 in Yarysh-Mardy. To avoid such tragedies in the future, as experts note, is possible only through the active use of preventive strikes, as well as the greatest possible mechanization and automation of the battlefield. This will ensure the suppression of the enemy in the shelter or on the march without entering into contact battle. This is the only way to reduce your own damage to a minimum.
Author:
Originator:
http://vpk-news.ru
40 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. sergant89
    sergant89 9 October 2012 08: 42
    +2
    Screenshot from the Battlefield2 in the article, well, the wishes are also gaming
    1. swat2238
      swat2238 9 October 2012 22: 42
      +2
      Correct a little, a screenshot from Battlefield Bad Company 2, "Port Arica" ​​map, the very first Ameroff base on the map.
  2. mar.tira
    mar.tira 9 October 2012 08: 46
    +1
    The most contactless battle, in modern conditions it is a nuclear strike!
    1. Vanek
      Vanek 9 October 2012 09: 21
      +5
      Quote: mar.tira
      The most contactless battle


      This is a battle which was not.
    2. Tirpitz
      Tirpitz 9 October 2012 10: 08
      +2
      Quote: mar.tira
      The most contactless battle, in modern conditions it is a nuclear strike!

      And do you need to destroy a group of militants (like in the Caucasus) in the territory of the Russian Federation, too, will you throw nuclear bombs? Do not write nonsense. Minus
      1. Brother Sarych
        Brother Sarych 9 October 2012 13: 44
        +1
        If you need to destroy a group of terrorists, then tanks are not needed, this is not for them ...
      2. cth; fyn
        cth; fyn 9 October 2012 16: 10
        0
        You just need to put in point with the militants Tochku-U.
      3. Nuar
        Nuar 10 October 2012 14: 06
        0
        Quote: Tirpitz
        Do not write nonsense. Minus
        and minus for what?

        Here in the article it is written:
        An example of this is the situation on December 31, 1994 in Grozny and in March 1996 near Yarysh-Marda. To avoid such tragedies in the future, experts say, it is possible only through the active use of preventive strikes, as well as the maximum possible mechanization and automation of the battle.
        the truth is not revealed how in Grozny it was possible to conduct this very "contactless battle"

        mar.tira - maybe not a good joke, but what article, such and comments.
  3. vorobey
    vorobey 9 October 2012 10: 14
    +4
    Good day to all. somewhat contradictory sensations caused the article.
    I will explain why. all the facts and facts described in it are characteristic of local conflicts. however, as the author himself notes, the quote Armed conflicts of the last 20 years (in particular Iraq, Afghanistan, Yugoslavia) do not give grounds for rethinking the actions of armored combat vehicles, the tactics of which are based on the experience of the Second World War.
    And then he contradicts himself
    However, it is becoming increasingly apparent that the barrage of artillery fire, which was paving the way for its troops in the past, has been replaced by the use of guided weapons systems. So, today, as never before, unmanned aerial vehicles are widely used, as well as qualitatively different ammunition of means of direct fire support of infantry.

    Although the general conclusions of the article are quite interesting and have a future.
    1. Joker
      Joker 9 October 2012 13: 07
      +1
      Thank you so much for the video, I already know that I will watch tonight hi
  4. leon-iv
    leon-iv 9 October 2012 10: 50
    +5
    Adats
    A corpse with the purchase of 33 pieces for Canada with today's archaic radar.
    Polypheme
    This is still a Wishlist with an incomprehensible purpose, especially for nuclear submarines.
    interference to anti-tank systems and individual defense complexes of armored combat vehicles. Together, this will ensure the formation of a "protective umbrella" over the area where the company is fighting
    Then the price for the product will come out like a good tank, and I do not think that OBPS will stop much. + Reduced mobility due to overload. And for a watch this is unacceptable.
    In addition, territorial defense complexes are required (counteraction to strike complexes of the operational link), systems for suppressing the potential enemy’s radar, operating in the millimeter range, and also capable of stably counteracting the so-called backlight\
    Well, but they do not take into account the barrage of suppression means induced by interference. And PP will quickly identify the coordinates of hospitals. Yes, and ground RTR will not sleep. So this is a double-edged sword.
    This, in turn, requires solving the problems of suppressing enemy firepower with small forces in the shortest possible time, which means, if possible, from a long distance.
    But this requires heavy funds that, by definition, are not mobile. + a large supply of ammunition. Or high-precision ammunition for the barrel artillery which again crawls out a pretty penny and has little power compared to conventional ones.
    capable of adequately replacing such artillery systems as Nona, Vienna and Octopus.
    Bullshit is a car of different classes and completely different concepts.
    The mortar is suitable exclusively for secretive firing at roadblocks, open clusters of manpower or lightly armored enemy vehicles at ranges of two to four kilometers.
    Umm, a good mortar man will cover such a battery in a couple of minutes, if not faster, and ASUNO vehicles can do this on the move. + This is the range of destruction of guns of both tank and BMP and armored personnel carriers.
    An example of this is the situation on December 31, 1994 in Grozny
    So it seems that there were just tanks without infantry and without DZ, which contradicts all the charters and instructions.
  5. Brother Sarych
    Brother Sarych 9 October 2012 13: 55
    +1
    Only it seems to me that the author has cereal in his head?
    Is it a war or a counter-terrorism operation? If about the war, then it is unlikely to be able to avoid fire interaction with an enemy of approximately equal strength! Desert storms should not be taken into account, there were no battles there, if necessary, it was possible to solve problems on trucks and jeeps, because the enemy was either bombed before complete demoralization or bought at the root (much more often). As close as possible in time is the Doomsday War, but after that it was already too much for many to fight so hard ...
    But the same war in Chechnya is still not a war in the literal sense of the word, it immediately required completely different approaches, but here is a completely different conversation ...
    1. vorobey
      vorobey 9 October 2012 14: 34
      +2
      Why go far? Take a lokalka of August the eighth. if Uncle Misha’s troops weren’t bogged down in street battles (they got on a dick there. They didn’t draw any conclusions from our rake for 95 years), and they went straight to the rock tunnel. he would solve his stupid problems with little blood.
      1. leon-iv
        leon-iv 9 October 2012 15: 49
        +1
        the course of the columns went to the rocky tunnel. he would solve his stupid problems with little blood.
        Nope would not have decided. Our aviation would begin to hammer them in the same way. His mistake was in shooting at peacekeepers. Yes, and I think that their plan was in our General Staff long before the start))))
        1. Kars
          Kars 9 October 2012 15: 56
          +1
          Quote: leon-iv
          Nope would not have decided.

          It was easier for them to use Peonies, and aviation, as we can see from the final number of those shot down, was hit hard even by MANPADS. Not just wars, Georgians, and didn’t expect a quick reaction. They thought there would be protests at the UN, etc. a blood bath for such a breakthrough without preparation.
        2. vorobey
          vorobey 9 October 2012 16: 01
          +1
          Leon, change your mind.
          Quote: leon-iv
          Our aviation would begin to hammer them in the same way

          then Russia would have appeared as an aggressor, and no one would have proved the opposite. And Medvedev would not have dared to take such a step.
          Quote: leon-iv
          His mistake was shooting at peacekeepers


          leon the fact is that I think the card of Ossetia was not played out. Ossetia has become that bargaining chip figure (politics) that led to the gambit.
          Abkhazians should idolize Ossetians for this.
          1. leon-iv
            leon-iv 9 October 2012 16: 33
            +1
            then Russia would have appeared as an aggressor, and no one would have proved the opposite. And Medvedev would not have dared to take such a step.
            Then xs, as it were, the card lay down and prepared the materials.
            leon the fact is that I think the card of Ossetia was not played out. Ossetia has become that bargaining chip figure (politics) that led to the gambit.
            Abkhazians should idolize Ossetians for this.

            Yes, it is clear that Ossetians and peacekeepers were victims. And that Georgia could be trampled into the mud in advance at the deployment stage.
      2. mar.tira
        mar.tira 9 October 2012 16: 02
        +1
        Quote: vorobey
        went to the rocky tunnel. he would solve his stupid problems with little blood.

        And he would meet in an oncoming duel with an armored group Khrulev left in an ambush at the Roksky Tunnel in advance, which then actually solved the main task of disorganizing the enemy.
        1. vorobey
          vorobey 9 October 2012 16: 08
          +1
          Quote: mar.tira
          with Khrulev armored group left in advance in an ambush at the Roksky tunnel

          A beautiful and correct decision. do not specify the composition of the armored group? I don’t have data, I just sometimes put myself in the shoes of Georgians and thought how I would act, right up to the blockage of the tunnel.
          1. leon-iv
            leon-iv 9 October 2012 16: 35
            +1
            down to the blockage of the tunnel
            As one familiar engineer said to me, "what a hell they would have filled it up, it was built for a nuclear war"
            1. vorobey
              vorobey 9 October 2012 16: 55
              +2
              Quote: leon-iv
              "damn if they had filled it up it was built for a nuclear war"


              Leon, how long I live for so long and I’m convinced that nothing is impossible, and sometimes miracles happen.
              1. leon-iv
                leon-iv 9 October 2012 17: 00
                +1
                as long as I live and make sure that nothing is impossible, but sometimes miracles happen.
                This is understandable only strengthened before. And the uncle himself before the military pension worked in a special construction)))). So as in DMB about the gopher))))
            2. Filin
              Filin 9 October 2012 17: 49
              0
              leon-iv
              down to the blockage of the tunnel
              As one familiar engineer said to me, "what a hell they would have filled it up, it was built for a nuclear war"


              One "URAL" loaded with explosives inside the tunnel and the blockage is provided. Plus, along the way, there are galleries that protect the road itself from collapses. Find the photos yourself and see how much concrete is in these galleries and what kind of blockage on the road would turn out. The gallery consists of concrete pillars with concrete floors. Blowing up would not be difficult.
              But ... if the grandmother had a mustache ... she would be the grandfather ...
              1. leon-iv
                leon-iv 9 October 2012 19: 44
                0
                One "URAL" loaded with explosives inside the tunnel and the blockage is provided
                nifiga would not be him. To bring down such a thing you need to know where to drill and to what depth to lay.
                Conventional explosives will not create anything critical for the tunnel. The explosive will pass quietly through it, for there is room for gases to flow.
                1. Filin
                  Filin 10 October 2012 16: 19
                  0
                  You probably have no idea what an explosion of several tons of explosives in a limited space. I don’t even want to argue with you on this topic, since I myself have been to South Ossetia several times and saw it with my own eyes. He does not represent anything supernatural. The Urals loaded to the eyeballs and blown up at the entrance to the tunnel would surely collapse the arch of the tunnel and cause the collapse of rocks at the entrance.
                  Plus you did not answer what I wrote about galleries. He himself served in intelligence and one of our tasks was sabotage behind enemy lines. Therefore, I always pay attention to such nuances.
          2. mar.tira
            mar.tira 10 October 2012 08: 17
            +1
            Quote: vorobey
            I have no data

            Preparing this war, taking into account all factors, the Georgian generals and their advisers did not take into account the main thing: the fact that we constantly closely monitored the situation and, despite the "average temperature in the hospital," this was the zone of responsibility of the 58th Army. Therefore, we have outplayed the Georgians and their American instructors and advisers. After completing the exercises, and knowing that the Georgians continue incomprehensible maneuvers with forces and means, that the situation is ambiguous, alarming, some formations and units of the army did not return to the barracks, but remained in the mountains on the approach to the Roki tunnel two battalion tactical groups (BTGr) from two motorized rifle regiments with their commanders and control groups, totaling a little more than seven hundred people. Both BTGs were well dispersed, camouflaged and fully manned with people, equipment, ammunition, and fuel. It was these BTGs that decided the outcome of the operation .... Here is the link; http: //topwar.ru/13901-voyna-080808-vpervye-o-ee-taynah-rasskazyvaet-gene
            ral-hrulev.html
      3. MrBoris555
        MrBoris555 15 December 2012 10: 03
        0
        and he came there, only there two BTGs were waiting behind the tunnel, they received an order, passed through the tunnel and captured the bridge, shot down the Georgians and kept the altitude up to the approach of the main forces (lost BMP-1, died out on the bridge, I had to push it off) and went on to fight
  6. Chaplain
    Chaplain 9 October 2012 15: 39
    +2
    War will never be without contact, war is sweat, dirt and a sea of ​​blood, everything else is an illusion of those sitting at home.
  7. Voin sveta82
    Voin sveta82 9 October 2012 15: 57
    +1
    it is impossible to exclude ..)))) it will always be .. especially a melee ...
  8. Ruslan67
    Ruslan67 9 October 2012 16: 05
    +4
    in the American sense, a contactless war is possible — UAVs ended the war in our end — only after that a real fight and the birds started to end, well, take off! Nobody canceled the Molotov cocktail!
    1. mr.Man
      mr.Man 9 October 2012 16: 23
      -2
      If the enemy cannot look you in the eye before death, this does not mean that you are not in contact with him ...
      It’s easier to kill while sitting in the heat and staring at the monitor ...
      1. vorobey
        vorobey 9 October 2012 17: 01
        +2
        Quote: mr.Man
        If the enemy cannot look you in the eye before death, this does not mean that you are not in contact with him ...
        It’s easier to kill while sitting in the heat and staring at the monitor...


        Killing is one thing. and the truth behind the monitor is simpler. that we actually periodically observe with weddings and children shepherds in Afghanistan.
  9. tank64rus
    tank64rus 9 October 2012 16: 55
    +2
    The creation of a ground-based airborne complex based on MBT would dramatically increase the capabilities of the tank as a type of weapon. The tank with standard UAVs and RCMs fit perfectly into the concept of contactless wars. In addition, aerosol countermeasures that change the thermal signature and radar signature and are an order of magnitude greater than those existing in the visible EMI range, a system of active protection and protection against ZOMP. All this was worked out by BTA 12 years ago. Now China, Korea, Italy have taken this path, America, Germany became interested iya.Nashi always determine the direction, and realize there is no one, which is now our military Akademii.Net they will not be development.
    1. vorobey
      vorobey 9 October 2012 17: 26
      +1
      Quote: tank64rus
      The creation of a ground-based airborne complex based on MBT would dramatically increase the capabilities of the tank as a type of armament. The tank with standard UAVs and RCMs fit perfectly into the concept of contactless wars


      just imagine what kind of fist is formed if you add a heavy infantry fighting vehicle with terminator weapons and ten arrows as an option.
      1. MrBoris555
        MrBoris555 15 December 2012 10: 07
        0
        By 2020, UVZ promises to present an unmanned version of the Armata Combat, which will go in the first wave
    2. KA
      KA 9 October 2012 22: 23
      0
      Quote: tank64rus
      Creation of a ground-air complex based on MBT

      What for? If MBT fights without contact, then he doesn’t need such strong armor and his gun must have a greater firing range and a desirably larger caliber, and as a result we get not MBT, but self-propelled guns!

      Saglasen and the author have already had the idea of ​​"flying in the air" to separate the equipment and guidance from the steam room. As a vivid example of self-propelled guns with shells Krasnopol and a fighter with a laser designator, you just need to go further to integrate all the forces and assets of the branches and arms of the troops into a single reconnaissance and strike (fire) complex!
  10. Botanologist
    Botanologist 9 October 2012 22: 07
    0
    From the logic of the article, it seems to me that the formation of a sort of network of a contactless tank environment is meaningless at all.
    Firstly, a tank - it is a combat vehicle, heavily protected, for the battlefield. If you remove the possibility of firing at the tank - what for does he even need? For vanity?
    Secondly, when creating such a contactless environment, there will still be a leading edge. Like, dislike, but in war as in war. This is not a headquarters cache. And someone will see the enemy. And he will die not only from a pturs, but also from a bullet, or even from a knife.
    Thirdly, the tank breakthrough from the enemy’s side will tear this entire contactless network like a bumblebee web.
    And then everyone will remember the traditional tactics of war. And all these devices will play an increasingly serious role, but only if they are built into the existing system - with tanks, planes, machine guns, mines, etc.
  11. scorpiosys
    scorpiosys 10 October 2012 01: 19
    +1
    As the Americans say - I’ll spit on you and run away, and you figure it out yourself!
  12. borisst64
    borisst64 10 October 2012 11: 17
    0
    An army that is preparing for a contactless war will inevitably lose in a direct battle. It is very difficult, and sometimes impossible, to avoid such a fight in a wooded and mountainous terrain. An example is Afghanistan, the Iraq scenario does not pass there.
  13. mkpda
    mkpda 10 October 2012 12: 36
    0
    Contactless war is an ideal that is possible today even for the United States only in greenhouse conditions. Another thing is that the United States primarily invests in infrastructure to conduct such wars. Certain types of weapons (even very outdated ones) can be used for contactless wars with the proper infrastructure.
  14. Alekseev
    Alekseev 10 October 2012 19: 13
    0
    Baby talk and not an article.
    What does no contact mean? "What is truth?" laughing
    Any means of destruction themselves are targets.
    And one science answers the question of who. Its name is "the science of winning" and all of its postulates are well known from Suvorov (and earlier) to the present day.
  15. Odessa16
    Odessa16 27 October 2012 21: 49
    0
    The Americans believe that the 6th generation non-contact war is possible - with the use of aircraft and navy. I consider such a concept flawed - there has not been a single war or conflict in which it was fully implemented. Even in Iraq, with the full support of aviation (here we still have to study and study with them!), Motorized units were used in half with special units. What is laid out in this article has been around for a century and is called artillery. Her last word - SPG PZH 2000 - shoots at 56 km with a rate of 10-12 rounds / min. Add corrected and anti-tank shells to the ammunition and you will be happy - everything that’s alive and creeping into a fifty-fifty kame will be a non-resident. In combination with AMX-10RC bands or something similar, this article will be discussed. But in straitened conditions, there will still be a good old contact battle with tanks, heavy armored vehicles, machine guns and shovels / knives (underline as necessary). Or teach each shell the mind and ability to inspect rooms and, if necessary, explode in them laughing