2S25 "Octopus-SD1" - is it really necessary for the Airborne Forces today?
If you believe Vladimir Artyakov, First Deputy General Director of the Rostec State Corporation, and you simply cannot help but believe him, then from his recent statement it follows that the modernized 125-mm 2S25 self-propelled anti-tank gun has passed the final tests.
However, if you look at the sources, the Sprut or the 2S25 self-propelled anti-tank gun was put into service on January 9, 2006. And as many as 36 cars were produced. Modernization is, of course, great, but why? Such a meager number of manufactured machines speaks volumes.
In some media, “analysis to the screw” of this machine has already begun, because the “Octopus” is a very peculiar phenomenon and nothing like it.
I suggest that we also join the general trend and deal with the car, and only then draw our own conclusions about whose it is the Octopus.
Actually, he is an airborne. Or airborne. From this all the oddities of the design. The machine must withstand landing on a platform under the domes and go into battle along with the guys in blue berets.
So, 2S25 "Octopus".
1. Not a tank
In some places, this product began to be called "light a tank"," a light landing support tank "and no less stupid terms. Yes, the Sprut looks like a tank, it has a turret, there is a cannon in the turret. Everything, on this further similarity with the tank ends. Caterpillars are also not an indicator, we have a lot of things moving on caterpillars.
Armor. Armor is what the tank has and what the Octopus does not have. The main difference between machines. The body of the "Octopus" is made of aluminum (hello, the fight against excess weight) and is reinforced with steel plates in the frontal projection. This provides the crew with protection against 12,7 mm caliber bullets in the ± 40 ° sector, as well as all-round protection against 7,62 mm caliber bullets and fragments of artillery shells.
The hull, however, was taken from almost a tank. "Product 934", a project of an amphibious light tank from the 70s of the last century. The 934 lost its relevance and development was stopped, but it was needed - and it was used again.
The Octopus also floats, but the armor of the Judge (named "Product 934") was thicker and could withstand a 23-mm projectile.
2. Not self-propelled guns
Indeed, it will not work to attribute the Octopus to the self-propelled guns, although its index is quite artillery. What is the problem? In service. How similar are "Carnation", "Acacia", "Msta"? Yes, what distinguishes them from the "Octopus". Weapon.
Any of our self-propelled guns is armed with a gun. A gun with a rifled barrel. It doesn't matter if it's a howitzer or not, it's a matter of rifling.
"Octopus" is armed with a tank gun with a smooth barrel 2A46. More precisely, its modification 2A75. Modification 2A75 differs from its progenitor in weight (150 kg lighter) and in the amount of rollback. In order to prevent the tank gun from destroying the light structure of the "tank", a very interesting decision was made: the barrel recoil length of the 2A75 was doubled, from 350 mm to 740 mm. And the suspension of the car was added to dampen the energy of the shot.
Otherwise, 2A75 is still the same 2A46. The same automatic loader, the same ammunition load of 40 shells, the shells, of course, are the same as the tanks.
3. SPTP?
Self-propelled anti-tank gun, or SPTP - this is how many began to call this contraption. But let's think about how realistic it is for the Octopus to go against the tank? I think - one shot, nothing more. And it should be deadly, because if not, and the tank crew will respond ... In general, I would not want to be in the Sprut at this moment, because even the explosion of a tank HE shell will send the Octopus into a deep knockout along with crew.
In general, in order to burn down a tank, there is an ATGM. A very good weapon, and not very expensive, if you take something from the "Metis" - "Fagot" area. Than it is quite possible to make any tank hiccup with black smoke. The calculation of anti-tank systems is also not a very reusable business, but if we take the cost of even one "Cornet" and the cost of "Octopus", then both in people and in rubles, "Octopus" will clearly be the leader.
In general, to fight against a tank on a cardboard structure, for which the first shell will be the last - well, so-so occupation. For suicide bombers.
But what then, "Octopus" is generally a stupid result of cutting, which is useless in the troops?
But let's not rush, okay?
4. Goals and opportunities
Here, in order to understand and appreciate how such a machine can be useful, let's think together about what to do with it on the battlefield. Not forgetting that back in 1982, the Octopus began to be developed for the Airborne Forces. And in general, in this figure - 1982 - a deep sacred meaning is hidden.
Landing. A highly mobile group of troops that lands behind enemy lines to capture a vital object and hold it until friendly approach.
Yes, as it was in Gostomel.
Let us take, for example, indeed, an airfield with adjacent areas, as an object that must be captured and held. And we send our paratroopers there, giving them everything that is possible.
And you can not so much when it comes to landing. The tanks that the Airborne Forces now have, alas, remain at the base. And everything that can be thrown away on the platform goes into action: "Octopus", BMD, "Nona". Well, mortars, MANPADS, anti-tank missiles to a heap of everything and in stock.
So, the landing force must capture and hold a certain territory. For this, the paratroopers have at their disposal:
- 2A75 caliber 125 mm;
- 2A70 caliber 100 mm;
- 2A72 caliber 30 mm;
- 2A51 caliber 120 mm.
It is clear that the Nona 2A51 cannon-mortar is still more of a mortar, which is its amazing charm. The 100-mm BMD-4M cannon is more likely a launcher for missiles from the Konkurs and HE shells. The 30-mm automatic gun on the BMD is for working on the calculations of machine guns and anti-tank systems.
Why is a 125-mm smoothbore gun needed on the battlefield, if everything or almost everything is already there to defeat infantry and armored vehicles? At least, but is there?
The Nona mortar gun is an excellent weapon when you need to throw a high-explosive fragmentation charge behind a house or ... In general, everyone knows perfectly well what a 120-mm mortar is good for.
BMD guns will work perfectly for colleagues, armored personnel carriers / infantry fighting vehicles, they will set the heat for grenade launchers, machine gunners, ATGM crews.
What is a tank gun without a tank for? Approximately for the same purpose for which a normal tank gun is needed. For powerful infantry support both in attack and defense. Bold: on direct fire. Yes, Nona and BMD guns work great at decent elevation angles, but here it is a heavy tank shell at direct fire and maximum distances. That is - up to 5 km. It still doesn't make any sense.
Demolish a house, destroy any armored vehicles, including trying to puzzle a tank from an ambush (in defense, I think the Sprut will look great buried up to the tower), in general, a tank shell can destroy a lot. There are practically no authorities for him.
A tank on the battlefield is an unshakable authority and the main force in battle. Because, as our tank expert Alexei Kuznetsov said, everyone shoots at a tank. "Octopus" is a different matter. He must not openly appear on the battlefield, the lot of the machine is to work from shelters and ambushes.
But in fact, we have a fairly mobile powerful cannon capable of supporting the landing force with fire. Considering that the range of tank shells we have is more than decent, that is, what to offer the enemy, from cumulative to high-explosive fragmentation.
It is difficult to say how realistic and justified this is at all. In general, it seems that for the "Octopus" on the modern battlefield there are no special goals!
5. Price and quality
Some experts doubt the value of the Octopus on the battlefield. The practice of conducting SVO has shown that long-term firing points can be perfectly hit with the help of ATGMs. The cumulative jet of an anti-tank missile burns through concrete and other obstacles, destroying enemy manpower. The same missiles can destroy enemy tanks and infantry fighting vehicles. Projectile…
The shell is cheaper.
This, of course, is a fact, but such a fact ... Not critical. Yes, when they began to create the "Octopus", in 1982, that is, FORTY years ago (!!!), then, of course, ATGMs were very expensive compared to shells.
Everything is easier today. Yes, the projectile is still cheaper, yes, it can easily be thrown in a box from a helicopter hovering above the ground (ATGM, they say, is also possible, but I would not experiment. And not because it can "that", but because what can then refuse), but here is such a moment: how many ATGMs do you need to plug the tank before convulsions?
Our expert Aleksey Kuznetsov, based on his practice, gave the following figures: to disable a tank (at least disable it) you need at least 1-2 armor-piercing shells. Cumulative - from 2. Each projectile has its pros and cons, an armor-piercing one can ricochet, a cumulative one may not work at all or it will be removed by the tank's remote sensing. But when "processing" the tank with cumulative projectiles, a certain amount will definitely be spent on "clearing" the surface of the tank from elements of dynamic protection. And the better and more modern the DZ, the more difficult it is to deal with it. However, this should be read in Alexei in his articles.
It turns out that the ATGM is more accurate than the gun. This is a fact that no one will dispute. But the rocket still does not fly as fast as a projectile from a tank gun, respectively, an armor-piercing sub-caliber has certain advantages over ATGM precisely due to its speed.
Of the entire range of barrels available to the Airborne Forces, only the Sprut can offer an armor-piercing crowbar. Yes, the advantage is conditional, but we are talking about a tank ... About the most complex and powerful combat unit on the battlefield. It is clear that sooner or later the antitankers will open any tank with ATGMs, the only question is that on the same battlefield there are a lot of people who want to prevent them from doing this. Here the "crowbar" looks very useful.
6. Applicability on the battlefield
Difficult question: how to properly use the "Octopus" on the modern battlefield, given the features of the machine.
To begin with, let's go through who are the targets for the "Octopus":
1. Tank. It is taken by an armor-piercing or cumulative projectile.
2. Infantry fighting vehicles / armored personnel carriers, other lightly armored vehicles.
3. Cannon artillery, self-propelled guns, wheeled and tracked anti-tank systems.
4. Fortified infantry positions, bunkers, bunkers, houses, barricades.
In general, all enemy equipment that is within direct fire on the battlefield is the object of attention of the Octopus.
Who is the enemy for the "Octopus"?
And the opponents are all of the above and even more.
1. The tank.
2. Armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles armed with rapid-fire 30-mm cannons. They are even more dangerous than tanks due to their rate of fire.
3. Anti-tank artillery and self-propelled guns.
4. Calculations of anti-tank systems.
5. Grenade launchers with RPK.
6. Heavy machine guns from 12,7 mm.
7. Helicopters and attack UAVs (Bayraktar bombs are more than enough to disable the Octopus).
8. MLRS.
In general, everyone is a dangerous enemy for the Octopus, except for an infantryman with a conventional 5,56 mm and 5,45 mm assault rifle. Even a 7,62-mm bullet with an armor-piercing core can pose a danger to the Sprut hull.
That is, using the "Octopus" on the battlefield in battle formations is similar to death.
This machine can only be used from camouflaged positions or from ambush. Only in this way, because otherwise the Octopus will become very easy prey, and not even a tank, but an infantry fighting vehicle with an automatic cannon or an armored personnel carrier with a heavy machine gun. And, most likely, in such a duel, the Octopus will lose precisely because it has a tank gun, which will lose to an automatic one in rate of fire.
What is "Octopus"?
This is an ordinary smoothbore gun, put on tracks, nothing more. And you need to use the car only as you would use the Rapier in its place. Well camouflaged and carefully choosing targets.
The Sprut has a number of undoubted advantages over the Rapier or D-30, which is still in service with the Russian Airborne Forces.
The gun moves by itself. This is a plus. The gun carries an ammunition load or even two. This is a plus. The gun can be ejected on a parachute system and float. This is also a plus. Unlike the towed one, the Sprut cannon can fire 360 degrees. This is a big plus.
Minus - the complete absence of armor, which imposes certain restrictions on the use. Of course, it is possible to install a remote sensing kit, which can somewhat improve the situation, but again, this is the weight that plays a significant role in airborne landing.
It is difficult to say how relevant today the project of forty years ago is. All targets for which the Sprut can work effectively are today quite normally hit by modern ATGMs. And, if we equip our airborne units with so many modern ATGMs, then the presence of the Octopus will not be so valuable.
The only thing that the Octopus has is armor-piercing shells with which it can work on tanks. Otherwise, the advantages are somewhat less significant, especially since, due to its cannon, the Sprut cannot fire from closed positions.
So it becomes clear why only 2006 cars have been produced since 36. The Russian paratroopers have yet to determine whether this gun is even needed today in the Airborne Forces, or whether it can be replaced by missiles on landing platforms. And in no case "Octopus" does not fit into the category of "light tank". This is an airborne self-propelled gun. Weapons, perhaps necessary on the battlefield to support the landing.
But - time will tell.
I express my deep gratitude to Alexey Kuznetsov (AlexTV) for the expert opinion.
Information