BTR B-10 "Kurganets-25". First time at the exhibition

120

The first display of the armored personnel carrier "Kurganets-25" at the parade in 2015


The development of a promising unified tracked platform of the middle class "Kurganets-25" is nearing completion. This project provides for the creation of a number of models for various purposes, primarily an infantry fighting vehicle and an armored personnel carrier. The BMP B-19 and BTR B-10 have already been repeatedly demonstrated at public events. However, only now, as part of the Army-2022 forum, the new armored personnel carrier has been put on static display and is available for closer inspection.



Exhibitions and parades


A unified tracked platform (UGP) with the code "Kurganets-25" has been developed since the beginning of the last decade by the Kurganmashzavod enterprise with the participation of a number of other organizations. The design work was successfully completed by the beginning of 2015, which made it possible to start building experimental equipment of various models. In addition, it became possible to show the new armored vehicles to the public.

The official premiere of the promising armored personnel carrier "Object 693" (later the B-10 index appeared) and the unified infantry fighting vehicle "Object 695" (B-19) was scheduled for May 9, 2015. Two types of vehicles were supposed to pass through Red Square as part of the parade crew. At the same time, the new machines were involved in the preparatory activities, and therefore caught the eye of the public and the lenses of cameras back in April.

On the appointed day, May 9, several cars at the Kurganets-25 UGP appeared on Red Square as part of a mechanized parade column. Together with them, several other promising developments in the field of armored combat vehicles were demonstrated that day. All of them expectedly attracted a lot of attention from specialists and lovers of technology.


The next public display of the BTR B-10 took place exactly one year later. In 2016, the parade column again included unified medium infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers. At that time, it was reported that work on two projects and the UGP was successfully continuing. They were planned to be completed over the next few years, after which the equipment was going to be put into service.

Materials for the project "Kurganets-25" and finished machines of this family were demonstrated in the future. So, the BMP B-19 repeatedly participated in new parades and was present at exhibitions. At the same time, the unified armored personnel carrier went into the shadows for several years. Experienced / pre-production B-10s participated in public events only in the form of mock-ups. The reasons for this were not specified, which led to rumors and suspicions. However, industry and the military department spoke about the continuation of work.

armored exhibit


As part of the current military-technical forum "Army-2022", the Russian defense industry once again presented all its current developments in the field of armored vehicles. The open area demonstrates the entire range of current and future combat vehicles, incl. the most interesting samples - such as the new MBT T-14 "Armata".

This year, Kurganmashzavod and allied companies again brought armored vehicles to Kubinka at the Kurganets-25 UGP. Once again, the well-known BMP B-19 is shown to the public. In addition, for the first time at an event of this format, everyone is shown an armored personnel carrier of a new model. For the first time since the appearance of this project, everyone can come up to the B-10 and inspect it closely. Also, an armored personnel carrier can be compared with an infantry fighting vehicle on the same platform.


Training for the 2016 parade

A promising armored personnel carrier is shown in full configuration and with a set of all necessary tools. Thus, a combat module with machine-gun armament is installed on a unified chassis. Overhead booking modules are fixed on the sides of the car, which increase the level of protection and help the car float. Internal volumes are not open for inspection.

Platform based


The B-10 is a medium-weight tracked armored personnel carrier with a typical set of tasks for such equipment. It must transport fighters with weapons and protect them from various threats. Also, the armored personnel carrier must land troops and support them with heavy machine gun fire.

The basis of such an armored personnel carrier is a unified chassis. It is made on the basis of the original armored hull with the required level of protection. According to known data, the frontal projection of the vehicle can withstand small-caliber projectiles, while protection from large-caliber bullets is provided from other angles. In addition, overhead booking blocks and dynamic protection can be mounted on the hull. It is possible to install active protection, such as the promising Afghanit complex.

The chassis has a front-engine layout; the engine and transmission are completely housed in the nose. A 750 hp diesel engine is used. Torque is given to the front drive wheels. The undercarriage is built on the basis of a hydropneumatic controlled suspension.


Next to the engine compartment is a control compartment with a driver's seat. The remaining volumes are given for target equipment. So, on the B-10, the corps accommodates eight paratroopers with equipment and personal weapons. Access to the troop compartment is through the aft ramp.

In the armored personnel carrier version, the Kurganets-25 platform is equipped with a remotely controlled combat module; it is completely located outside the case. The module is armed only with the Kord heavy machine gun. There are optoelectronic means for guidance. The module is controlled from the operator's workplace. It is reported that the fire control system is highly automated. In particular, it provides for automatic tracking of targets and shelling with the permission of the operator.

Tracked armored personnel carrier B-10 has a length of approx. 7,2 m with a width of 3,2 m. Mounted armor increases the width to 4 m. The height with the combat module exceeds 3 m. The combat weight, as reflected in the name of the project, is at the level of 25 tons. patency. There is also the possibility of swimming.

Project Perspectives


The main part of the development of the promising UGP "Kurganets-25" and the first vehicles based on it was completed in the middle of the tenth years. The first prototypes and pre-production models were built, which then participated in tests and various public events. In 2017-18 new equipment entered the state tests, according to the results of which it was supposed to go into service.


Machine gun combat module close-up

Work on the platform, armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles continues to this day. According to recent reports, they are nearing their end. The Ministry of Defense and industry in the foreseeable future are going to launch a full-fledged mass production of such equipment and begin re-equipping combat units. At the same time, the exact timing of the adoption of the B-10 or B-19 has not yet been called. The pace and other features of the upcoming rearmament of the ground forces also remain unknown.

However, it is already clear how such rearmament will affect motorized rifle troops in the future. It is easy to see that the B-10 and B-19 vehicles have a number of advantages over existing motorized rifle equipment. In addition, the Kurganets-25 platform has a great potential for modernization, which is yet to be used in the future.

In terms of protection, the new B-10 surpasses the existing BTR-80/82 and even the BMP-1/2. In addition, the base body can be supplemented with various attachments and other means. The caterpillar chassis and powerful engine give higher mobility and cross-country ability on off-road and rough terrain. According to these characteristics, the B-10 bypasses the current wheeled vehicles.

In terms of the caliber of the main armament, the promising B-10 is inferior to the existing armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles. However, the UGP "Kurganets-25" allows the installation of various weapons systems. By replacing the existing combat module with the Kord machine gun, it will be possible to obtain an increase in firepower and reach the level of other equipment - if the customer requires it.


On Red Square, May 9, 2016

It should be noted that not only armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles will be made on the Kurganets-25 platform. It was reported about the possibility of the appearance of command and staff, sanitary, repair and evacuation and other vehicles. Maximum unification will seriously simplify and reduce the cost of mass production of all the necessary equipment. In addition, the cost of joint operation will be reduced.

The future is clearing up


The exact plans of the Ministry of Defense and the defense industry regarding the Kurganets-25 platform and specific models of equipment based on it remain unknown. Nevertheless, the general course of work gives grounds for restrained optimism. Full-scale deliveries of such equipment may begin in the coming years.

In the meantime, the public and specialists are invited to personally and closely examine one of the promising samples. It is possible that the current open demonstration of the B-10 armored personnel carrier is a kind of hint of future events. It should be expected that now he will regularly participate in exhibitions and parades, and will also begin his military service.
120 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +8
    22 August 2022 06: 05
    Horror armored personnel carrier. It remains only to start the release.
    1. +24
      22 August 2022 06: 14
      Quote: Aron Zaavi
      Horror armored personnel carrier.

      Good or not, it will be clear only when he "participates", but there are problems with this
      1. +22
        22 August 2022 06: 49
        It seems that so far, not a working copy is being rolled in parades, but a type of running layout. They are still working on the filling, and it is not clear when they will finish. In any case, they are not tested in the real situation of the NWO, and most likely because there is nothing to test yet.
        1. +10
          22 August 2022 11: 29
          Quote: Nagan
          It seems that so far, not a working copy is being rolled in parades, but a type of running layout.
          Exactly. Pay attention to where the driver sits.
          Parade option (temporary):

          And this one should go to the troops (of course, after testing and acceptance)
          B-10 "Kurganets-25"

          B-11 "Kurganets-25"

          And for comparison BMP-1 and BMP B-11
          1. +8
            22 August 2022 11: 43
            Quote: Bad_gr
            And this one should go to the troops (of course, after testing and acceptance)

          2. 0
            22 August 2022 18: 36
            Healthy however.
          3. +3
            23 August 2022 00: 25
            Not! Everything is exactly the opposite: where the machan sits under the second skating rink, this is just a temporary option (factory test prototype). But where the mechanic is already in the center - this is already a pre-production version with a new engine layout. This was done at the request of the military, because. the wars in Afghanistan and Chechnya showed that it was not justified to place a driver mechanic in the area of ​​the second skating rink. When laying a landmine, mehans often died when they ran into a mine.
        2. +1
          26 August 2022 23: 18
          Yes, they have been rolling pancake layouts for 10 years. And the T-62 has already been taken to the front.
        3. 0
          19 November 2022 11: 10
          running layout type

          It is necessary to issue a decree banning equipment that has not been put on duty in the army from rolling out to parades. Otherwise, window dressing allows the incompetent to occupy positions and do their dirty work
    2. -2
      22 August 2022 11: 47
      Quote: Aaron Zawi
      Horror armored personnel carrier. It remains only to start the release.
      A good armored personnel carrier should be based on the units of serial trucks, this is the only way to ensure an acceptable price and reduce the cost of operation. Otherwise, there is no point in making an armored personnel carrier - an infantry fighting vehicle will cost comparable money with great opportunities. I do not think that Kurganets has common parts with Russian trucks (caterpillars, 25 tons of mass).
    3. -4
      22 August 2022 20: 29
      Horror armored personnel carrier. It remains only to start the release.


      I don’t see anything good in it, the armor is like that of the BMP-1/2 (that is, none), the armament is weaker than on the BTR-60, and besides, it is on tracks.

      The layout is just terrible, the driver sits in the center of the car - a lot of blind spots for him, it will be especially inconvenient when loading onto railway platforms and a car platform, the engine compartment occupies half of the hull.

      The BTR-80 is a level better in every way than this caterpillar coffin.

      The B-10 and B-11 project is just a mediocre waste of money.
      1. +5
        22 August 2022 21: 02
        Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan
        I don’t see anything good in it, the armor is like that of the BMP-1/2 (that is, none), the armament is weaker than on the BTR-60, and besides, it is on tracks.
        Do not tell fairy tales, after all, adults are sitting here.
        According to the performance characteristics "Kurganets-25" from any side holds a bullet from the KPVT
        (Muzzle velocity, m/s: 976-1005
        Cartridge: 14,5×114mm)

        Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan
        The layout is just terrible, the driver sits in the center of the car - a lot of blind spots for him,
        Have you tried reading before writing? The cars that are currently being tested have the driver's seat in front to the left of the engine.

        Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan
        The BTR-80 is a level better in every way than this caterpillar coffin.
        What I was talking about, scribbling from the bulldozer.
        1. -4
          22 August 2022 21: 10
          Do not tell fairy tales, after all, adults are sitting here.
          According to the performance characteristics "Kurganets-25" from any side holds a bullet from the KPVT
          (Muzzle velocity, m/s: 976-1005
          Cartridge: 14,5×114mm)


          You are telling fairy tales, is it really not clear that the KPVT bullet is not relevant at all now, a modern armored personnel carrier should hold a 30-mm projectile and a fragment from a 152/155 mm projectile that exploded nearby !!!

          Not enough for you videos from dill, where is the BMP-3 in a sieve from fragments or in pieces from undermining on the TM-57 ?!

          Was it worth spending a lot of money to make something like the BMP-3 with only the engine in the front?

          NO! Russia needs a new heavy armored personnel carrier and a heavy infantry fighting vehicle, not these cardboard crafts made from sticks and something else.
          1. +4
            22 August 2022 21: 18
            And preferably with KAZ.
            1. +2
              22 August 2022 21: 19
              And preferably with KAZ.


              I would even say necessarily with KAZ.

              "Namer" do not sell? In place of our authorities, I would buy 500 pieces, for starters.
              1. +1
                22 August 2022 21: 47
                Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan
                And preferably with KAZ.


                I would even say necessarily with KAZ.

                "Namer" do not sell? In place of our authorities, I would buy 500 pieces, for starters.

                No. We have small-scale production. Battalion kit per year.
              2. +1
                23 August 2022 22: 36
                So we are supposed to T15 for the role of Namer soldier
                There are KAZ and DZ and tank armor and another 30mm gun with Karnet angry
                1. 0
                  26 August 2022 04: 37
                  It seems like they have already decided to install the AU220M module with a 57-mm gun. God forbid you change your mind.
          2. -3
            22 August 2022 21: 27
            Well done Ratmir correctly wrote!

            Stryker (and any other Western BMP) gouges Kurganets to pieces ...
          3. +3
            22 August 2022 21: 47
            Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan
            The stories you tell...

            Well, yes, of course, I'm talking here about the fact that the armor of the new armored personnel carrier is like that of the BMP-1-2, and the protection is lower than that of the BTR-80. And the driver is not sitting there.
            How is it possible to write about what is not an ear, not .........
          4. 0
            23 August 2022 22: 20
            What kind of utter nonsense are you writing, just kapets)) belay negative
  2. +18
    22 August 2022 06: 13
    I liked the phrase about the foreseeable future. I hope another 15 years of testing and can be adopted))
    1. +17
      22 August 2022 06: 58
      I liked the phrase about the foreseeable future. I hope another 15 years of testing and can be adopted))

      You are not in such a hurry, after 15 years they will say that it is already morally obsolete and will modernize for another 15 years
    2. +6
      22 August 2022 08: 45
      Quote: FoBoss_V
      I liked the phrase about the foreseeable future.

      Also drew attention. I wonder how many years it will be? Previously, there was a phrase about the near future, but is it longer or faster than years?
  3. +3
    22 August 2022 06: 24
    Not a specialist in armored vehicles, but such a question. Are these side screens hanging or not? Will they create problems with the chassis during the period when it is warm during the day and frost at night. Like tigers in the Second World War, the rinks and caterpillars under them will not be clogged with mud at night?
    1. +12
      22 August 2022 06: 38
      These are removable panels that provide additional buoyancy (yes, our beloved MO still believes that armored vehicles should float) and provide additional protection. They can be removed for maintenance.
      1. +1
        22 August 2022 06: 40
        Thanks for the tip, I thought it was an additional protection
        1. +5
          22 August 2022 06: 41
          They also give additional protection, and not bad, due to the spacing of the reservation.
          1. 0
            22 August 2022 11: 33
            Quote: Mitroha
            I thought it was protection
            These boxes with dynamic protection (DZ)
            1. +1
              22 August 2022 11: 41
              No. They have already been shown in detail many times.
              1. +1
                22 August 2022 12: 02
                Quote: Lex_is
                No. They have already been shown in detail many times.
                From the information that I came across, DZ is optional. Boxes with remote sensing have positive buoyancy.
                1. -1
                  22 August 2022 14: 31
                  I don't know what you came across. The developers of the platform have repeatedly said that these are blocks of additional buoyancy and additional armor. I suspect that they have more accurate information about what they designed
                  1. +1
                    22 August 2022 14: 49
                    Quote: Lex_is
                    I don't know what you came across.
                    came across Interview with the General Director of JSC "Scientific Research Institute of Steel" Dmitry Kupryunin:
                    Now for lightly armored vehicles, we use remote sensing in vehicles on the Kurganets-25 platform. And for the first time, the Russian Ministry of Defense ordered a combat vehicle in which a remote sensing gun can be installed as an option. ....
                    https://bmpd.livejournal.com/2975999.html
                    1. 0
                      22 August 2022 16: 25
                      Then it is clear.
                      Research Institutes have become a developer of dynamic protection, who are persistently trying to shove it into everything that is possible and impossible, including the BTR-82, the Ministry of Defense is diligently fighting back from this.
                      Therefore, naturally, the developers and the Ministry of Defense do not plan any dynamic protection, but the Steel Research Institute does.
                      1. +2
                        22 August 2022 17: 12
                        Quote: Lex_is
                        Therefore, naturally, the developers and the Ministry of Defense do not plan any dynamic protection, but the Steel Research Institute does.
                        The interview said: ....." we use DZ in cars on the platform "Kurganets-25" ... and ... Ministry of Defense of Russia ordered a combat vehicle in which DZ can be installed as an option..."
                        In the video, a car with bare sides (without remote sensing), at the parade a car with boxes (with remote sensing). When necessary, then the DZ is hung and there are no separate boxes that are only for buoyancy.
                        But the BMP-3 with DZ for light armored vehicles (the same huge boxes)

                        And here are tests of such protection on the BMP-2
      2. 0
        22 August 2022 07: 22
        I hope the high ranks of the MoD never find out about the existence of a game like Red Alert. Otherwise, we have a chance to see all the splendor of the twilight genius of the military-industrial complex represented by another shushpanzer. laughing
        1. +1
          26 August 2022 05: 02
          In computer toys, you can depict a lot of things that have no connection with reality. In this regard, I recall the reason for the forced transition of heavy tanks and self-propelled guns from the chassis KV to the IS, the reason for the abandonment of the KV-3, KV-4, KV-5 during the war, from the IS-3 after the war, the reasons why the M551 in the USA was only at the ILC, like the T-34, T-34-85 and IS-2, they had to cross the ditches, tests 2B1 and 2A3, when the recoil force after a few shots tore off the suspension units from the mounts, and so on. You look at the computer implementation of many invented wunderwaffles and you are amazed. No problems with recoil, no weight distribution, no sticking the gun into the ground and "small" problems with shooting after that ... Well, there the barrel is torn, the replacement of the deceased crew ... Little things.
          God forbid that the Ministry of Defense from the General Staff has never been in such a wide margin as you described.
          1. +1
            27 August 2022 07: 40
            Well what can I say, the Tesla tank makes zap-zap



            "Sickle" tra-ta-ta-ta


            And the tank "Prisma" vzhiu-viu



            But all this is as a joke, unfortunately in VO any word about the domestic military-industrial complex, even in a humorous way, is practically haram. laughing It seems to me that it should be simpler, all the most stupid things are done with a serious face.
      3. 0
        22 August 2022 19: 58
        As long as there is Berlin, Russian armored personnel carriers should swim. And who claims the opposite case of counterintelligence
    2. +6
      22 August 2022 07: 11
      Quote: Mitroha
      Like tigers in the Second World War, the rinks and caterpillars under them will not be clogged with mud at night?

      The side screens have nothing to do with this problem, since the Tigers had a problem with dirt between the staggered overlapping rollers, because of which this dirt could not be removed / opened. At Kurganets, all the space around the skating rinks is open / accessible, and the dirt itself is immediately squeezed out.
      1. +3
        22 August 2022 07: 26
        I know how it was with the Tigers, but this part raised doubts, because the dirt will clog it instantly, kmk

        But it was already suggested above that they are removable
    3. +4
      22 August 2022 09: 50
      I'm interested in something else.
      Looking at the place where the driver is sitting, it seems that he does not see what is under his nose.
      I dare to assume that in front of the equipment, 7-10 meters is a "dead corner", where the driver does not see anything.
      But maybe I'm wrong.
      I would ride, maybe I would become smarter.)))))
      1. +3
        22 August 2022 11: 38
        Quote: Blacksmith 55
        Looking at the place where the driver is sitting, it seems that he does not see what is under his nose.
        These are parade cars and their driver does not sit as intended. Cars will go to the troops where the mechanic driver will sit in front-left (at the front car there is an air intake for the radiator)
  4. +11
    22 August 2022 06: 59
    My sofa opinion, the Kurgan will not go into the series.
    In terms of armor, the Kurganets does not differ radically from the BMP-3 (if we discard the mounted remote sensing), it has more weight but also the dimensions are much larger. In terms of armament, the Kurgan does not differ from the manul, the combat module is the same.
    It is easier to cover with remote sensing, gratings and additional armor of the BMP-3 by finalizing the existing project. Plus, it will be possible to remodel existing buildings.
    But the T-15 should go into the series. According to the brigade, or maybe two per district, it is necessary.
    1. +3
      22 August 2022 08: 50
      A narrow caterpillar is striking, i.e. this indicates low weight and weak armor protection. In real combat operations, the people will still sit on top, because nothing is visible from them. When hitting a mine, a mass grave. And sitting on top is not comfortable. As a platform for a mortar, communication center, air defense system, etc. etc. maybe it makes sense. This thing does not reveal any advantages, with the exception of the hatch at the stern. It is actually noticeable that it was designed based on the capabilities of the existing production, and taking into account the meager production volumes that do not cover the current exit of equipment from operation, this is nothing. In general, light armored vehicles are a waste of money, extremely low combat survivability, in fact, it remains a rather narrow niche in conflicts of low and low intensity. The armored personnel carrier should be simple, mass-produced and based on units mass-produced by the industry (we, of course, have problems with this due to the poorly developed transport engineering) to keep fragments of heavy artillery, it is not necessary to swim. The hull should be steel, there are many problems with duralumin, especially in terms of military repairs.
      1. +3
        22 August 2022 10: 37
        Booking is just better than existing infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers. Especially anti-mine. So no one will sit on the armor.
        And why did you decide that there will be a bad review?
        1. +1
          22 August 2022 11: 20
          I don’t understand what the problem is to put several monitors inside the BO with the image output from the cameras of the circular view.
          Elsi has motion capture sensors - it will also report where the enemy is.
          1. +4
            22 August 2022 13: 04
            That's just the point that all this is provided. Indeed, only real combat operations will show how effective the review of cameras and other electronics is. But now squealing and talking nonsense about "no review" is stupid.
      2. +2
        22 August 2022 11: 50
        Quote: DWG1905
        A narrow caterpillar is striking, i.e. this indicates low weight and weak armor protection. In real combat operations, the people will still sit on top, because nothing is visible from them. When hitting a mine, a mass grave. And sitting on top is not comfortable. As a platform for a mortar, communication center, air defense system, etc. etc. maybe it makes sense. This thing does not reveal any advantages, with the exception of the hatch at the stern. It is actually noticeable that it was designed based on the capabilities of the existing production, and taking into account the meager production volumes that do not cover the current exit of equipment from operation, this is nothing. In general, light armored vehicles are a waste of money, extremely low combat survivability, in fact, it remains a rather narrow niche in conflicts of low and low intensity. The armored personnel carrier should be simple, mass-produced and based on units mass-produced by the industry (we, of course, have problems with this due to the poorly developed transport engineering) to keep fragments of heavy artillery, it is not necessary to swim. The hull should be steel, there are many problems with duralumin, especially in terms of military repairs.

        With all my rejection of Kurganets, he weighs 25 tons. This means that security will be at least as good as the BMP-3 and Bradley.
        And light armored personnel carriers are needed, and MCIs, and heavy infantry fighting vehicles. Each technique has its niche of application. The Russian Federation has no problems with the production of BTT at all. Both Tankograd and Kurgan (not to mention Omsk and Arzamas) have the opportunity to increase deliveries, if not by an order of magnitude, then at times for sure. There is no shortage of money in the budget now, it would be necessary to increase the order for a short time. The fact that government purchases do not increase indirectly indicates a relatively small loss of equipment.
    2. -3
      22 August 2022 13: 20
      and 25 tons is too big
      1. +1
        26 August 2022 05: 09
        laughing laughing laughing Some armor is not enough, for others the weight is large. The driver is sitting in the wrong place. There are no satisfied ones, only critics.
    3. 0
      22 August 2022 23: 37
      I also think "manul" will go into the series. It is not for nothing that they are actively working on it. There is a rear ramp, the armament is the same (30kA), the protection is the same, and the cost is an order of magnitude lower (unification with BMP 3)
    4. 0
      23 August 2022 22: 40
      Which brigade..?! Are you apchem at all? It's like a dead poultice))
      The heavy infantry fighting vehicle T-15 must be equipped with divisions - that's what they should be called: a heavy infantry assault division. Instead of motorized rifle divisions. And we should have at least 10-12 of these. Exactly the same thing should be done with tank divisions - a heavy tank assault division - which will be equipped with T-14s. At least eight such pieces to form.
      To form motorized riflemen as light mechanized infantry into brigades (OMSB) and equip them with Kurganets-25 infantry fighting vehicles, Boomerang armored personnel carriers and T-90M tanks.
      And for example, the same air assault brigades will equip the BMP-3M "Manul".
      Then we can talk about some minimal modernization of the army, but with our military bureaucracy, all this is of course very optimistic dreams.
      1. +1
        24 August 2022 09: 51
        Well, this is some kind of manilovism.
        Why do we need divisions, and even 10-12 pieces? This is only in these parts will be 140-150 thousand HP. More than half of the ground forces of the Russian Federation. A brigade per district, possibly two for local operations at the level of 08.08.08. 8 brigades from four districts in one fist, that's almost three divisions. A third of the personnel of the NWO.
        Moreover, I believe that such units should be engaged in hacking the defense line and storming cities. That is, even such a number of brigades in the NWO would be clearly excessive.
        Replacing the BMP1 / 2 with a troika is yes, the right thing to do. Equipping all artillery units with modern ASUNO is a paramount thing in general. Saturation of UAV combat units, establishing fast and high-quality target designation. And 10-12 divisions, this will obviously wait.
        The principle of reasonable sufficiency has not been canceled yet.
        1. +1
          25 August 2022 00: 35
          For such a huge country as Russia, a brigade per district (even two) is nothing! The era of wars is coming and we need a powerful army capable of responding and resisting any threats from outside. And not a mini funny army and a mosquito fleet for parades. China, with its huge army at its very side, cannot do without two brigades per district. Serdyukov's reform in the middle of the XNUMXs was incredibly disastrous for the army. And this will come back to haunt us more than once))
          1. -1
            26 August 2022 05: 34
            Wars are different these days. No one will drive millions of armies - there is no point in them. You can’t stock up on such a horde of modern weapons and you won’t be able to learn how to use these weapons correctly. A microscope in the hands of a fool is a hammer, and it is also extremely inconvenient. Millions of conscripts with junk in their hands, which they do not even know how to use, are disposed of by modern weapons quickly enough. The current wars are mostly proxy wars. Proxies can be armed with junk and without really teaching them to be thrown to the slaughter, hoping to cause damage. No pity. To fight like this now and learn in the course of the NWO. However, they also learn to resist modern weapons. But the real danger is rather the terrorist threat, the destruction of the consciousness of the population. When people organize terrorist attacks, shoot people en masse, set fire to military registration and enlistment offices for a small bribe, collect data on the military of their country and their families - for a small bribe, or even because the brain is polluted. Or, again, they destroy their own country, infrastructure, compatriots who do not share their views - to spite the "Muscovites". That's where the real threat lies. And after all, many of these people live and will live with us in the same country, you can’t get away from this. The American army is easier to defeat than nonsense in the minds of compatriots and neighbors. It will be worse, in my humble opinion.
  5. +2
    22 August 2022 07: 41
    There, according to the press, the main difficulties were with a diesel engine .... The modules installed everything there ..... Only I didn’t see from BMP 3 ...... They even installed from BMP2M
  6. +1
    22 August 2022 08: 01
    By replacing the existing combat module with the Kord machine gun, it will be possible to obtain an increase in firepower and reach the level of other equipment - if the customer requires it.
    Not if, but change and at least to "Kord"
  7. -7
    22 August 2022 08: 02
    Almost zero own weapons! That is, there is nothing to support the landed infantry! That is, an armored chest and all that? How not smart!
    1. The comment was deleted.
      1. +1
        22 August 2022 08: 29
        Out of the blue, but thank you!
    2. +11
      22 August 2022 08: 12
      We are watching the Israeli TBMP Namer - armament 12,7mm Browning.
      1. -10
        22 August 2022 08: 27
        And what prevented them from arming as many as 57mm with two independent guns, and even with remote detonation? Don't look at Israel. In any action, and especially in the military, the maximum effect from the use of technical weapons is desirable!
        1. +5
          22 August 2022 08: 45
          And what prevented them from arming as many as 57mm with two independent guns, and even with remote detonation?

          Yes, nothing interfered, but instead of landing, only ammunition for two 57mm guns would fit ...
          1. 0
            23 August 2022 09: 18
            No one speaks for the placement of ammunition in the habitable space! Behind the tower to the stern, arrange a niche for ammunition.
            1. 0
              26 August 2022 05: 42
              Carrying ammunition in a niche at the level of the tower, in fact, on the roof of the landing vehicle, the idea is extremely successful. And the weight distribution will be - a fairy tale is simple. And how is it that no one in the world has thought of this yet?
        2. +6
          22 August 2022 11: 54
          Quote from Electric
          And what prevented them from arming as many as 57mm with two independent guns, and even with remote detonation?

          For this, there is an infantry fighting vehicle on the same base.
          And the armored personnel carrier is battlefield taxi + chassis for all kinds of auxiliary machines. The exchange of weapons for internal volume.
          1. 0
            23 August 2022 05: 55
            An armored personnel carrier is a taxi, but not a battlefield ...
            1. -1
              23 August 2022 09: 19
              Yep, armored hearse!
            2. 0
              26 August 2022 05: 53
              Watching the fight. If it’s a rifle, without MANPADS and the like, it’s quite a taxi. The same Tiger or Typhoon, even with maximum armor, will not withstand a line from a 12,7 machine gun, and it will not cover the landing force, unlike an armored personnel carrier.
  8. +5
    22 August 2022 09: 08
    Some 10 more years of "improvements taking into account the experience of the SVO" and it will be possible to show at another exhibition, and in 2-3 years mass production will begin, 5 pieces per year. But this is not accurate ...
    1. +1
      22 August 2022 09: 29
      No, that's it ... It is just such a development of events that will be executed with accuracy
      1. +5
        22 August 2022 11: 12
        In the meantime, the BMP-1 \ 2 have not run out. Motorized rifles will ride on them .... But what parades, what exhibitions and forums!
        1. +5
          22 August 2022 11: 55
          Quote from: danil23518
          In the meantime, the BMP-1 \ 2 have not run out. Motorized riflemen will ride on them ...

          BMP-1/2 will be too bold. Only the eternal "motorbike", only hardcore!
  9. -2
    22 August 2022 12: 30
    The Kurgan is a little expensive, but the one shown at the B19 exhibition, with the Epoch module (57 mm gun), is more suitable today!
  10. +5
    22 August 2022 12: 40
    A unified tracked platform (UGP) with the code "Kurganets-25" has been developed since the beginning of the last decade by the enterprise "Kurganmashzavod

    The author described himself, in my opinion. As far as I remember, Kurganets has been developed since the beginning / middle of the POZA of the last decade. Around the time that Apple began developing the first iPhone, the Turks and Iranians began to develop their strike drones, and Elon Max founded his Tesla and SpaceX
    1. -2
      22 August 2022 14: 12
      About visibility. My experience with the REAL infantry. And the car will have armor protection - then visibility will be poor - yes, bad, but you can catch a bullet, so armor protection is needed - but with poor visibility you can not only catch a bullet - then armor protection is not needed. This is a dilemma. The experience of the database shows that visibility is chosen. In general, it is necessary to distinguish between database options, it is one thing to move on the offensive behind tanks under enemy fire (or damaging factors of nuclear weapons), another to roam along roads with ambushes in the absence of a solid front line. So what is this armored personnel carrier for? Regarding the possibilities of our industry, your words are in the ears of God. If this thing weighs 25 tons, then the question is about the specific pressure on the ground. And about resistance to undermining - if you do not strengthen the anti-bottom mine.
      1. -2
        22 August 2022 16: 34
        It's not a dilemma. This is stupidity when "real infantry" having heard enough of soldiers' tales begins to ride on armor, keep hatches open, ensuring the flow of the blast wave, etc.
        If they need such visibility, then they can ride in the back of the Urals with open sides, visibility will be better nowhere and it’s more convenient to jump off.
        The same thing about anti-bottom mines.
        Look at the resistance of modern technology to undermining under the bottom and compare with the mass of explosives in anti-bottom mines.
        1. 0
          22 August 2022 22: 53
          Quote: Lex_is
          It's stupidity when "real infantry" after listening to soldiers' tales begins to ride on armor, keep hatches open

          This is not stupidity, but a severe necessity. In any case, those who themselves have been "in combat" will agree with this.
          1. +4
            23 August 2022 08: 04
            No need to retell this army dolbo ... bizm.
            This nonsense was born when it suddenly became clear that the narrow and beautiful BMP 2 does not hold a blast at all, it easily breaks into the side, dousing the landing with solar rain from internal tanks, and after sitting in the landing at +40 the enemy will no longer be needed, you will die yourself. And the people massively climbed onto the armor, with all the accompanying falls, arms and legs broken by the tower, a beautiful landing during explosions, etc.

            When BTR-82A with air conditioners appeared in Syria, somehow there were no people who wanted to ride them, riding Typhoons, then no one tried to climb, and, oddly enough, no one complained about the view.
            1. 0
              23 August 2022 14: 14
              All the same, you prove that it is better and safer in the landing? If you do not prove that this is so, why chatter? And yes, a beautiful expansion of the infantry on the blast, they saw it once, most likely, in Chechnya, on video .. when our batr stuck on an anti-tank mine at speed. I'm pretty sure of it. Well, and one more thing, when there is no fear of an ambush from greenery or from the mountains, then it is possible in the landing. The intensity of the conflict is not to be compared!
              1. -1
                23 August 2022 15: 00
                Especially for you, I report:
                It is now 2022, the time of dashing tank assaults on armor has passed many years ago (apparently you were not informed), as well as the era to which the glorious BMP-1 and BMP-2 belong, in the landing of which riding was a rare perversion.
                So clearer?
                In modern vehicles, landing is better and safer. And no one, all over the world except our giants of thought, rides on armor. And even on the BMP-3, which is not very modern, they no longer ride on armor. So the sooner the perversions of the past are forgotten, the better it will be for the personnel.
                1. +1
                  24 August 2022 20: 14
                  Quote: Lex_is
                  Especially for you, I report:
                  It is now 2022, the time of dashing tank assaults on armor has passed many years ago (apparently you were not informed), as well as the era to which the glorious BMP-1 and BMP-2 belong, in the landing of which riding was a rare perversion.
                  So clearer?
                  In modern vehicles, landing is better and safer. And no one, all over the world except our giants of thought, rides on armor. And even on the BMP-3, which is not very modern, they no longer ride on armor. So the sooner the perversions of the past are forgotten, the better it will be for the personnel.

                  And how our fighters are RESPECTED for their incomparable courage. I repeat once again ... WHO HAS NOT SIT ON THE ARMOR, will not understand ... Will not understand anything. Return to Instructions.
                  1. 0
                    25 August 2022 04: 52
                    In essence, there is nothing to say, have you started about courage?
                    The courage of some is always a direct consequence of the stupidity of others. Didn't they tell you this in the bar?

                    And what kind of instructions will he turn to, where is this spelled out? Nowhere, in any instructions, this is not spelled out.
        2. +1
          23 August 2022 14: 08
          Well, there are those who themselves have tried how best to ride, on, or in .. so believe me, on .. much better .. Especially in potentially dangerous areas of traffic, say in a convoy, no one will go inside the armor, not even because of the mines, but simply there is the possibility of quickly dismounting and taking up defense. So don’t be stupid, and if you didn’t go along the battle paths yourself, but didn’t go, there’s nothing to write about ..
          1. Hog
            -1
            23 August 2022 16: 41
            Well, there are those who have tried it themselves, how best to ride, on, or in .. so believe me, on .. much better ..

            Of course, until the first machine gun (the same PC) or a close mine / shell explosion that shaves off all these horseback riders, and besides, an infantry fighting vehicle or armored personnel carrier will only scratch the paint.
            Riding on top of the armor is insanity of the times of Afghanistan caused by fear of mines and poor protection against them in infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers. In the current conflict, there is much more chance of getting a junk of fragments from an incoming mine / projectile than being blown up by an anti-tank mine.
            1. 0
              27 August 2022 23: 03
              Quote: Hog
              Well, there are those who have tried it themselves, how best to ride, on, or in .. so believe me, on .. much better ..

              Of course, until the first machine gun (the same PC) or a close mine / shell explosion that shaves off all these horseback riders, and besides, an infantry fighting vehicle or armored personnel carrier will only scratch the paint.
              Riding on top of the armor is insanity of the times of Afghanistan caused by fear of mines and poor protection against them in infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers. In the current conflict, there is much more chance of getting a junk of fragments from an incoming mine / projectile than being blown up by an anti-tank mine.

              And who told you that armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles, even Marder protects against fragments of shells? Why do you think, for example, the T-72 commander's hatch has a thickness of about 40 (forty) mm? And all because fragments from a 152 (155) mm projectile are EASY to make holes in armor of lesser thickness. So the infantry doesn’t care where to ride on the armor of an armored personnel carrier or under it. The only thing that the armor of an armored personnel carrier protects from is from riflemen and from a shock wave. But unfortunately there are no large fragments.
              1. Hog
                0
                27 August 2022 23: 50
                And all because fragments from a 152 (155) mm projectile are EASY to make holes in armor of lesser thickness.

                Yes, well, I did not know)))
                Imagine, in addition to 152/155, there are other calibers.
                The same 60mm mine or grenade from the AGS will be enough for all the inmates, but for those who are inside, they are neither warm nor cold.
                PS: Well then, to be sure, you need to immediately climb naked on the armor.
                1. 0
                  28 August 2022 18: 58
                  I started the post simply because I need, in fact, a HEAVY armored personnel carrier with TANK ARMOR. But the infantry is completely on the drum where a 105mm 122mm 152 (155mm) 82mm or 120mm mine will explode at 5 or 10m from the armored personnel carrier. It will still turn out to be rubbish. And the second reason why infantry rides on armor is SITUATIONAL awareness. No periscope can replace a living eye. Of course, the commander of the armored personnel carrier, if he has a thermal imager at hand, can detect a target before the infantry, but after dismounting from the airborne squad of the armored personnel carrier (infantry fighting vehicle), the infantry needs 5-10 seconds to inspect and perceive the environment. (This problem also exists for heavy armored personnel carriers (infantry fighting vehicles) but there at least the infantry is under normal protection, while the existing and so-called promising ones have no information about the battlefield, but there is no adequate protection either, but the heavy Israeli Namer has at least normal protection. a mine with a direct hit will not make a mass grave out of an armored personnel carrier.Although you are right if it explodes a couple of meters away, those who are sitting on the side of the explosion will not seem a little.
      2. +3
        22 August 2022 23: 54
        Quote: DWG1905
        So what is this armored personnel carrier for? Regarding the possibilities of our industry, your words are in the ears of God. If this thing weighs 25 tons, then the question is about the specific pressure on the ground.

        Is it really difficult to understand what this armored personnel carrier is for? All tracked vehicles of the battalion should be on the same base! In a motorized rifle battalion, not everyone needs to have an infantry fighting vehicle, for example, signalmen in a communications platoon and a grenade launcher platoon will receive this armored personnel carrier. On the basis of this caterpillar platform, both KShM and sanitary transporters will be created ...
  11. 0
    22 August 2022 14: 18
    When to fight? When?
  12. 0
    22 August 2022 15: 59
    Today I watched the film "The Pentagon Wars" (1998) about the history of the creation of "Bradley", 17 years, 14 billion dollars and this is before state tests.
    With its size, the Kurganets resembles an American infantry fighting vehicle. No matter how he repeats the history of the creation of "Bradley", when years and a lot of money went to "don't understand what."
  13. +7
    22 August 2022 16: 01
    There are two armies in the Russian Federation: an exhibition one and a real one. The exhibition army is completely "unparalleled", etc. But the real one is still fighting with "Soviet galoshes". "Effective managers" were not able to re-equip the RF SV with modern equipment.
    1. +2
      22 August 2022 22: 35
      Quote: Raccoon
      "Effective managers" were not able to re-equip the RF SV with modern equipment.

      A candle should be lit to those who managed to save stocks of Soviet weapons, equipment and ammunition from the wild raid of "Serdyukovism" to dispose of them ...
      1. +5
        22 August 2022 23: 10
        It is the Land of the Soviets who needs to light a candle, because she created so much technology that the "talented" descendants, in 30 years of active sawing and selling off the Soviet legacy, could not destroy everything.
  14. 0
    22 August 2022 16: 17
    It is necessary to conduct a thorough analysis of why modern equipment is being delivered to the troops so slowly and the perpetrators should be punished to the fullest extent of wartime
    1. 0
      22 August 2022 19: 08
      No, no, what are you! No one is to blame, it itself
  15. +2
    22 August 2022 20: 01
    It does not climb into any gates, For 8 years, the Kurgan has not been brought to mind and has not been put into series. During this time, the Americans designed and built two aircraft carriers. And we cannot make a simple armored personnel carrier. With the T-14 and SU-57 the same story. We can only engage in window dressing at parades and exhibitions. And the army is forced to fight on plywood infantry fighting vehicles -1; 2 and motorized leagues.
    1. 0
      22 August 2022 23: 42
      8 years you turned it down. In 15, a "box" rode at the parade
      1. +2
        23 August 2022 08: 26
        In 2013 there was the first show at the exhibition and promises that in 2016 he would go to the troops.
    2. 0
      26 August 2022 06: 33
      First, it was necessary to understand what exactly is required of Kurganets. You read the comments - one has little armor, the other has a lot of weight ... In the Moscow Region, I think something similar happens when discussing new technology. With Kurganets, it seems that they finally decided, and thank God. Still, they would start producing it in commercial quantities.

      With the T-14, the story is about the same - you must first understand what is required of it, but in the case of the T-14 it is completely incomprehensible whether they have already decided or not. The Ministry of Defense claims that this is not urgent yet, the T-90M is a completely modern tank.

      Su-57 is a separate story. Partly the same story, but only with filling, as far as I understand.
      This is not about weapons, but about a new modular scalable on-board computer and electric drives for control planes - they want to completely abandon hydraulics in principle in favor of electrics, which will give both faster, more reliable controllability and a reduction in the weight of an empty aircraft. It seems like the engine of the second stage is on its way. The new on-board computer will make it much easier to update equipment, on-board systems and weapons. Su-57 is being modernized before our eyes. Outwardly, there are almost no differences, the glider is the same, but inside it is not at all the same as it was two or three years ago. It remains to learn how to produce it quickly, but alas, there are still problems with this. request
  16. -2
    22 August 2022 22: 15
    The queen gave birth in the night, not that ........
    It is visually visible that it is real, there are no weapons, the dead zones for a machine gun are large. An infantry transport truck, nothing more. Saw guys and further unparalleled. The partners took away the yachts, we need to buy new ones at home.
    1. +1
      26 August 2022 06: 59
      A relatively comfortable truck, protected from large shooting, with its own remote-controlled machine gun for transporting infantry to the "second line", yes. In my opinion - quite successful. I don't understand what you don't like. Not enough weapons? The combat module changes if necessary. But why? For the front line, his armor is still rather weak, rather the T-15 is needed there. More powerful weapons - less room for infantry. So it is necessary to determine - 1) weapons, 2) armor, 3) a place for infantry. Choose any two items. All three - you get the same BTR-82A. And the weapons are not so hot, and there is little room for infantry, and there is almost no armor by modern standards. What's the point then in general to fence the garden? As for yachts and houses - do not enlighten, what's new there? I heard while only trying to return.
  17. 0
    22 August 2022 22: 28
    Some discrepancy between the dimensions and mass of the vehicle and its weak armament. Exist in metal
    tested combat modules ... Why a "toothpick", albeit a large caliber, and not an automatic gun? Doesn't "platform" allow?
  18. 0
    22 August 2022 23: 14
    The B-10 appeared at the exhibition, and the T-15 disappeared from the exhibition. sadness((
  19. 0
    22 August 2022 23: 40
    Why not make an infantry fighting vehicle based on the T90? (since armata is such a long story)
    1. 0
      23 August 2022 01: 34
      Quote from Floke
      Why not make an infantry fighting vehicle based on the T90?
      on the basis of the T-72 they produce BMO-T
  20. -2
    24 August 2022 18: 32
    not tired of these armored personnel carriers / infantry fighting vehicles "sucking" ...
    it was clear from the Afghan that it was necessary to build up armor ...
    even in the "transporter" version ...
    not to mention infantry support, in this version + weapons, such as a module with a 57mm cannon ...
    water cannons must be removed from all combined arms options, except for the DRG ...
    1. 0
      26 August 2022 07: 15
      Increase armor, install a module with a 57mm gun. If you do not pay attention to the corresponding weight increase, you get the T-15, which, of course, does not need a water cannon in principle.
      Are you against floating armored personnel carriers / infantry fighting vehicles, do you think that they are not needed at all? If anything - either build a pontoon bridge or use landing craft? I don't understand. Only DRGs overcome water barriers?
      1. +1
        26 August 2022 12: 52
        can you name where and when the water was overcome over the past 100 years under its own power in the war ... :)
        an example of crossings on your own is enough ...
        there are no rivers where you can cross to an infantry fighting vehicle without preparation ...
        all the right banks are "high" they need to be prepared for getting out of the water ...
        I have experience of crossing Kura on an infantry fighting vehicle - there, for a week, sappers prepared descents to the water on equipment ...
        those. a potential enemy would know in a few days where the crossing is being prepared ...
        and yes, I am against "waterfowl" in combined arms units, only for special forces ...
  21. 0
    27 August 2022 22: 52
    To be honest, not a bad machine if not for a few very BIG BUT.
    1. Anti-mine resistance is excellent, but WHAT does the driver see on the road? Yes, in the near 100-150m with the hatch closed, NOTHING. In fact, the same Merkava, which, as you know, VERY OFTEN gets into an accident precisely for this reason.
    2. Armor protection. Where is she? It probably holds up against standard 30mm armor piercings. And against 30mm BPS? I highly doubt it. What about RPGs? Yes, even the mass grave of the infantry. Of course, the engine in front is a plus, but the place of the driver is VERY shifted back and there is no bevel of armor in front of him so that he can see the road! Here it would be much better to remake several thousand T-54 (55) from storage in heavy armored personnel carriers with additional. armor protection and DZ. It will be much cheaper and, most importantly, MORE PROTECTIVE.
    3. And why the hell do you need another FLOATING armored personnel carrier that does not even hold old RPGs like Neto? After all, it is enough to have only one company per armored personnel carrier - 82 per battalion or even regiment.
  22. +1
    27 August 2022 23: 53
    If there are experts, explain what is being developed there for so long?
    I'm just from Almaz-Antey, I can roughly imagine how military equipment is designed and produced.
    But why is it taking so long to make Armata, Boomerang and Kurganets?
    I am more than sure that this equipment will not enter our troops.
    Most likely, the development began in the years when the West supplied us with its technologies (until 2014). The parameters achieved with the presence of foreign components were laid down. And after 2014, it turned out that it was simply impossible to produce Armata, Boomerang and Kurganets. And import substitution, as we all know, is only on TV.
    Therefore, new platforms will be created, the production of which does not depend on "potential partners".
    1. +1
      29 August 2022 08: 22
      I think there are conceptual problems. When they tried to realize all the Wishlist, and at the end they got starships instead of armored objects.
  23. 0
    29 August 2022 08: 43
    How will we support our infantry? 12,7mm? By enemy infantry? Are they bullying? And where are they, these other modules with other weapons, even if they failed to stick the PKT together with 12,7? I'm not talking about the overall height of this module.
    What is the general place of tracked armored personnel carriers in the weapon system? Instead of BTR-82A, which is now officially BMP? Then why do you need a Boomerang?
    And why do we need two new BMPs at the same time - B-19 and T-14?
  24. 0
    24 September 2022 20: 04
    Kurgan with a cliff looks like a misunderstanding - any box on the front line is used to the full extent of its main caliber! 30 is simply necessary on it, or even the 57th caliber!
  25. -2
    24 September 2022 23: 32
    If you choose between three BMP-3s and a Kurgan, I would choose BMP-3
  26. 0
    24 October 2022 22: 14
    How many of them in the NWO do not need to be publicly reported. How many of them were released - it is necessary to report. Otherwise, it turns out that he paid taxes, but no one says why and for what.
  27. +1
    25 October 2022 00: 05
    The main drawback of armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles is weak armor. A promising sample must have armor at the tank level. This should be the main requirement, everything else is secondary. Thus, infantry can be landed directly into enemy trenches and the speed of the offensive will be at the level of tanks, not infantry. On the move, tanks should cover BMPTs and UAVs, not infantry. The second most important requirement should be the cost, so that the Urals and Kamaz trucks are used for their intended purpose: in the rear. Third: maintainability, simplicity and the possibility of mass production. Other Wishlist - if possible. Well, it would be nice to speed up so that at least in this decade our soldiers fought with modern equipment.
    In my opinion, the concept of an armored capsule with a level of protection against RPGs will be more profitable and therefore more realistic for launching into production. In the budget version, it’s just a body that is mounted instead of a body on the Urals or Kamaz, if necessary, the frame and suspension are reinforced. In the BMP variant, this is not a heavily altered tank, for unification. Will it be Armata or another promising MBT - it doesn’t matter. Thus, the problem of maintainability, provision and mass character is solved. In the first case, of course, there should be additional reservations for doors, windows and the cab roof. But still it is serial and mass equipment. A turret can be installed on the passenger's roof, but most likely practice will show that this is a rudiment, because. each military column must have an escort tank or BMPT. In addition, immediately after the clash, the infantry usually dismounts. Patency can be increased with increased tires and ground clearance, up to low-pressure tires, tension tracks on the rear wheels, a winch, again a tank in a column. Awareness of the situation - cameras, thermal imagers. A personal balloon with cameras and thermal imagers for each car, for each tank will greatly increase awareness. And if you combine the system of automatic detection of thermal targets and / or moving targets with the automatic opening of fire from a machine gun or the firing of a grenade, which in principle is simple and inexpensive, then security will increase dramatically. Already now it is possible and necessary to escort columns with drones or copters. When the battery runs out, the second copter rises, and this one falls to recharge.
    Well, and most importantly, I would like to see new equipment in the troops, now, and not in a hypothetical war of the future. So that a broken communication cable would be restored under bullets not by a signalman, as it was recently, but by a small tracked machine would stretch out a new cable. We have combat robots, both large and small. And transport too. If our generals are afraid of losing the secret of the operation of these machines, then it is possible, like in Katyusha, to plant explosives in them for self-destruction in case of loss of communication. It is possible and necessary to use modern weapons in this war. Send the same Kurgans for practical testing, Almaty. Put more self-destruction explosives in them and keep them under the guns of Grads or Tornadoes, but use them. Why do our boys have to risk their lives connecting communication cables when the robot we have can do it without any problems? Where are the combat robots at the forefront? Okay, in the Chechen war there was a mass betrayal and a mess. And many generals openly gave orders in the interests of the militants. Why is the situation so painfully similar now? I'm exaggerating, but it's like, for example, not giving fighters warm clothes in winter. Not because it doesn't exist, but for a different reason. And we, the whole country, are guessing on which one: we need to save for the future in order to show our weakness to the enemy, behind-the-scenes games of politicians, some kind of agreements with partners on limiting our use of winter clothes in exchange for easing sanctions, so that our fighters can show heroism, so that the local the population appreciated how difficult it was for us to release them and how much we appreciate them, or maybe for some other reason. In general, a strange war. But our shortcomings surfaced (you might think we did not know about this before). And maybe the one who makes decisions on advanced weapons will read many of the ideas that are written on this site. I really want to believe it.
    1. 0
      2 November 2022 17: 38
      For the balloon is a big plus. In modern conditions, this is a necessary thing both for columns of equipment and for those who have sat down in a trench. They may vary in function and equipment but are clearly the cheapest way to have eyes/thermal/radar at the top where you can see everything.
  28. 0
    2 November 2022 17: 36
    All you need to know about this car: exhibitions, parades, honey.
    Such equipment with our leisurely military system will appear in our country in 39 when it is already morally obsolete.
  29. 0
    2 November 2022 17: 55
    No no no! You cho! Only 7 years have passed since the passage at the parade! You can't hurry! Just the same number of exhibitions / parades to tinker, and then the installation batch, 20 pieces of fun. So that there is enough for all artillery and tank museums. And we will send BMP-1M3.07.312-28 to the troops. From storage.