Military Review

Mistakes of the military-industrial complex: when an unarmed MCI is better than an armed armored personnel carrier

234
Mistakes of the military-industrial complex: when an unarmed MCI is better than an armed armored personnel carrier

In previous articles, we considered issues related to Russian armored vehicles. Among others, the idea was formulated that the Russian army is in dire need of well-protected armored personnel carriers without combat modules. There were disputes around this conclusion in the comments, so this article will be devoted to two questions:


1) when MCI is better than an armored personnel carrier;
2) why an armored personnel carrier without a combat module is better than an armored personnel carrier with it.

Here is a quote as a starting point:

Agitators for unarmed armored personnel carriers simply dream of repeating plots similar to the one when the Ukrainian column in the steppes near Kherson comes under flank fire and the head armored personnel carrier turns into a torch. At the same time, not a single armored personnel carrier from the shelled column even tries to return fire, most likely because there is nothing.

I find it strange to attempt to disarm the BTR-82A, which in its present version is a very formidable machine.

Apparently this is the video.


We will begin the analysis of the episode by setting the task - to deliver a certain number of personnel from point A to point B.

The video features 6 armored personnel carriers. Each M113 (slightly different in the video, but the essence is the same) carries 13 people. For comparison, the BMP-3 carries 6-7 paratroopers, like the BTR-82.

The question arises - why such a difference? To answer the question, just look at the BMP-3 seating chart, from which we can conclude that the combat module eats up almost half of the internal volume and, by removing it, it is quite possible to accommodate an additional 5–7 people, doubling the number of people transported. And this is the first argument in favor of abandoning the combat module on an armored personnel carrier.


The second reason is mass. The BMP-3 weighs 19 tons, of which 4 are accounted for by the combat module and its BC. And this means that by removing the combat module, a more protected body can be placed on exactly the same chassis with exactly the same engine and transmission.

Taking into account the figures, we can conclude that the task involves the transportation of 78 people, and it can be solved either by 6 armored personnel carriers without a combat module, or by 11 infantry fighting vehicles / armored personnel carriers with it.

Now let's move on to the question of the cost of technical means to perform this task. It is known from open sources that the cost of the Bakhcha combat module is equal to half the cost of the entire BMP. This means that for the cost of 1 BMP, you can build 2 armored personnel carriers (based on the BMP chassis) without a combat module. Thus, the price ratio between these two options for performing the same task becomes huge - 1:4.

But this is only a small part of the problem, despite the fact that a fourfold difference is critical in itself, especially when considering the need for saturation. all our army with modern transport.

In order to analyze the issues of armored vehicles further, it is necessary to make some digression.

The territory on which hostilities are being conducted can be exaggeratedly divided into 2 zones:

red zone - this zone of direct contact with the enemy plus 5 km;

yellow zone - 5-50 km from the front line.

This is the key idea necessary for a proper understanding of the whole topic. Distorting it, we inevitably slip into logic - we put the largest possible gun wherever possible.

The nature of threats and risks in these zones are very different. So much so that most often the same technique simply cannot be a good solution for both the red and yellow zones at the same time.

Let's go back to our example.

In order for the infantry to be on the front lines, they must inevitably cross the yellow zone.

Moreover, the issue is not limited to the delivery of infantry to the front line, a huge number of important tasks are carried out in the yellow zone: artillery is constantly located in it, fuel, food and ammunition are continuously transported through it, and the wounded are transported. It employs engineering troops, electronic warfare equipment, and even organizes medical support.

However, in our example, we are talking about the transportation of 78 people 11 infantry fighting vehicles. And here we come to the main question - where do the supporters of arming armored personnel carriers with combat modules plan to get these modules from?

In the real world, when the amount of resources and sophisticated equipment is limited, if somewhere there is more of it, then somewhere there is less of it? Thus, there is only one option - to take this technique from the front line.

This is especially true for our military-industrial complex, for which the production of complex electron-optical sighting systems is, frankly, not the strongest side, and often it is the production of combat modules, and not hulls, that will limit the production of new types of armored vehicles, thereby preventing the army from being saturated with modern armored personnel carriers. .

Thus, the issue of arming armored personnel carriers is not reduced to thoughtless armament with a “bigger barrel” of everything that is possible, and presenting this as progress. It boils down primarily to literate resource allocation.

The 11 combat modules that our country has produced should be on the front lines - that is where they will be most useful. And not to ride in the rear, doing the work that can be provided by half the amount of equipment without a combat module. Thus, the efficiency decreases even more, because each piece of equipment still needs to be delivered and refueled to the combat zone, and where the motor resource of six pieces of equipment should be spent, it is irrational to spend the resource of eleven.

I'll bring one more example - on our tanks of the latest modification, the commander and gunner use 1 thermal imaging channel for two, which, as you understand, negatively affects the ability to detect targets in a timely manner. Given that the tank is a 100% vehicle of the red zone, it should be at the forefront as much of the time as possible.

What does the next message look like against this background?

From 2019, all armored personnel carriers will be equipped with an upgraded fire control system with a thermal imaging sight and additional protection.

Also, most of our tanks do not have a remote-controlled machine gun turret, but armored personnel carriers are equipped with a 30-mm cannon. Such a distribution of resources is simply irrational.

But the problems do not end there, but only begin.

Is 30mm needed in the yellow zone?


In order to evaluate the technique, it is necessary to clearly understand the conditions in which it will function, and most importantly, the priority of threats.

30-ka is really good on the front line, including for working on lightly armored vehicles, and at a relatively long distance, but the farther from the front, the less likely it is to meet this very technique. But other threats are widespread, one of which is enemy artillery.

Below, as an illustration, is a frame from Prigozhin's film "The Best in Hell" - artillery falls under a retaliatory strike.


In this case, let the reader not be confused by the fact that this is a film, for the simple reason that it was filmed by employees of the Wagner PMC.

In the field of cinematography, these people cannot compete with Marvel in computer graphics and dialogue, but in matters of war their competence is beyond doubt.
Approximately the same thing is happening on the Ukrainian side.


It is noteworthy that in this particular photo, American trucks with an armored (unlike ours) cab are used as tractors. Based on this combat episode, a logical question arises - is it necessary to take measures to increase the survival rate of gunners? Certainly yes. Is it rational to use an armored personnel carrier with a combat module for these tasks? No.

Moreover, the fact that arming the APC with a 30mm cannon only exacerbates the problem in a vicious circle is often ignored. If you go down from the level of planning the concept of equipment to the level where commanders take equipment for granted (there is such an armored personnel carrier and that's it), then at this level it would be completely justified to send such an armored personnel carrier to the front line precisely due to its powerful weapons. Even despite the fact that on this most advanced, due to the cardboard nature, the use of this very gun will border on a feat.

And when the turn comes to equipping the same artillerymen and mortarmen, it turns out that for their needs there are no options for armored vehicles at all and they have to ride in unarmored Urals.

I foresee that many VO readers will remember that in the days of the USSR, MTLBs were widely used as tractors for howitzers, but ...



While in the West, the successful and conceptually primitive M113 became not just an armored personnel carrier, but a combat platform, on the basis of which various vehicles were finalized, including the 120-mm mortar carrier.


Against this background, our mortars look like reenactors from a bygone era.


Speaking of artillery, the best solution would be to move away from towed artillery towards self-propelled.

Roman Skomorokhov wrote about this in more detail in an article "Msta-B": isn't it time to go to the dustbin of history?
However, here it is also necessary to take into account the need for transport and loading machines based on armored platforms. Examples of such machines are shown below.




Actions of enemy DRGs


Another danger to which logistics in the frontline zone is exposed is the actions of the DRG, and 2 scenarios are possible here.

Scenario 1. Organizing ambushes with fire contact. The transport is fired from portable grenade launchers, and then shot from small arms. After a fleeting raid, the sabotage group quickly retreats along a pre-planned route.

This scenario has a number of significant drawbacks - you have to carry grenade launchers with you, despite the fact that it is important for DRGs to be mobile and move as quickly and unobtrusively as possible. Any carry weight does not contribute to this. This, in turn, limits both the caliber and the number of shots.

Although it is worth mentioning that there is a tactic when, while retreating, the enemy is already planning sabotage activities and ambush sites, organizing caches near them. Subsequently, the group advances lightly, takes weapon from these caches, carries out an attack and also departs lightly.

Another important disadvantage of such a scenario is that you most often have to shoot at moving vehicles, which is associated with the risk of missing. In the process of fire contact, the group is guaranteed to unmask itself, while it cannot be ruled out that those who were ambushed will be able to fight back and injure one of the attackers, and the wounded in the detachment will seriously complicate the withdrawal of the group.

The combination of such risks logically leads us to scenario No. 2, which became a real curse for both the USSR in Afghanistan and the United States in Iraq - these are, as you probably already guessed, all kinds of explosive devices of different power, different principle of action (land mine , shock core, "shrapnel") and a variety of manufacturability.

The advantages of such tactics are obvious - the maximum ease of implementation and the absence of risks associated with the need to make fire contact.

MRAP or armored personnel carrier?


In the comments to my last article, an interesting exchange of diametrically opposed opinions took place between readers regarding the role of MCI and armored personnel carriers in modern wars.

Let's try to understand this issue.

To understand it, it is very useful to read the article Ukraine, riding armor again. When will they stop riding "from above"?


The photo shows the result of undermining the MCI on a land mine. Despite the power of the explosion, no one died.

We must pay tribute - the United States very quickly learned the lesson of Iraq at all levels, from analysis priorities threats, development of the concept of solutions, formulation of technical specifications, holding a design competition, adoption and establishment of large-scale mass production in the shortest possible time.

This alone hints at some of the advantages of MCI. What are they?
The first is the correct priority of threats, taking into account the zone in which this transport is used (frontline / red or yellow): protection against mines. The armor protects against 50-caliber and artillery shell fragments - enough for combat in an ambush.

Now, returning to the same issue of equipping armored personnel carriers with combat modules with a 30-mm cannon, and since Alexei perfectly described the essence of the problem in his article, I suggest starting from his quotes.

This is the cornerstone, because of which the infantry rides on the armor. Yes, all of the above is the place to be, and these are very serious points. But it is this point that puts an end to the decision to move the infantry "on top" of the armor.
Inside you are deaf and blind. Everything that happens outside is a dark forest for you. When an attack occurs, in the turmoil of screams and the fog of bullets on armor, nothing is clear: where is the enemy, how is he firing, how much of him and from what directions is he hitting you.

Total 2 problems:

1) the infantry inside is "deaf and blind";

2) because of this, during an ambush, too much time passes before the fighters can resist.

The worst scenario is that they jump out into the unknown from the only exit that the opponents have already taken aim at and, only having lost their bulletproof protection, they must begin to navigate in space.

Are MRAPs capable of solving these problems? Yes. Let's take a look at the photo below.


Yes, this machine does not hold 30 mm in the forehead. Glasses are designed to hit 2 shots from KPVT (14,5).

But on the other hand, they provide an excellent overview to the driver and commander, both due to the area and due to the height (about 3 meters). Armored glass is also located on the sides of the troop compartment. The machine gunner, on the other hand, observes what is happening from a height of 4 meters. Therefore, the problem of situational awareness is largely solved.

What about a quick fight back?

Let me remind you that in my previous article I expressed ideas in favor of arming the transport, which will perform the functions of an armored personnel carrier, with mechanical turrets with armored shields. Moreover, if the dimensions of the transport allow, it is advisable to install 2 turrets.

On the example of our "Ural", I see it as logical to put one machine gun in the driver's armored cab, that is, to enable the crew to defend their car, plus the opportunity for the commander to "sit high and look far away." And put the second machine gun in the troop compartment on quick-release mounts, which would allow, if necessary, to remove it and use it as a manual one.


When such machines are ambushed, the shooter can quickly assess the situation and, most importantly, immediately start working from a machine gun. Like in the video below.


What went wrong here? The start was good, the shooter noticed the grenade launcher, informed the driver and other fighters about this. It is difficult to somehow evaluate his “stop” command, because we have no idea about the composition of the column and about what else could be happening around.

Another thing is noteworthy in this episode - he opened fire, but he didn’t fire for long for obvious reasons - the enemy is not a fool, and, having soberly assessed the threats, take it and focus fire on the machine gunner. As a result, the machine gun functioned (as a combat unit, I hope our fighter survived) for 40 seconds. And all this is due to the fact that our military in the ranks were not smart enough to put an armor shield there for 5 kopecks.


Apparently, our "non-partners" have a similar situation. Bullet marks are clearly visible. At least 8 hits in the dimensions of the figure of a fighter behind a machine gun (this is only on the left side)

What else raises questions - at its core, the machine gun in this case is designed to tie up the actions of the attackers with dense fire, giving time to orient and make a decision (we leave, stay, forward, back, left, right - underline as necessary). But some military genius thought of feeding the machine gun with a tape for 100 rounds (before reloading, he fired 4 sections, each of which had 25 rounds). This despite the fact that even in the wearable version there is a box for 200.

A particularly sinister irony of the situation is added by the picture that opens up to the gaze of a fallen wounded soldier - 4 boxes of 250 rounds. The point is small - again lean out to the waist and reload the machine gun under heavy enemy fire.


Transportation of Troops in Feng Shui

Turret Requirements


Based on the foregoing, we can draw up a preliminary list of requirements for turrets.

1. Protection - the more the better (within reason), however, you need to understand that even minimal shields of 10 mm armored steel from the front multiples increase the survivability of firearms.

2. It is completely incomprehensible why there is a tape for 100 rounds in a machine gun on a transport, and whole boxes of ammo are lying inside the car. It is more logical to have a more capacious box on the turret.

3. Equipping these machine guns with low magnification sights will significantly increase their effectiveness - this should not be an expensive sniper scope, but a simple optical device that allows you to better see the direction in which the fire is being fired. This will allow the machine gun to be used not only as a means of suppressing the enemy in the first seconds of the battle (the fire is not aimed but “in the direction”), but also to work from it aimingly.

What conclusion can be drawn regarding MRAP?

In most cases, they are indeed better adapted for transporting personnel in the frontline zone. Taking into account current tactics (their relevance is unlikely to change in the foreseeable future) and the means of destruction used by the enemy in the rear of the troops.

In addition to better protection against explosions, MRAPs provide better visibility from the cockpit position and, as a result, better awareness, which is extremely important in an ambush. I would like to draw attention to such a structural element as armored glass on the sides. In the photo above, 3 bulletproof glasses are clearly visible on each side with loopholes, i.e. the soldiers inside also have the opportunity to assess what is happening outside (albeit not as well as the man behind the machine gun) and at the same time they can shoot back without leaving protected space.

There is also a preconception that a robotic turret is always better than a manual turret, and the call for the use of the latter is dictated only by a matter of economy. In reality, this is not so.

1. A mechanical turret is many times more reliable and resistant to failures on the scale of a long war or remoteness from maintenance points capable of repairing or replacing a complex automated turret.

2. The mechanical turret is more flexible - changing weapons is much faster. In addition, it is possible to use different weapons in one battle.
As an example, I propose to consider a video from the Ukrainian side.


First, the shooter fires from a heavy machine gun. Then he asks for a grenade launcher and fires the first shot from a grenade launcher. Then they open fire on them from small arms. The second shot is already being prepared, hiding behind the shield and leaning out only to shoot. Then the shooter reloads the machine gun and continues to fire from it.

3. The turret can be reloaded manually during the battle. Despite the fact that the ammo in the Arbalet combat module is listed as 450 12,7 rounds, it remains a mystery where they are placed, because the box is set there for 100 rounds. When they run out, and with tight fire contact this will happen very quickly, to reload you will need to climb onto the roof, because there is no hatch, lift the weight of the ammo you want to load on yourself, and, having no protection, reload the machine gun.


For comparison: this is what a box for 250 rounds looks like.


The rate of fire of the machine gun is 600 rounds per minute. This is 10 seconds of continuous fire or 40 seconds in the “shoot for a second - wait for 3” mode.

Thus, a remote-controlled turret is an expensive weapon station for 40 seconds of tight combat.

4. The turret provides significantly better awareness and response at relatively short distances. A banal example - if the shooter at some point looks to the left relative to the movement of the car, then it takes 180 second to turn his head to the right (180 degrees) and then return it to its original position (another 1).

Combat module - at best 6 seconds.

In reality, no one will simply bother and constantly turn the joystick left and right. That is, they will score corny and stupidly. Well, or in the old fashioned way - riding on armor without protection.

The advantage of the module in this class of technology is only one - to look ahead with the help of good optics and a thermal imager. And such a machine will be enough for one per column.

Based on the totality of the points, in my opinion, the conclusion is obvious that the MRAP is the modern and most balanced (!) Armored personnel carrier for the frontline zone.

What can Russia offer?


Russia has two quite successful platforms - KamAZ and Ural (Typhoon-K and Typhoon-U, respectively).

"Ural", due to the fact that the front axle is placed in front of the cab, initially structurally provides slightly better protection against explosions, especially for those who sit in the cab.

However, the number of MRAPs in Russia is disproportionately small and cannot meet the needs of the army. In this regard, it may make sense to consider the issue of reducing the cost of production, to revise some technical solutions in the direction of minor deterioration in performance in favor of the number of vehicles produced. For example, you can refuse a variable clearance, although this will reduce mine protection, but it will significantly reduce the cost of the suspension, as well as simplify its operation and repair.

Another element that raises a number of questions for me is the automatic transmission. Not only was an imported gearbox installed on half of the cars, but also the issues of reliability and cost are very relevant for it. Among the samples there is such an interesting option (KAMAZ-63969), which is notable for both the presence of an emergency exit for the landing on the left side, and the futuristic driver's door on the right.



Returning to the analysis of the episode, which was cited at the beginning, the issue of security of movement must be addressed comprehensively and flexibly, and not “clumsily” due to the armament of each armored personnel carrier. One of the measures - if the convoy approaches the front, and there is a risk of meeting with enemy equipment, it is quite reasonable to accompany such a convoy, for example, with two infantry fighting vehicles. Since the distance to the line of contact is small, they will not have to travel far.

The second important aspect is reconnaissance and the organization of banal observation along the route of movement.

The composition of the column is also important - it is important to exclude the movement of cars one by one. During ambushes, as a rule, it is rarely possible to destroy the transport with one shot. First, the car is immobilized, and then it is finished off with grenade launchers and small arms. If there are two vehicles, then the task becomes much more complicated, the second vehicle opens fire on the enemy, who has already lost his main advantage - invisibility. Thus covering the padded car.

In any case, Russia is in dire need of a simple and protected armored personnel carrier, without exotic combat modules. It is required to produce it in large batches for at least several years.
Author:
Photos used:
Wikipedia, RF Ministry of Defense, RIA Novosti
Articles from this series:
Errors of the domestic military-industrial complex: BMPT "Terminator"
Mistakes of the domestic military-industrial complex: why protect Russian soldiers
234 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. Vladimir_2U
    Vladimir_2U 21 October 2022 05: 11
    +4
    To answer the question, just look at the BMP-3 seating chart, from which we can conclude that the combat module eats up almost half of the internal volume
    I didn’t read further, because confusing a module with an inhabited tower is not an indicator of intelligence. This is if you do not remember about remotely controlled modules, which in general can be installed on almost any surface without occupying the internal volume. Let the author search the BMP Lynx network.
    1. Silver99
      Silver99 21 October 2022 05: 37
      +5
      I also didn’t master everything from what was written (((The author suggests putting all motorized riflemen into well-armored, but not armed vehicles? Then they have a direct road to the 200s. After all, it’s probably more logical to disperse motorized rifle detachments on the march and have, albeit weak, but defense weapons other than AK Further, an infantry fighting vehicle is not only a transport unit, but also a powerful means for maneuvering and capturing bridgeheads, and holding them until the reserves approach.
      1. Vladimir_2U
        Vladimir_2U 21 October 2022 05: 42
        -6
        No, well, protected transport is good, but then some kind of insanity follows with blatant underarmament.
        1. Sergey Aleksandrovich
          Sergey Aleksandrovich 21 October 2022 09: 22
          +10
          It's not even that. Criticizing the BMP-3 and its small reserved volume, the author is breaking through an open door. On the basis of the BMP-3, there is already a BT-3F, and on the basis of the BMD-4, the BTR-MD "Rakushka" was created. These vehicles should be considered as auxiliary vehicles, they are spacious and can serve as a base for drones, additional ammunition and for evacuating troops from disabled infantry fighting vehicles.
          1. Doctor
            Doctor 21 October 2022 10: 13
            +3
            It's not even that. Criticizing the BMP-3 and its small reserved volume, the author is breaking through an open door. On the basis of the BMP-3, there is already a BT-3F, and on the basis of the BMD-4, the BTR-MD "Rakushka" was created. These vehicles should be considered as auxiliary vehicles, they are spacious and can serve as a base for drones, additional ammunition and for evacuating troops from disabled infantry fighting vehicles.

            Modern anti-tank systems do not care what thickness of armor to penetrate.
            Therefore, the future belongs to a hybrid of a tank and an infantry fighting vehicle.
            Offhand - a car on a harp with 100-200 mm armor, KAZ, front engine, accommodating a squad of fighters and with a 110-120 mm cannon.
            1. ZuekRek
              ZuekRek 21 October 2022 11: 10
              +5
              I'm not sure why such a powerful gun is needed for an armored personnel carrier / infantry fighting vehicle. But if this requirement is not taken into account, then you described the Israeli Namer. Built on the basis of Merkava, KAZ Trophy is running normally.
              1. Doctor
                Doctor 21 October 2022 12: 36
                +2
                I'm not sure why such a powerful gun is needed for an armored personnel carrier / infantry fighting vehicle. But if this requirement is not taken into account, then you described the Israeli Namer. Built on the basis of Merkava, KAZ Trophy is running normally.

                This is not an armored personnel carrier / infantry fighting vehicle. This is a light tank with an enlarged troop compartment. One "red zone" car. Instead of conventional tanks and infantry fighting vehicles.
                1. ZuekRek
                  ZuekRek 21 October 2022 14: 30
                  +2
                  Why is that? Now the BMP is approaching (or even surpassing) the armor of the tank. For the Israelis, the Merkava allows the use of a tank for landing, and this option is interesting in principle. But that's just a light tank with a landing force - it seems that it will be neither fish nor meat.
                  1. Doctor
                    Doctor 21 October 2022 19: 52
                    +2
                    Why is that? Now the BMP is approaching (or even surpassing) the armor of the tank. For the Israelis, the Merkava allows the use of a tank for landing, and this option is interesting in principle. But that's just a light tank with a landing force - it seems that it will be neither fish nor meat.

                    That's also possible. The question is the balance of armor, guns and capacity.
                    Initially there were tanks. But they are blind near, so they began to land troops on them. But this was not the best option, so they decided to carry troops on an armored personnel carrier / infantry fighting vehicle behind the tanks.
                    Now the anti-tank systems penetrate any armor, so it's easier to carry the tank guards in the tank itself.
                    The very concept of tank-armored personnel interaction has lost its meaning.
                    1. ZuekRek
                      ZuekRek 21 October 2022 21: 39
                      +4
                      Initially there were tanks. But they are near blind
                      With proper technical equipment (I would even say "with normal technical" equipment) this is not a problem now.
                      therefore they decided to carry troops on an armored personnel carrier / infantry fighting vehicle for tanks
                      To be honest, I thought that the armored personnel carrier was precisely an armored transporter, i.e. it must provide protection during transport. And the BMP is armor AND fire support. There were never tanks on their own - they broke through the defenses, but there was always infantry behind them, and so that there were no "bursts" and armored personnel carriers appeared first, and then infantry fighting vehicles.
                      Now the anti-tank systems penetrate any armor, so it's easier to carry the tank guards in the tank itself.
                      It depends on what ATGM and what kind of armor, and now it’s more correct to say protection, because the presence of KAZ refers to protection measures, but it’s not armor.
                      The very concept of tank-armored personnel interaction has lost its meaning
                      In general, there should be no interaction between tanks and armored personnel carriers. An armored personnel carrier is a transporter, it must deliver and unload. Tanks should interact with infantry fighting vehicles, but infantry fighting vehicles, in my opinion, should have tank-level protection, releasing people only where armored vehicles cannot solve the problem
                      1. Doctor
                        Doctor 22 October 2022 12: 07
                        0
                        Initially there were tanks. But they are near blind
                        With proper technical equipment (I would even say "with normal technical" equipment) this is not a problem now.

                        That is, tanks on the battlefield do not need infantry support now. )) winked
                      2. ZuekRek
                        ZuekRek 22 October 2022 12: 23
                        0
                        "Not a problem" is for the "blind". But armored vehicles in general and tanks in particular cannot solve the tasks that infantrymen can solve (clearing trenches and other fortifications). But the fight against ATGMs when attacking armored vehicles is decided by the presence of modern SLAs for tanks and infantry fighting vehicles, which can detect and respond to such threats
                      3. Doctor
                        Doctor 22 October 2022 12: 11
                        +2
                        To be honest, I thought that the armored personnel carrier was precisely an armored transporter, i.e. it must provide protection during transport. And the BMP is armor AND fire support. There were never tanks on their own - they broke through the defenses, but there was always infantry behind them, and so that there were no "bursts" and armored personnel carriers appeared first, and then infantry fighting vehicles.

                        In theory, yes. But the experience of wars shows that commanders send everything into battle.
                        Even pedantic Germans.

                      4. ZuekRek
                        ZuekRek 22 October 2022 12: 24
                        +1
                        This is just to prevent a break in the battle order. There was no BMP, so they used what they had.
                      5. Doctor
                        Doctor 22 October 2022 12: 16
                        -1
                        In general, there should be no interaction between tanks and armored personnel carriers. An armored personnel carrier is a transporter, it must deliver and unload. Tanks should interact with infantry fighting vehicles, but infantry fighting vehicles, in my opinion, should have tank-level protection, releasing people only where armored vehicles cannot solve the problem

                        An armored personnel carrier is not needed at all. In the yellow zone - an armored car.

                        But about BMPs with tank-level protection - yes. I'm talking about this. Let's clarify - a light tank, because the javelin doesn't care. And add a full gun.
                        We get a single battlefield vehicle.
                        And conventional (heavy) tanks are scrapped.
                      6. ZuekRek
                        ZuekRek 22 October 2022 12: 29
                        +1
                        It is the armored car in the yellow zone. Because 1. And artillery hits there 2. And there are DRGs and mines 3. From the yellow zone and to the front line they go with cargo / wounded.
                        2. BMP with the protection of a heavy tank. Only such protection (with appropriate armor) gives the highest chance of survival. Well, I don’t agree about light tanks either. If compared with the Merkava, then our tanks, in principle, are not heavy, still "lighten"?
                      7. Doctor
                        Doctor 22 October 2022 12: 27
                        +2
                        It depends on what ATGM and what kind of armor, and now it’s more correct to say protection, because the presence of KAZ refers to protection measures, but it’s not armor.

                        Exactly. Medium armor and KAZ. Plus a powerful gun and a troop compartment.

                        The Americans seem to have guessed already.

                        https://amp.topwar.ru/153285-ssha-nachala-razrabotku-legkogo-tanka-chem-mozhet-otvetit-rossija.html
                      8. ZuekRek
                        ZuekRek 25 October 2022 12: 00
                        -1
                        The article is still somewhat outdated and gave a certain forecast, and did not talk about the fact:
                        under which work is underway on a new main battle tank to replace the M1 Abrams, a new infantry fighting vehicle to replace the M2 Bradley, a light tank and robotic combat vehicles
                        They recently rolled out the AbramsX demonstrator - this is Armata, i.e. a full-fledged tank by weight. And as a light tank, they already officially have the Griffin 2 (https://topwar.ru/198459-griffin-ii-teper-uzhe-oficialnyj-legkij-tank-ssha.html). And this is a machine for cases when the enemy has small arms and ATGMs. In combined arms combat, no one will ever use it. Well, in terms of BMPs, they are also looking for a replacement. It will be an infantry fighting vehicle, heavy
          2. Vladimir_2U
            Vladimir_2U 21 October 2022 10: 13
            -1
            Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich
            It's not even that. Criticizing the BMP-3 and its small reserved volume, the author is breaking through an open door.

            The author breaks through a lot of doors, he considers the same DBMs to be a fiend of financial hell, while offering armored twins with low-power optics.
            Another thing is that the Moscow Region, not only ours, either scored or did not know the penny versions of the DUBM, even from the times of WWII:

            1. Alexander Vorontsov
              21 October 2022 11: 11
              +10
              Quote: Vladimir_2U
              Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich
              It's not even that. Criticizing the BMP-3 and its small reserved volume, the author is breaking through an open door.

              The author breaks through a lot of doors, he considers the same DBMs to be a fiend of financial hell, while offering armored twins with low-power optics.
              Another thing is that the Moscow Region, not only ours, either scored or did not know the penny versions of the DUBM, even from the times of WWII:


              You were correctly written that the article must be read to the end if you really want to comment on it meaningfully.

              Regarding your example - how will you recharge it in conditions when the BC takes off in 30 seconds? (2 videos confirm this). And what about the review?
              1. Vladimir_2U
                Vladimir_2U 21 October 2022 11: 48
                -4
                Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
                Regarding your example - how will you recharge it in conditions when the BC takes off in 30 seconds? (2 videos confirm this). And what about the review?

                Elementary! Feed through a sleeve from under the armor, and it is possible in serious calibers.
                The review with the development of optics is a small problem, from a turret with the same glass blocks to periscope devices in combination with a collimator sight. If anything, the current periscopes are very far gone from what is in the picture.
                And all this will take up no more space under the armor than your ardently adored turret, because in the photo there is a Hetzer self-propelled gun turret, I think you know what kind of "mastodon" it is
                Didn't put a minus.
                1. Alexander Vorontsov
                  21 October 2022 13: 14
                  +14
                  Quote: Vladimir_2U
                  The review with the development of optics is a small problem, from a turret with the same glass blocks to periscope devices in combination with a collimator sight.

                  You are mistaken - this is a fundamentally unsolvable problem that has nothing to do with the "development of optics".

                  Our eye is arranged in such a way that in the center there are light-sensitive elements that distinguish colors, but with less discreteness than at the periphery. This means that we are evolutionarily adapted to notice movement in the periphery of our vision. And for us it is the strongest irritant that makes us turn our heads in that direction.

                  If a cat passes by your side now and its tail enters your field of vision, your brain will react to it faster than you can realize it. Just like driving a car, you can talk on the phone without changing the position of your head and not be aware of how many times you looked in the left mirror, and how many in the right. But nevertheless you receive a lot of information continuously.

                  If now, while you are looking at the monitor, something falls from behind with a loud sound, how long will it take you to turn around? Split seconds.

                  Sitting at the monitor and controlling the module, you see much less, and the image is distorted, you do not understand the speed, you do not "feel" the distance to the objects you observe. If a grenade launcher hits on the left, and the module is turned forward, you will not see anything and will not be able to understand what happened - turn it left or right. And the turning time will be much longer than if a person turns his head.

                  Elementary! Feed through a sleeve from under the armor, and it is possible in serious calibers.

                  The receiver is outside in any case and you will not have access to it from the inside.
                  Therefore, the issue of reloading for such a turret from the inside is impossible. As well as eliminating the delay. It is worth 1 cartridge to misfire and the automation will stop.
                  Therefore, there is only 1 option here - uninterrupted supply (but it does not solve the problem of disruption of the automation).

                  Those. we can already forget about the carriage design - the combat module will take place in the troop compartment, because it will require at least a basket where a continuous belt for a large number of rounds will be placed.

                  It will also be necessary to equip this tape and monitor the replenishment of the BC. Unification with light machine guns will be lost - if earlier BCs were located inside in boxes for 200 rounds and they could be taken by both an ordinary machine gunner and a shooter on a turret, then you can’t take a continuous tape for 1000-2000 rounds anywhere, it becomes exclusively BC of the combat module.

                  It becomes impossible in the field by the crew to replace weapons with turrets for any they find. The very issues of breakdowns become fatal, because Shoigu will not arrive in a blue helicopter at the first call that some tricky part has broken in you (or a fragment has landed in the module). And where one crew throws out a broken barrel, puts some trophy in its place in 5 minutes and moves on, you will ride without a turret at all.

                  In other words, unnecessary complications and rise in price without any advantages, but on the contrary, a decrease in awareness of the situation around.
                  1. Vladimir_2U
                    Vladimir_2U 21 October 2022 17: 50
                    0
                    Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
                    You are mistaken - this is a fundamentally unsolvable problem that has nothing to do with the "development of optics" ...
                    ...Sitting at the monitor and controlling the module, you see much less, and the image is distorted
                    And where did you get the idea that I'm talking about monitors?! It is clearly written about glass blocks and periscopes. "Modern optics" is not a cloudy green armored glass from WWII, but a very transparent material.

                    Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
                    Therefore, the issue of reloading for such a turret from the inside is impossible.
                    Uh, you don't know the topic at all. Even before WWII, FIGHTERS were equipped with cable reloading, there’s nothing to reach with your hand ...

                    Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
                    As well as eliminating the delay.
                    Even if you don’t engage in casuistry like - a case breakage is a delay that is difficult to eliminate in battle, I’ll say that the armor plate is clearly visible in the photo, and this armor plate can be larger and cover both reloading and eliminating the delay. Remaining quite compact without glass blocks, well, the manhole cover can also be part of the shield.

                    Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
                    Those. we can already forget about the carriage design - the combat module will take place in the troop compartment, because it will require at least a basket where a continuous belt for a large number of rounds will be placed.
                    Doesn't the fact that the machine gunner's torso and legs take up space bother you in any way? And the box / basket can generally be attached to the shoulder strap from below.

                    Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
                    Unification with light machine guns will be lost - if earlier ammunition was located inside in boxes for 200 rounds and they could be taken by both an ordinary machine gunner and a shooter on a turret
                    What a loss, are you not aware of the connecting links at all ?! It is also possible to organize the stacking of a pair of triples with a box store with a connection, and you can also hook it to a dangling tape in the process. Generally a bogus problem.
                    Apart from the fact that I thought about larger calibers.

                    Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
                    It becomes impossible in the field by the crew to replace weapons with turrets for any they find.

                    Well, this is outright stupidity. Even commenting is reluctant.

                    And where one crew will throw out a broken barrel, in 5 minutes they will put some trophy in its place
                    I didn’t read it right away, of course everything changes, it’s fundamentally straight! Well, nonsense, so far-fetched that it's a pity for the ears.

                    Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
                    In other words, unnecessary complications and rise in price without any advantages, but on the contrary, a decrease in awareness of the situation around.
                    This "unnecessary complication allows you to keep the volume closed, and the weapon is much more powerful than a machine gun chambered for a rifle cartridge. But it looks like you are cringing from such an assumption. Oh, you are also not at all interested in WMD, apart from the flow of a shock wave from an explosion, MCI against demolitions, no?
                  2. ramzay21
                    ramzay21 21 October 2022 19: 42
                    -3
                    The article is good and the proposals are literate, but while the current effective managers are in power, including Shoigu, Manturov, Chemezov, who failed everything, nothing will be done, they were not able to calmly and systematically do all this in peacetime and it is absolutely certain that they are not able to these problems even realize not only to solve them.
        2. Per se.
          Per se. 21 October 2022 21: 48
          +2
          Quote: Vladimir_2U
          No, well, secure transport is good.
          Most importantly, the author mixes up police (counter-guerrilla) equipment and army equipment.
          What is MRAP, it is mine resistant ambush protected, - mine resistant, ambush protected, that is, resistant to mine explosions and protected from ambush attacks. What is good against militants who use guerrilla tactics in attacks on military columns is far from the fact that this will be in demand in a mobile battle.

          Having received improved protection against explosions, we immediately get an increase in the height of the vehicle and an increase in the side projection of the side, making it more vulnerable to bullets and shells, rockets.
          What is good for a military column is not necessarily good in a war against a full-fledged army, it is unlikely that mine protection will allow you to ride through minefields, being not in demand in other types of combat. If we persist here, we get a "double-decker bus."

          Which will still often be ridden on top of the armor, because it improves visibility and makes it possible to quickly dismount. No one will go on the attack on armor, this is speculation, to the topic of "mass graves", which any, even the most protected equipment, can become, if it is thoughtlessly sent into battle, and even pushing 10-12 paratroopers inside.

          I agree with the author that the armored personnel carrier, if we talk specifically about heavy equipment on a tank base, should be specialized primarily for the transport function, with good protection. Under a specialized fire, BMPT would be better. At the same time, it is necessary not to increase the number of troops, but to reduce it to 5-6 people per vehicle, like an assault group. This will increase comfort without sacrificing dimensions and minimize possible losses in the event of a vehicle hit with troops. For example, you can recall the BTR-T or BMO-T on a tank base. Israel did this a long time ago on the basis of captured T-54 / T-55 (Akhzarit). Pictured is the BTR-T model.
          1. Brodsky
            Brodsky 10 November 2022 20: 47
            0
            In order to go on the attack (as well as take out the wounded from under fire), you need a large box with anti-tank armor and a folding ramp at the back. It is pointless to put powerful weapons on this box, it should be on a tank that will go on the attack with this box under the arm.
            And powerful weapons, and anti-shell armor, and a place for landing - this is already from the realm of fantasy. It doesn't happen.
            And for everything else, without exception, you need MRAP. Including to bring the infantry to the line of attack. After all, the box with anti-shell armor and caterpillars has a very limited power reserve, so you can’t drive them unless absolutely necessary.
            The only thing I have to add to
            proposed in the article are wheeled tanks to accompany MRAP columns. Here they will have all the charms of an infantry fighting vehicle: both reinforced armor and more powerful weapons (a 30-mm cannon, say, maybe more). And wheeled: so that he could ride longer. But not BMP, i.e. without landing, for it is impossible to embrace the immensity.
        3. husband
          husband 29 October 2022 16: 42
          +1
          The armored URAL-4320 has been mass-produced for ten years now. Back in 2012, they drove in columns around Dagestan. And with them a pair of BTR-82A for security. That's all it turns out to be what the author wanted.
      2. vargo
        vargo 21 October 2022 09: 06
        +11
        But all you had to do was ... read the article.
        1. Vladimir_2U
          Vladimir_2U 21 October 2022 09: 58
          -4
          Quote: vargo
          But all you had to do was ... read the article.

          Well, for example, I wrote for a red word that I didn’t read it. But the author, to the detriment of logic, oppresses his line ...
      3. Doccor18
        Doccor18 21 October 2022 09: 53
        +10
        Quote from Silver99
        Does the author propose to put all motorized riflemen into well-armored, but not armed vehicles?

        To begin with, I also do not agree with everything with the author of the article, but still he does not propose to "disarm" all the equipment.
        Inconsistencies, in my opinion, are: "saving" on combat modules and heavy weapons of the main infantry fighting vehicles / armored personnel carriers, he proposes
        MRAP to drink all wheeled armored vehicles. Yes, security will improve significantly, but "savings" is unlikely. MRAP is VERY expensive, which even rich Americans have repeatedly admitted. And I doubt very much that we will be able to put them into mass production ...
        But what I agree with is this: bonneted trucks with armored cabs and protected turrets with machine guns are very necessary wherever you can "attach" them ...
        1. Adrey
          Adrey 21 October 2022 15: 11
          +4
          Quote: Doccor18
          To begin with, I also do not agree with everything with the author of the article, but still he does not propose to "disarm" all the equipment.
          Inconsistencies, in my opinion, are: "saving" on combat modules and heavy weapons of the main infantry fighting vehicles / armored personnel carriers, he proposes

          Maybe I read it wrong, or I read it that way, but I understood it in my own way laughing
          In my opinion, first of all, the author is happy for a clear separation of transport vehicles and battlefield vehicles.
          From transport:
          1. Trucks for transporting goods and tractors of light and medium artillery systems (as long as there is towed artillery, but of course it is desirable to switch to self-propelled guns) with an armored cab.
          2. The MCI itself with enhanced armor (12.7 board) and increased mine protection for transporting personnel, as a complete replacement for the armored personnel carrier. To reduce the cost and level the temptation to throw them at the forefront, simplification and reasonable weakening of weapons, the rejection of the DUM.
          Quote: Doccor18
          MRAP is VERY expensive, which even rich Americans have repeatedly admitted.

          "Cheap is not good" request
          If we raise the issue of infantry fighting vehicles as battlefield vehicles, then it’s no secret to anyone that modern Western models are several times different from ours in terms of security and firepower, perhaps at least comparable. But the price tag plunges everyone into "silent horror." It starts to come close to the price of MBT. This is also closely related to our new projects. Apparently, that's why we ride along the front line on the "cardboard" and TBMP at exhibitions. request
          Well, the "price" of the life of our fighters is known to us and apparently not included in these prototypes request hi
          1. this
            this 21 October 2022 20: 49
            +1
            There is such a price tag that such a cost is not available at all to anyone, even to the states.
      4. insafufa
        insafufa 21 October 2022 09: 58
        +4
        Again, I have already written more than once, times have changed and it is necessary to divide the army into several rads of troops in the mountains and cities, the best type of troops is the classic infantry; hail filled with earth or pieces of armor from wrecked infantry fighting vehicles. The author says the necessary things are needed by MRAP, they should not go on the attack on the enemy, their task was to deliver a ride and that's it. You can’t put everyone on an infantry fighting vehicle and you won’t transport it, most often the equipment moves on a trawl, I’m talking about an infantry fighting vehicle. The MRAP is very good for transporting ammunition, transporting personnel, and for fuel, an armored truck will still create more problems than an unarmored one for the enemy. Classical infantry units for the combat stability of troops on an MRAP are a much better option than on an unarmored Ural and Kamaz, albeit without a combat module but with a turret. Even on 2s3 there is a remote module with a PKT for 100 rounds with a mechanical drive for the gun commander.
      5. Materialist
        Materialist 21 October 2022 13: 00
        +3
        In general, the author mainly wrote about armored personnel carriers and their forms of execution, and the BMP indirectly affected
        An armored personnel carrier should be in the performance of an anti-guerrilla vehicle or a cargo transport vehicle with a specialization in armament and carrying capacity, respectively, to arm an armored personnel carrier with something more substantial than an easel machine gun is stupidity, given that the armored personnel carrier is not a combat vehicle and, in principle, should not appear on the front end
        Motorized infantry must act with infantry fighting vehicles (as a concept and not a specific embodiment), and it is painfully difficult to imagine the independence of any kind of troops, if motorized infantry fights without tanks, infantry fighting vehicles, aviation, artillery, they will in any case suffer heavy losses
        Also keep in mind that the future of the BMP is for the operator's vehicle and not for the combat one, "tank-like" ones will cope with combat missions
      6. Eroma
        Eroma 21 November 2022 19: 01
        0
        The author, using the example of infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers, proposes to carry everyone and everything to MCI in the nearest rear! You didn't read it!!!
        And he talks about how these MCIs can withstand the DRG, believing that this is much better and more correct than using an infantry fighting vehicle or an unarmored truck. Which is generally true, infantry fighting vehicles should be at the forefront, and MCI is really tenacious than a truck soldier
    2. SincerityX
      SincerityX 21 October 2022 11: 09
      +4
      Nevertheless, despite the controversial conclusions, the author has a couple of really important and relevant remarks, such as, for example, we really need a "bus" based on an infantry fighting vehicle with three exits and a heavy / medium caliber machine gun in a semi-turret design, with ammunition from under towers, or with a box of sufficient volume for firing for 3 minutes (approximately so much is needed for the machine to shoot back either escape from an ambush, or, having suppressed the enemy’s fire, be able to land the fighters). Again, the fighters in the BM squad really need the simplest displays + primitive cameras outside to understand the direction of fire and armament of the enemy.
      Again, remote-controlled turrets do have very limited ammo in boxes on the outside, which can be fired quite quickly. And their ammunition really needs to be carried inside with feed through the tape, so that the crew can quickly change the box under fire, being safe.

      However, there is one very important note. Vehicles should no longer move in a column on the march. A column of vehicles is punished very quickly, now small groups of 1-2 vehicles are relevant, where just the batr, at which the author grumbles, can snap back well. Another thing is that such a “bus” with a machine gun against manpower will look good in a pair with him, when the batr will tear up the “technical” and temporary fortifications of the ambush group / DRG.
      1. Materialist
        Materialist 21 October 2022 13: 13
        +2
        An armored personnel carrier and an infantry fighting vehicle are two different forms of "buses" of the rear and front, respectively, their joint movement already raises questions, given that the first is wheeled and only (for the sake of speed), the second is tracked, since it is a first-tier vehicle
        In any case, an armored personnel carrier should be able to snarl, and it is also desirable that MLRS be used on its base due to its greater range and the ability to operate from a rather deep rear, only in the first case, all its carrying capacity must be directed into the mainstream of armor protection (from RPGs) and turrets with easel machine guns, while maintaining buoyancy, similar to a freight transport
        The only place where armored personnel carriers should meet with infantry fighting vehicles is on the border of the front and rear, where all the powers of the first pass to the last
    3. Barberry25
      Barberry25 21 October 2022 11: 52
      -2
      but I read it .. and in vain .. the meaning is about this, little money .. therefore, modules are not needed, but we need super-expensive latest-generation mraps with shields ...
    4. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 21 October 2022 12: 33
      +7
      Quote: Vladimir_2U
      I didn’t read further, because confusing a module with an inhabited tower is not an indicator of intelligence. This is if you do not remember about remotely controlled modules, which in general can be installed on almost any surface without occupying the internal volume.

      Uh-huh ... but advertising pictures with such modules usually bypass the question "what kind of BC does such a module have"?
      Some people, remember, were very fond of demonstrating the AU220M at exhibitions without a turret magazine (which occupied the same volume in BO that the habitable turret occupied), indicating on the advertising stand the number of shells in the ammo for the variant with a magazine. smile
      1. Vladimir_2U
        Vladimir_2U 21 October 2022 13: 23
        +2
        Quote: Alexey RA
        Someone, remember, was very fond of demonstrating the AU220M at exhibitions without a turret magazine

        Not me laughing
        But even 57 mm is far from even 12,7, but 30 mm, so if you organize the supply through the sleeve from the base of the DBM or the basket under the armor, then all this will take no more space than half the body of a machine gunner.
        1. Sergey Aleksandrovich
          Sergey Aleksandrovich 22 October 2022 17: 00
          +2
          The author generally has a substitution of meaning here. Instead of advocating for retrofitting everything possible with an electric drive, it offers a completely manual mode. Although in the event of a drive failure, it remains possible to control manually.
          And the drive and automation are primarily needed to be able to connect artificial intelligence for firing at air targets. That is, drones should be hit from 12,7 machine guns with the help of automation, target tracking systems, fire control systems, possibly using neural networks. When an effective solution appears, it should be possible to mass retrofit modules and automated machine gun turrets.
          It is necessary to move in a completely opposite direction to automation.
          1. Vladimir_2U
            Vladimir_2U 22 October 2022 18: 32
            +1
            Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich
            Instead of advocating for retrofitting everything possible with an electric drive, it offers a completely manual mode.

            drinks
    5. Alex92
      Alex92 21 October 2022 15: 56
      +2
      I agree. A long article and a lot of things can be answered, but I didn’t immediately understand why the author equates the seating of people in an armored personnel carrier and an infantry fighting vehicle with an inhabited tower, with different tasks, to the fact that no one initially suggests putting a 30/100 twin on an armored personnel carrier, but suggests leaving them no means of defense at all. The feeling that it was specially taken for the example of the BMP-3 as a vehicle with a "not very convenient" compartment for the landing force in order to "skew" the comparison
      1. Vladimir_2U
        Vladimir_2U 21 October 2022 17: 55
        0
        Quote: Alex92
        The feeling that it was specially taken for the example of the BMP-3 as a vehicle with a "not very convenient" compartment for the landing force in order to "skew" the comparison

        The author ignores a lot. hi
    6. Dimax-nemo
      Dimax-nemo 21 October 2022 16: 15
      +1
      Oddly enough, but the BMP-2 modernizers insisted that the installation of an unmanned combat module eats up space, including that of the troop compartment. Which, however, did not prevent, when modernizing the "penny", to put in there a "tower" from the BTR-82A instead of the standard one.
    7. Bulgarian_5
      Bulgarian_5 21 October 2022 19: 19
      -2
      And you can just do adequate unification of infantry fighting vehicles with adequate protection against non-tandem RPGs, ATGMs, from above from UAVs and from below from mini ??

      and throw all the rest on the metallols, deceive vehicles like armored personnel carriers that break through with the help of modern sniper rifles?

      And then at the top of this BMP, you can already put different weapons modules, turrets, turrets, machine guns, rockets, etc. And if you need it, you can do it without weapons, just a transporter ....

      Oh, I scored, they already made it, T15 is called but 'geniuses' in the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation do not want to buy it ......
    8. 78bor1973
      78bor1973 22 October 2022 17: 00
      +2
      The author of the new did not discover anything, we had the same age as the M113 -BTR-50, and he also swam! By the way, everything was the same with the Bradley - from a simple transport with a machine gun, to a fucking armored and even more armed infantry fighting vehicle!
      1. Vladimir_2U
        Vladimir_2U 22 October 2022 18: 31
        0
        Quote: 78bor1973
        to a fucking armored and even more armed infantry fighting vehicle!

        But no longer floating.
  2. Asad
    Asad 21 October 2022 05: 12
    0
    Good article, good analysis, without hatred and everything is gone! The author deserves a plus. Well, the technical aspects will be discussed by more experienced members of the forum.
  3. Bodipancher
    Bodipancher 21 October 2022 05: 31
    +13
    The remotely controlled module is designed to solve two problems. It saves armored space, but the main thing is to prevent the blast wave from flowing through the open hatch, which is the main task for MRAP (protection against land mines). MRAP
    they appeared when it turned out that the main losses came from landmines, and not from direct clashes. The sense will be from powerful armor if everyone inside is killed or shell-shocked by an explosive wave through the machine gunner's hatch. Therefore, the conclusions in the article are at least controversial.
    1. Cuckoo
      Cuckoo 21 October 2022 08: 39
      +4
      Then, a turret, like in a motorcycle league?

      The text of your comment is too short and in the opinion of the site administration does not carry useful information.
      1. Bad_gr
        Bad_gr 21 October 2022 12: 15
        0
        Quote: Bodypuncher
        MRAP
        they appeared when it turned out that the main losses came from landmines, and not from direct clashes.
        Where there is a direct collision with the enemy, armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles are needed (that is, for the Army), and MRAP is more suitable where the territory is already more or less under control, but all sorts of sabotage is possible (where the threat from a high-explosive mine is more likely than from grenades), that is, for the Russian Guard.
    2. Sergey Aleksandrovich
      Sergey Aleksandrovich 21 October 2022 10: 16
      +2
      Moreover, the author is cunning, omitting such advantages of remote modules as a circular sector of fire and the possibility of firing at air targets. The turret, if it is not fixed on the hatch with circular rotation, does not allow firing at the flanks and back at all.
      1. Alexander Vorontsov
        21 October 2022 11: 45
        +5
        Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich
        Moreover, the author is cunning, omitting such advantages of remote modules as a circular sector of fire and the possibility of firing at air targets. The turret, if it is not fixed on the hatch with circular rotation, does not allow firing at the flanks and back at all.

        I just didn’t think of such an option, because the photo and video material in the article is enough to understand that they are turning.

        As for criticism, I'm always for, but constructive criticism. I will be happy to hear your suggestions regarding the reloading of a machine gun in battle. Or overview - how do you replace a person with a device with a narrow field of view and a multiple of lower turning speed in the context of monitoring what is happening to the left and right along the moving column.

        But such posts "but if it is tightly welded" ... the next level of argumentation is to weld its trunk.
        1. Barberry25
          Barberry25 21 October 2022 12: 01
          +1
          how did you combine in one article: "we need simple and reliable armored personnel carriers" and "we need Typhoon-K and Typhoon-U"? It's like expensive and piece products. So if you choose, then you need to bet on Kamaz Shot, Ural VPK and Ural Chekan + there is also Gaz Buran. We need a LOT of cars
        2. Sergey Aleksandrovich
          Sergey Aleksandrovich 21 October 2022 12: 30
          +2
          Everything is there for your previous article. And about ammunition and about circular rotation.
          https://topwar.ru/201966-bronetehnika-2.html
          But you prefer, without reading, to place a minus in a circle on all my comments.
          Maintenance of a combat module, such as the Crossbow, can be done from the hatch behind it. And firing in manual mode is also possible and observation, especially if the hatch is made double-leaf.
          And about the reliability of the electric drive is somehow confused. There are no such problems in reality. The armament drive in almost all cases also allows manual guidance.
          On the contrary, it is reasonable to talk about the need to supplement the installation with an electric drive, for firing from under the armor and for the possibility of equipping it with automatic guidance, which is especially important for firing at air targets.
  4. squid
    squid 21 October 2022 05: 31
    +22
    the author mixed infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers into a bunch. m113 is generally outdated and is being withdrawn from service in developed countries. mrap is not in the business at all - this is a technique for low-intensity conflicts, counter-guerrilla, and not for the Ukrainian war. modern armored personnel carriers in the west have just remote combat modules, cannons from 30mm, ptura, etc. (everything that the author proposes to refuse) and the mass exceeds 30 tons - hence the security. you should not be smart, but simply develop an analogue, and launch it in a wide series. "boomerang" was just a step in this direction
    1. Hagen
      Hagen 21 October 2022 07: 32
      +2
      Quote: squid
      the author mixed in a bunch of infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers

      During the war in the DRA, both the employees of the General Staff, responsible for supplying the troops with RAV equipment, and the engineering staff of weapons manufacturing plants were constantly present in the troops. The factory workers did their best to speed up the introduction of changes to the weapon, based on the results of its use. It is logical to think that something similar is happening today. It's just that if the authors of science fiction only need to spend time typing, then the engineers need to collect statistics, think over and link technical solutions with the possibilities, explain to senior management (very important, because this is money) the need to make changes, make a sample in the quantity necessary for the sample, and etc.. i.e. practical work is always slower than thought, and therefore raises questions from "couch experts" - well, when ...., why not yesterday / a hundred years ago ...., who sawed what, etc. ... It is necessary to understand, especially to people, accustomed only to dream that real life is much more complicated and trickier than teenage fantasies. And you should not see yourself as the most insightful, far-sighted, honest and patriotic. In practical military and near-military life, a lot of people possess these qualities to no lesser extent and, unlike sofa troops, they practically do something in the "struggle for all that is good against the bad." I hope ... no, I'm sure that the specialists of the General Staff are still in the thick of things today, collecting bit by bit the "experience of military operations" and advancing military thought in accordance with this experience. The information that plans and topics are already being adjusted in military universities in accordance with this experience only confirms my confidence. Thanks to the author for the article. Thinking is good ... "Let it be a crazy idea, don't cut it in the heat of the moment..." wink
      1. Cuckoo
        Cuckoo 21 October 2022 08: 41
        +1
        I hope ... no, I'm sure that the specialists of the General Staff are still in the thick of things today, collecting bit by bit the "experience of military operations" and advancing military thought in accordance with this experience.

        Oh yeah. What prevented them from collecting this experience since 2014? Yes, there was basically a positional war, but we are not ready for it either.
      2. Alexander Vorontsov
        21 October 2022 11: 35
        +2
        During the war in the DRA, the troops were constantly present as employees of the General Staff,

        When the Americans fought in Vietnam, factory turrets appeared on the M113 a year later (after the first M113s arrived). This is the 60s. For 60 years, the United States has continuously improved turrets, adding seemingly minor but important improvements.

        How many decades do you think the "engineers" need to realize the need for turrets and master their production?
    2. donavi49
      donavi49 21 October 2022 09: 21
      +8
      M113


      Much sought after as a trophy. Holds on board the NSVT. A lot of space inside + outside can be taken away = like on 2 infantry fighting vehicles. Trash will not be called a swallow wink
    3. Materialist
      Materialist 21 October 2022 13: 32
      +2
      M113-BTR, from which some unique people tried to make an infantry fighting vehicle, forcedly or deliberately
      MRAP-armored personnel carrier with a specialization in mine protection of the crew to the detriment of all-terrain
      Western armored personnel carriers suffer from Bradley syndrome in, conditionally, to the same extent as any others, the Germans' attempt to make a heavy infantry fighting vehicle out of a wheeled armored personnel carrier will lead to many variations and versions of infantry fighting vehicles with different units but the absence of a high-speed amphibious supply, the Americans distinguished themselves by trying to make a wheeled tank, although they know better, they often parachute their equipment in the regions of application of democracy
      The author, unlike many, has an idea about the specialization of vehicles and argues the absurdity of re-arming and re-equipping non-combat vehicles for the sake of increasing their cost and copying the functions of existing ones
      Boomerang is an unpromising piece of armored steel and aggregates, embodying in equal inferiority two functions of armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles truncated to please each other with the propulsion and layout of the first and the armament and armor of the second
      1. squid
        squid 21 October 2022 15: 46
        0
        one must understand that the author's "inexpensive supplier in the yellow zone" is a fiction. that in a large, that in a small (guerrilla) war. 5-50 km from the front line there will be DRGs, ambushes, enemy breakthroughs and other troubles. so whether you like it or not, you have to do a heavy wheeled armored personnel carrier. and arm it with something more serious than a machine gun. so the boomerang (and other attempts to follow the path of the "boxer" and others) is a step in the right direction. how successful is not clear, but here the question is about the capabilities of our military-industrial complex
        1. Materialist
          Materialist 21 October 2022 17: 40
          0
          The boomerang was originally created according to the perverted concept of an armored personnel carrier / infantry fighting vehicle that would drive fast, shoot clearly, swim, and hold 30 mm in the forehead, despite the fact that it is too small compared to the dimensions that are most appropriate for an armored personnel carrier
          When they start creating a real armored personnel carrier, according to all the requirements, they will start from the base version and add a turret to it, add. reservations, screens, etc., and will have to fit into the weight category loaded to the limit of the same basic version of the transporter, still retaining buoyancy
          And in order to fight against the DRG, it is enough to have heavy machine guns 12.7 / 14.5, but, as the author already wrote, only on the turret
          This "conceptual" armored personnel carrier itself will obviously not only be a military vehicle, it will be quite possible to operate it in extreme conditions and for the transport of "special" cargoes in value
          The only thing that will make the concept related to the old people and the Boomerang is a 4-axle chassis
          Preliminary weight category for the transport worker and escort - 20 and 30-35 tons, respectively
          1. squid
            squid 22 October 2022 05: 41
            +1
            why do you need that buoyancy, may I ask? even on this site there were already articles revealing the destructiveness of the buoyancy requirement for mass army equipment. In short, it gives more disadvantages than advantages. now there are BMP-2 and BTR-80 - do they sail a lot in Ukraine?
            about machine guns 12.7 / 14.5 - no high-explosive impact. then it’s ags, but there it’s not right in terms of range and flatness. so 30mm is better, but with a remote air blast like a marder.
            1. Materialist
              Materialist 22 October 2022 11: 29
              +2
              I'm talking about buoyancy exclusively for armored personnel carriers, as a nice bonus, for greater reliability of supply and all-terrain capability, given that the sealed box made of armored steel also contributes to circular security
              With regard to the concept I have outlined, it is inappropriate to draw an analogy with the SVO, where armored personnel carriers are some lightweight wheeled infantry fighting vehicles, there is a place for a highly specialized vehicle only among other highly specialized vehicles, and now all war horses suffer from Bradley syndrome, infantry fighting vehicles swim, armored personnel carriers are armored and lose buoyancy, some in general use armor-Urals and the like
              RDGs do not operate from long distances, and a sufficient fire density of 14.5 machine guns acts in the same way as a much more bulky 30-mm autocannon, only there is more ammunition and cartridges are not so "sorry", I don't consider combat modules, but I mean specifically turrets with by moving the shooter into it, even if it is inhabited, but it should not be inferior to the module in terms of security, for high-explosive action, you can arm a certain number of AGSs, after all, we are talking about the range of a combat collision of the order of 100 meters, on which the DRGs are tank-dangerous manpower
      2. Bulgarian_5
        Bulgarian_5 21 October 2022 19: 23
        0
        I will never agree with you that the Boomerang is a bad car, you have to go in the direction of the unification of cars, and just change the combat modules, depending on the customer, and the protection should always hit the level.

        In a modern conflict, ordinary vehicles such as armored personnel carriers do not correspond to the realities on the battlefield, due to the large number of ATGMs and large-caliber rifles / machine guns created specifically for defeating vehicles.

        And about mini, and copter UAVs that are lowered from above by minis, heads from RPGs and all sorts of other 'gifts', there's just no point in talking about.
  5. Alexander_K
    Alexander_K 21 October 2022 05: 39
    +10
    A good option is a separate armored capsule for 10 people, which can be put even on the body of the Urals or Kamaz, even in a trailer to a tank or infantry fighting vehicle. Plus overhead armor on the doors and overhead bulletproof glass for trucks. Cheap, maintainable, good level of protection.
    1. Eug
      Eug 21 October 2022 07: 15
      +1
      And how a checkpoint can be used. Albeit with some excesses.
      1. Sergey Aleksandrovich
        Sergey Aleksandrovich 21 October 2022 10: 11
        +6
        Concrete block rooms are more suitable for a checkpoint. Ukrainians do just that, when creating fortified areas they even bury them in the ground. Concrete block rooms and can be equipped with hatches and even armored glass. "Plus" on the comment from me.
      2. SincerityX
        SincerityX 21 October 2022 11: 21
        +2
        No, it's impossible. A shell will immediately fly into such a "checkpoint" either from a tank or from artillery. It must be buried in order to be used as a roadblock. But then it’s easier to dig a normal fortification. (The cons are not mine, if anything)
    2. insafufa
      insafufa 21 October 2022 13: 46
      +1
      A good option is a separate armored capsule for 10 people, which can be put even on the body of the Urals or Kamaz, even in a trailer to a tank or infantry fighting vehicle.

      But at the same time, the cabin is not armored for everyone and the driver is all healed; this is a gasket between the steering wheel and the driver and an armor on the door am
      1. Alexander_K
        Alexander_K 21 October 2022 22: 44
        +1
        I indicated the armor plates. In extreme cases, only the driver dies in a fire attack. This transport is like a cheap but well-protected replacement for armored personnel carriers. There will be money and desires - they will make Boomerangs. Until then, that would be great.
  6. Alexander_K
    Alexander_K 21 October 2022 05: 44
    +3
    An infantry fighting vehicle should have protection no worse than a tank. To begin with, convert the old T-55s to BMPs.
    1. Eug
      Eug 21 October 2022 07: 17
      +1
      In Kharkov, at the 115th BTRZ, the T-64 was coolly converted into TBMP-64. But the main complaint was the high cost of maintenance and operation ...
      1. insafufa
        insafufa 21 October 2022 13: 47
        +1
        So now they probably bite their elbows
    2. SincerityX
      SincerityX 21 October 2022 11: 24
      +2
      Something has not seen a single tank with an engine in the front, and if the landing party jumps out in front, or from above, then they will shoot it like ducks. It still didn’t go anywhere on the side, but then you need to make the tank 4-tracked, and although this is possible and even relatively inexpensive, but ... well, that’s it. laughing
      1. Alexander_K
        Alexander_K 21 October 2022 22: 54
        +1
        This topic was well developed in other articles: deploy the tank with the engine forward, ramp behind, mounted remote sensing, possibly a combat module or Arena, etc. The price of the issue is, in theory, small, if we exclude kickbacks and tenfold mark-ups.
        1. SincerityX
          SincerityX 25 October 2022 10: 34
          0
          Well, yes, and we will get a conveyor that travels 10 km / h forward and 45 back laughing
    3. Materialist
      Materialist 21 October 2022 13: 37
      +1
      Without regard to the costs of capitalist production, the best option is to count all the available t-72 and t-80, divide by three and use the hulls of the first 2/3 for tanks and BMPTs, and remove the chassis from the 1/3 and combine it with new building, so you can provide a very impressive supply of machines on the same nodes and assemblies
      1. SincerityX
        SincerityX 25 October 2022 10: 36
        0
        I didn't quite understand the logic. And again, what to do with machines that have developed a resource of 50%? And 70%? 85-90%? Those. they still run, but the parts are already worn out. And the resource of the tank fleet is very different.
        But any idea is good, even if unfinished, one way or another it can come in handy.
        1. Materialist
          Materialist 25 October 2022 10: 53
          0
          The deterioration of the undercarriage in the factory is not so difficult to eliminate, in any case, the resource will be averaged by a major overhaul, I mean the use of either only hulls and undercarriages or only the undercarriage (in the case of infantry fighting vehicles), all engines, transmissions, observation / combat devices must be installed new
          This proposal, most likely, is unrealistic to fulfill in the present conditions, only in the conditions of mobilization of all labor resources and the leveling of the exploitative stratum of society
          1. SincerityX
            SincerityX 25 October 2022 13: 32
            0
            The deterioration of the undercarriage in the factory is not so difficult to eliminate, in any case, the resource will be averaged by a major overhaul, I mean the use of either only hulls and undercarriages or only the undercarriage (in the case of infantry fighting vehicles), all engines, transmissions, observation / combat devices must be installed new

            Then the hulls will not be digested into something new for long. request
            This proposal, most likely, is unrealistic to fulfill in the present conditions, only in the conditions of mobilization of all labor resources and the leveling of the exploitative stratum of society

            Yes, yes, the proletarians of all countries and further in the text .. wassat
            1. Materialist
              Materialist 25 October 2022 16: 06
              0
              If the material, time and labor resources are absolutely unlimited, you can continue to produce a bunch of useless equipment of all stripes and with a wide variety of weapons, or you can digest the hulls, which is already there, you can still create new machines
              What is the last sentence?
  7. Owl
    Owl 21 October 2022 05: 59
    +6
    A combination of tactics, technology and personnel training is needed. At the head of the column there is a patrol on armored personnel carriers (preferably two, one with sappers, the second with a fire support group), then protected vehicles with light weapons carrying personnel and closes all this, those closing and armored personnel carriers with rear patrol. Some objects should have a jamming system for radio fuses.
    1. SincerityX
      SincerityX 25 October 2022 10: 44
      0
      Wait a minute, dear.
      At the head of the column there is a patrol on armored personnel carriers (preferably two, one with sappers, the second with a fire support group)

      So "with sappers", or "on an armored personnel carrier"? Sappers can detect anti-tank mines while in/on armor only once. And for demining there is a special machine. Well, either collective farm trawl on the armored personnel carrier.
      then protected vehicles with light weapons carrying personnel and closes all this, those closing and armored personnel carriers with rear patrol.

      All this happiness is removed from the RPG by the head and tail vehicles, then the LBS, desperately trying to bypass the blazing obstacle, are shot from the KPVT / Browning into the side. Or even from PCT, or "cookies".
      It was already. How many columns burned down in the gorges and near Kyiv.
  8. Bingo
    Bingo 21 October 2022 06: 07
    +9
    Not stupid. Even delicious. One minus - MRAPs are GUARANTEED to fly in the red zone. Because some armor is better than none at all. But this is not for the author, this is a matter of providing the army with EVERYTHING necessary for the state. But it’s still doubtful, this is the same concept that an infantry fighting vehicle is for the battlefield, and an armored personnel carrier is a combat bus, like it drove it and dumped it into the fog, how is it in reality? But in reality, MTLBs, if any, were used during the storming of cities, as infantry support, but this is in the DPR, I don’t know if this was in the NVO.
    1. Cuckoo
      Cuckoo 21 October 2022 08: 31
      +9
      But this is not for the author, this is a matter of providing the army with EVERYTHING necessary for the state.

      That's the problem, that conditionally according to the state in the yellow zone we have tilt trucks.
      1. Bingo
        Bingo 21 October 2022 09: 01
        +8
        So I'm telling you, they will bring up the mraps, they will be pushed into the front, and the trucks will remain behind. Only when there are enough vehicles "with modules" in the red one - and a little more for the rotation of the wrecked ones - only then can you start thinking about MCIs.
        In the meantime - they rightly said at the top - Akhmat trucks. Cheap, not perfect, but fast - and real.
        And then they rushed out already, one machine gun is not enough - you need two, two is not enough - you need a machine gun and a module ... Then they will reach the combat guard from drones and so that the Ka-52 hangs at the top, just in case
        1. ZuekRek
          ZuekRek 21 October 2022 11: 19
          +5
          Exactly. Until the needs of the "red" zone are closed, the rest should be secondary. Unfortunately, we, apparently, cannot simultaneously solve several tasks in terms of armored vehicles. Therefore, you need to focus on the main thing so that these hypothetical MCIs are not dragged to where they do not belong, and then stupid people began to say that this is "garbage".
        2. SincerityX
          SincerityX 21 October 2022 11: 28
          +3
          ... And then they rushed out already, one machine gun is not enough - two are needed, two are not enough ...

          I really want to live, but I'm scared to die. This is fine. After a couple of obsers under fire, the brains are already starting to look for balance.
          But all the same, any extra fat and gun, if it does not reduce combat or transport capabilities, is definitely needed.
  9. Old_Major
    Old_Major 21 October 2022 06: 10
    +1
    A lot of divorced "experts". when they see something on the video, they begin to discuss and criticize. And questions for these experts: - did they themselves operate this weaponry and equipment, and did they communicate with the crews? Did they take part in the battle on this technique? They picked up half-literate data from Wikipedia and already an "expert". I graduated from a tank university, I was in the Caucasus and other places where they shoot. But I did not find this new technology and I do not undertake to criticize it.
    1. Cuckoo
      Cuckoo 21 October 2022 08: 32
      +2
      But, an assumption, based on experience, is it necessary or not, can you do it?
      1. Old_Major
        Old_Major 21 October 2022 15: 48
        +2
        I did not see them in action, did not communicate live with the crew members and commanders of the company-battalion link, who have them available. How can you judge something by blah blah? There are real experts in the troops. As a commander, I was also asked to give my opinion, but after I had worked live with a specific weapon while performing specific tasks. And now it turns out that I sort of began to analyze the sales of some junk.
    2. ZuekRek
      ZuekRek 21 October 2022 11: 31
      +6
      An example from the personal experience of a person close to me. He had "experience" in blowing up a land mine on our infantry fighting vehicle in the Chechen campaign and on a land mine in Bradley, when he was in Kosovo in the peacekeeping contingent. Since then, he has been an apologist for heavy infantry fighting vehicles. Well, I find it strange when they drive an armored car, and not B. This means that this vehicle does not fulfill its purpose.
  10. Reader 47
    Reader 47 21 October 2022 06: 46
    +3
    Article about the errors of the military-industrial complex. They give as an example MCI, designed for patrolling in mine danger and the absence of heavy weapons from the enemy. That is, the colonial wars beloved by Americans. What is the mistake of our military-industrial complex? Not focusing on colonial wars? Author, we are not occupiers and do not plan such wars. But you must?
    1. Cuckoo
      Cuckoo 21 October 2022 08: 33
      +4
      We are not, but those who planned it for 8 years should have understood what to prepare for.
    2. Sergei Kazarin
      Sergei Kazarin 22 October 2022 00: 55
      +1
      How were the two Chechen wars different? What was the Russian military-industrial complex able to give birth to during these two wars? Just shove the armored capsule into the body?
      Only under Serdyukov, MCIs appeared with the Iveco assembly and then the Typhoons that appeared on this base, but after his departure, everything was quickly turned off
  11. IVZ
    IVZ 21 October 2022 06: 48
    +2
    That is, according to the author, in order to increase the effectiveness of armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles, they must be disarmed? Not to strengthen armor protection and weapons, namely to disarm?
    1. Cuckoo
      Cuckoo 21 October 2022 08: 34
      +6
      Enhance defense by disarming. Otherwise, the cycle of power-to-weight ratio - weight will go.
      1. SincerityX
        SincerityX 21 October 2022 11: 39
        -2
        Indeed, why not disarm a vehicle designed to support infantry with fire, incl. when the enemy has temporary/permanent fortifications.
        1. Cuckoo
          Cuckoo 21 October 2022 16: 37
          +3
          What are the enemy fortifications in the yellow line 15 km away. LBS?
          1. SincerityX
            SincerityX 25 October 2022 10: 13
            0
            Show me in my comment where it says about the ephemeral "yellow line". Or are you still fighting in cavalry formation? There are no colored lines there, everything is very gray. And the enemy can be met even 10 km from the official LBS, if the DRG leaks and sets up an ambush. And the infantry fighting vehicle supports the infantry with fire, during breakthroughs, or repelling breakthroughs. While the armored personnel carrier carries this infantry, incl. on LBS, just in order to organize a breakthrough, or reflect it. Moreover, the military guard of the column, reconnaissance. The armored personnel carrier is a very versatile vehicle. Therefore, the set of weapons corresponds.
  12. K-50
    K-50 21 October 2022 06: 56
    +7
    On video. Browning has to be reloaded using pliers to open the receiver.
    Is it always like this or did it happen like this? what lol
    1. vadimtt
      vadimtt 21 October 2022 10: 59
      +1
      Something tells me that this is not standard, but it turned out to be practical, and since the days of Vietnam.
  13. Bingo
    Bingo 21 October 2022 07: 28
    +9
    By the way, with shields for machine guns, the topic is generally mysterious. The Americans stubbornly did not put them to the last opportunity, although they also encountered in Iraq, when two Abrams on the bridge were burned by infantrymen armed only with Kalash - shrapnel was not in the tanks then, for that reason it appeared later, but they couldn’t get out to the machine gun - they would kill. .. Then the episode, colorfully described in "Black Hawk Down" - they also shot machine gunners in hummers. And the column in this failed special operation scratched under fire, without snapping. Now we don't bet.
    And yes, it’s somehow more difficult for us, we don’t have deserts, so either put 1 frontal shield - or just a turret, like on MTLB - not only is a glass open on top in cities a sentence for a machine gunner, so you need to rely on potential theater of operations - and these are the mountains and hills of the Central Russian Upland
  14. NSV
    NSV 21 October 2022 07: 30
    +5
    Good visibility for a driver sitting at a height of 3 meters, in front of such a hood !!!!! Yes, this driver will only see the beautiful far away!
    1. Cuckoo
      Cuckoo 21 October 2022 08: 37
      +5
      The lack of a close view is compensated by patency. Yes, and it is more important to notice an ambush from afar.
  15. Vadim Voroshilov
    Vadim Voroshilov 21 October 2022 07: 43
    +4
    People fighting for combat robotic systems need to take off their rose-colored glasses. The army urgently drives old T-62 tanks from storage. For now the troops need a lot of cheap simple equipment, which should be released in a very short time. We must not forget that we are under sanctions, the possibilities of our industry, the strength of isolation, are now limited, as well as the financial possibilities are not endless. One of the good options is to launch a series of Akhmat armored vehicles, created on the basis of Kamaz units and assemblies. This is a good help for an armored car based on the Urals. And to give weapons corresponding to simple in execution, cheap, with good visibility - a turret.

    Cheap Heroes have shown their effectiveness on the battlefield.
    1. Vladimir Michailovich
      Vladimir Michailovich 21 October 2022 09: 20
      -2
      There are no bridges for heavy equipment. Tomorrow China will stop deliveries (it may have already stopped) and what's next?
  16. garri-lin
    garri-lin 21 October 2022 08: 18
    +2
    Well written. And the questions raised are relevant. Just do not confuse MCI and armored personnel carriers. It is more logical for an armored personnel carrier to add anti-mine protection than for MCI armor. The issue with the review is also solved.
    And now the most important thing. The author advocates for 2 combat modules. On one machine. One for the commander, the second for the landing. Logically. And just like that, the commander needs a SAM with good optics and a thermal imager. 12,7 mm. And what is not clear. Why are grenade launchers not placed on such modules. A pair of RSHO in an armored casing is a good argument against an ambush. And inexpensive. An excellent lightweight and inexpensive module can be developed.
    But the second, at the landing, is purely a birdhouse. It is quite possible to implement this on the body of the BTR 80.
    1. Sergey Aleksandrovich
      Sergey Aleksandrovich 21 October 2022 09: 57
      -2
      Problems should be considered specifically for each machine. Two modules or two turrets are better than one, but only if there is room and hatches.
      And grenade launchers are already being installed on Remotely Controlled Modules, but you don’t know about it yet. Meet.

      The text was borrowed from Yuri Pasholok.
      Another AMN 233114 "Tiger-M" was used as a base for another combat module - "Crossbow-DM-M". It uses a fairly popular bunch of heavy machine gun "Kord" (6P49) and automatic grenade launcher AG-30M. The combat module with remote control can be used both for fire at ground targets and at air targets. Like the previous development, it can also be installed on the armored vehicle AMN 233121 "Athlete".
      1. garri-lin
        garri-lin 21 October 2022 10: 23
        +1
        At point-blank range, I don’t see either an RPG or an RSHO. Well, as usual, a little text, otherwise the bot does not allow short text.
        1. Sergey Aleksandrovich
          Sergey Aleksandrovich 21 October 2022 10: 42
          +1
          I don’t know what you mean by RSO, but there are better resolution photos on the net, but you can’t copy them. You now have the name of the module, look for it and you will find it.
          1. garri-lin
            garri-lin 21 October 2022 16: 31
            +1
            RSHO Manual Assault Flamethrower. Submodification of Bumblebee.
            1. Sergey Aleksandrovich
              Sergey Aleksandrovich 21 October 2022 16: 38
              0
              Small-caliber missiles are being prepared for the Epoch module. When they are finalized, they, quite possibly, will migrate to light vehicles.
              1. garri-lin
                garri-lin 21 October 2022 16: 55
                +1
                And a primitive bracket for two pipes and traction on electricity can be made right now.
                All these Crossbows and Epochs are a good thing, of course. That's just with the right approach, today it was possible to have thousands of units of properly armed equipment.
                1. Sergey Aleksandrovich
                  Sergey Aleksandrovich 21 October 2022 17: 50
                  +2
                  For some reason, they now prefer this and that.


                  Maybe because of the short effective range of the RPG and the low speed of the grenade?
                  And the transportation of "Bumblebees" on light armored vehicles turns them into a powder magazine on wheels. It is no coincidence that the BMO-T vehicle based on the main tank is intended for flamethrowers.
                  1. garri-lin
                    garri-lin 21 October 2022 19: 47
                    0
                    The shelling of the columns is carried out from the distance of the use of RPGs. To actually hit the column with these RPGs. What's stopping you from shooting back?
  17. Eule
    Eule 21 October 2022 08: 18
    +4
    (KAMAZ-63969),... and a futuristic door

    The door is ingenious, if not only the driver had the same one. Just imagine - a wounded man lies, a minefield of "petals". With such a door, you can drive up, climb out on it, lift the wounded and take him away. With such a "bridge" it will be much easier when it is impossible to step on the ground or snow (mines, chemistry)
  18. Sergey Valov
    Sergey Valov 21 October 2022 08: 26
    +4
    “Mistakes of the military-industrial complex: when an unarmed MRAP is better than an armed armored personnel carrier” is a constantly repeating mistake. What does the military-industrial complex have to do with it???
  19. Vladimir Kazakov
    Vladimir Kazakov 21 October 2022 08: 52
    +6
    As always, flies and cutlets are confused. The author raised important and sensible topics, one can agree with the arguments regarding MCI, but only in the context of transport for the Ministry of Internal Affairs / Terbatov / FSB and other things as second-echelon troops. Where the war is low intensity and anti-sabotage, there the mrap is the main combat unit. The development of all military affairs over the past 100 years has followed the path of increasing the firepower of a platoon / company / battalion. To deprive the people in the companies of their main weapons...well, this is a crime, I guess. The video certainly adds emotion, which is extremely untrue for analysis. If the 113x column was given 40mm guns or something to return fire, they wouldn't mind. If our tiger guys were given 30mm typhoons, they wouldn't mind either. And it is obvious that an increase in firepower is good for any unit. The other two important questions are what can the industry do and how much does it cost?
  20. TermNachTer
    TermNachTer 21 October 2022 09: 13
    -4
    The author wrote a lot and everything, not willing to disassemble everything line by line. But one thing especially amused, the "red zone" 5 km. in which a lot of things fly - ATGMs, shells with a caliber from 20 to 57 mm., fragments are sometimes very large in size and have the appropriate penetration. And then a huge (3,5 - 4 meters high) weakly armored trough drives in there. Then everyone can fantasize for himself.
  21. Bodipancher
    Bodipancher 21 October 2022 09: 25
    +2
    The article is somewhat chaotic, but this confusion is caused by a simple fact. The combination of transport and combat functions is always a compromise. In reality, there are two ways out. Either we protect the armored personnel carrier well, make it roomy, but limit ourselves to machine-gun armament and AGS. It turns out conditional Azharit. Either we arm well and sacrifice landing places. Then it turns out the Terminator or the tank. Or we combine it all in one car and get a very large and very expensive T-15. IMHO, for combat stability, two cheaper and more compact vehicles operating in conjunction covering and complementing each other are better.
  22. Sergey_52
    Sergey_52 21 October 2022 09: 29
    +1
    As a couch expert in this field, I can say the following. There are a lot of videos in the fields, but nowhere in the city, where combat vehicles with modules or turrets provide support to infantry units - and quite well and successfully ...
  23. Vladimir Michailovich
    Vladimir Michailovich 21 October 2022 09: 29
    -2
    The author’s idea, in principle, is clear - guns and ATGMs for equipping military equipment were invented by cowards. What will happen to the armored shed when meeting with the old BTR-3, the author does not care, it is understandable.
    Maybe you don’t need to build an MCI? Let's just disarm the armored personnel carrier and infantry fighting vehicle and the whole business.
  24. Vladimir Michailovich
    Vladimir Michailovich 21 October 2022 09: 32
    0
    Quote: eule
    With such a door, you can drive up, climb out on it, lift the wounded and take him away.

    Yeah, it's especially great if the hydraulic drive of the lifting mechanism fails :) Whoever invented this door is an idiot.
  25. Glory1974
    Glory1974 21 October 2022 10: 07
    0
    the combat module eats up almost half of the internal volume and, by removing it, it is quite possible to accommodate an additional 5-7 people, doubling the number of people transported. And this is the first argument in favor of abandoning the combat module on an armored personnel carrier.

    Absolutely wrong conclusion.
    A modern projectile or ATGM, when it hits a car, any one, as a rule, destroys it along with the crew. On the contrary, more cars with fewer troops are required. Instead of 3 armored personnel carriers or infantry fighting vehicles in a platoon, it is necessary to have 6 vehicles conditionally of the "Tiger" type. Such a platoon is 2 times more difficult to destroy, when one vehicle is destroyed, half as many infantrymen die.
    There is no continuous front line anywhere, with the exception of certain sections, so the enemy can be in the rear at any location, at any moment. Refusing weapons on equipment is criminal.
    1. Sergey Aleksandrovich
      Sergey Aleksandrovich 21 October 2022 10: 45
      -2
      The author is simply not familiar with the BT-3F and BTR-MDM "Shell".
  26. Zaurbek
    Zaurbek 21 October 2022 10: 31
    +2
    I would also add that while we are calving with a promising armored personnel carrier, it would be nice to make much technically simple 6x6 and 8x8 MCIs based on the same Typhoons. They do not float, but provide better protection against various factors. And the faster the better. Then, when we master the armored personnel carrier, they will find their place in the Russian Guard .... And the trolley will come in handy in Art systems
    1. iouris
      iouris 21 October 2022 10: 51
      0
      You can offer anything. It is necessary to offer what the industry will be able to fulfill in the near future. I think that the industry simply does not have the production and human resources to increase production: there are no engineers, no machine tools, no workers, no workshops, no land.
      1. Zaurbek
        Zaurbek 21 October 2022 10: 58
        +1
        There is military planning for this ... ..maximum use of civilian parts and final assembly at new non-specialized sites. In the country, everything is produced for this ... ... what and who prevents the production of a truck with an armored cab? Give an order to private enterprises and they will cut and weld such Cabins and buildings as much as you need ... ..
    2. Negro
      Negro 21 October 2022 11: 03
      -1
      Quote: Zaurbek
      it would be nice to make much technically simple MCI 6x6 and 8x8

      They are only technically simple at first glance.
      1. Zaurbek
        Zaurbek 21 October 2022 11: 07
        +1
        Any armored car based on a truck is always simpler than an armored personnel carrier….. and cheaper. If we compare the Typhoon K with the BTR82, then, of course. And if with Boomerang or Kurganets?
        1. Negro
          Negro 21 October 2022 11: 20
          0
          And in what weight is it easier to make protection against anti-tank mines, 10 tons or 30 tons?
          1. Zaurbek
            Zaurbek 21 October 2022 12: 03
            +2
            South Africa made such machines both on the basis of the Unimog and on the basis of the Urals ... .. but the most massive segment for such machines is the Urals 6x6 and 8x8
  27. iouris
    iouris 21 October 2022 10: 47
    -2
    It seems that the logic is this: if you remove the combat module, then an additional 5..7 people can burn out in one armored personnel carrier.
    1. Zaurbek
      Zaurbek 21 October 2022 11: 04
      +3
      No, rather, the message is elsewhere. The absence of the module will make it impossible to use the armored personnel carrier in direct clashes and it will be used as a drug transporter ... ..
    2. Sergei Kazarin
      Sergei Kazarin 22 October 2022 00: 59
      +1
      That's why the US used small armored Humvees, and now Oshkosh
  28. demiurg
    demiurg 21 October 2022 10: 50
    +2
    That's just in the database zone, soldiers of both the Russian Federation and Ukraine are trying to armor the received equipment as much as possible and fasten the babakha more powerfully. Perhaps additional armor will help, perhaps not, the same can be said about the combat module / additional weapons.
    The question is that when someone shoots at an AFV and you need to survive under fire and shoot back, additional armor and weapons should already be installed, it’s too late to make a decision under fire that in this exit / battle it was necessary to arm yourself better.

    TL/DR
    1. stock pocket does not pull.
    2. better well, his nafik than the fic knows him.
  29. Vadim Voroshilov
    Vadim Voroshilov 21 October 2022 11: 00
    +3
    as razvkdos wrote, wheels are needed for mobiles ... moreover, quickly and a lot and with good protection .... the Chechens simply went through the production of a cheap MRAP Akhmat at Kamaz nodes, for which there are a lot of spare parts and units familiar to auto mechanics. Carries 8 fighters. The usual turret for protection. Inexpensive and reliable. The Wagnerites are also following the same path - to the Ural base.
    and only the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation has either junk or promising developments. in piece copies.
  30. Negro
    Negro 21 October 2022 11: 14
    +4
    The author expressed a rather banal and well-known idea, but then got into the details and messed up the firewood.

    There is a front line technique and there is a rear/occupation zone technique. All this talk about an "unarmed armored personnel carrier" will disappear if you understand that it is not the replacement of an armored personnel carrier that is being discussed, but the replacement of a tilt truck without any protection. At the same time, armored personnel carriers, and even more so infantry fighting vehicles, front-line equipment, must be armored much better than those available and therefore will be much heavier. Therefore, by the way, the constantly mentioned Armat tank absolutely does not care, but the absence of the T-15 and Kurganets with the Boomerang is really a flight.
  31. SincerityX
    SincerityX 21 October 2022 11: 15
    0
    Transportation of Troops in Feng Shui

    If the task is to lose all the equipment from artillery, then it would be ideal, it would be better if only a column of 2, or 3 each, then it would be generally good, with a couple of splashes of all XNUMX.
  32. Alexfly
    Alexfly 21 October 2022 12: 33
    -1
    A very correct video with an attack on a checkpoint, everything was done extremely correctly. The opposite side, in this case the Russian Federation, was not even able to resist, as it became disoriented under crossfire and retreated .. Done according to the notes. This indicates a weak, uncertain preparation and coherence of the actions of the Russian troops, poor knowledge and ability to use grenade launchers. Also, the interaction in critical situations is not up to par. Most likely, the positions were abandoned and most of the defenders were destroyed .. Conclusion DO NOT save ON training, including physical ...
  33. Nephilim
    Nephilim 21 October 2022 13: 08
    -4
    The only positive thing from all this amateurish scribbling - I remembered the classic.
    We are eternal playthings of ever-renewing illusions, meaningless and charming.

    Guy de Maupassant.
  34. acetophenone
    acetophenone 21 October 2022 14: 08
    0
    In my opinion, the author is trying to compare warm with soft. Armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles are battlefield vehicles. MRAP has nothing to do there. What does the author suggest? Bring on the MRAP and transfer to the BMP? To agree that MCI should not be fired from anything heavier than a machine gun? Let me remind you that this war is only in the minds of the Kremlin commanders. MCI is good for counterguerrilla operations. I think the author knows this. Why he casts a shadow on the wattle fence - I do not understand. Is it for the sake of sracha and ad views? request
  35. Postcode
    Postcode 21 October 2022 14: 11
    0
    I started reading, reached the place where the author writes about the TRANSPORTATION of HP, that is, he transports personnel with armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles !!! Armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles are transporting personnel of the DIVISION !!!! They are transporting a unit: a squad, a platoon, a company.... and what is the fundamental difference is that a full-time unit with a commander at the head has its own vehicle and a FIRE weapon that the commander can dispose of in battle without asking for permission / support from the senior military commander!!! Proper use of both armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles, equal in class to enemy firepower, will create tremendous competition, and can create enough problems even more serious, such as a tank. There is such a thing as an ATGM, which is quite a problem for a tank.
    What kind of additional armor protection can be hung on an armored personnel carrier, instead of a combat module, that this protection will protect against 30mm, not to mention a tank, ATGM ???
    For a real understanding, it can be assessed using the example of the technology that is now coming to the Armed Forces of Ukraine from abroad, it does not and cannot differ in principle from ours, all countries of the world are following the same directions in the development of this.
    The main task of such equipment is that it should not just be a lot, but a lot, the production process should be a multiple of the percentage of losses on the battlefield.
    1. alstr
      alstr 21 October 2022 14: 49
      0
      You can also add that the appearance of ANY additional equipment entails an increase in the size of the unit and an increase in supply rates.
      And this is not always possible. Again, unification is a great thing.
      But there is one more thing. Even if we have both front-line equipment (infantry fighting vehicles / armored personnel carriers) and equipment for delivering everything and everything to the front line, the question of returning unarmed equipment from the battlefield still remains. Those. She will either have to hide somewhere or leave somewhere. And here, in one case, in another - all this equipment and personnel are practically defenseless from the actions of the DRG.
      In the case of armored personnel carriers, there is at least a theoretical chance to use heavy weapons.

      Another thing is that armored trucks are still needed (more precisely, they should be the only ones in the troops) and we are simply bad with them.
      Although this issue arose in the first Chechen war.
      1. Postcode
        Postcode 21 October 2022 15: 28
        0
        Having practical experience of working as part of a reconnaissance group, I can safely assure you that if I have the task of organizing an attack on a convoy consisting of ordinary KAMAZ and Ural, or as part of lightly armored trucks / transporters, there will be no fundamental difference in actions, especially if the convoy is unaccompanied by tanks and Btr. And the result will be approximately the same ... RPG 26, RPG 7 will do their job .... the rest will be worked out by small arms. In my understanding, lightly armored trucks, first of all, for medical evacuation vehicles, control and communication vehicles. HP must be transported to the position, to the line of transition to the attack, on regular armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles, all simple "wheels" are not closer than 2-3 km to the front edge.
        1. Sergey Aleksandrovich
          Sergey Aleksandrovich 21 October 2022 16: 23
          0
          But there will be a significant difference in the attack on conventional KAMAZ trucks and armored transporters. If the attackers are noticed in time, and the wheeled escort armored personnel carriers will look something like this, ..


          then the attackers will already have problems, according to the scenario of an attack on the Rosguard convoy in the same Kherson, but at the very beginning of the operation.
          1. garri-lin
            garri-lin 21 October 2022 16: 47
            +2
            You understand that everything in the photo will become priority targets. Just the first shots will come at them. And without armor, they will stupidly burn out without firing a single shot, and the column will be "hammered" according to the worked out scenario. Why a gun if there is no combat stability and it is impossible to use it ???
            1. Sergey Aleksandrovich
              Sergey Aleksandrovich 21 October 2022 17: 43
              0
              This is logic on the verge of its complete absence. Will we go unarmed or will we require tanks and self-propelled guns for escort?
              1. garri-lin
                garri-lin 21 October 2022 19: 43
                +2
                Of course, there are no tanks and self-propelled guns. But a normal BMP would not hurt.
              2. Postcode
                Postcode 24 October 2022 08: 23
                0
                from SAO in a column of sense, as from BAT)))
            2. Blackgrifon
              Blackgrifon 21 October 2022 20: 23
              0
              Quote: garri-lin
              You understand that everything in the photo will become priority targets. Just the first shots will come at them. And without armor, they will stupidly burn out without firing a single shot, and the column will be "hammered" according to the worked out scenario. Why a gun if there is no combat stability and it is impossible to use it ???

              But in Chechnya, the appearance of cannon armored personnel carriers led exactly to the same conclusions that Sergey Aleksandrovich voiced - columns with BTR-80A survived more often, and the enemy was forced to retreat with losses, often without achieving results.
              1. garri-lin
                garri-lin 21 October 2022 23: 49
                -1
                It is strange that BMP 2 was used in Chechnya. As far as I remember.
                1. Blackgrifon
                  Blackgrifon 22 October 2022 14: 13
                  +1
                  Quote: garri-lin
                  It is strange that BMP 2 was used in Chechnya. As far as I remember.

                  At the end of the second, the BTR-80A with guns went. And they have already appeared in several episodes.
                  By the way, they started asking for a gun on an armored personnel carrier back in Afghanistan.
                  1. garri-lin
                    garri-lin 22 October 2022 15: 31
                    -2
                    I mean, why didn’t they use BMP2 ????
                    1. Blackgrifon
                      Blackgrifon 22 October 2022 22: 05
                      -1
                      Applied. But armored personnel carriers were used much more then.
                      1. garri-lin
                        garri-lin 23 October 2022 01: 05
                        0
                        Maybe this is an organization problem and not a technical problem ??? Come up with an ersatzwunderwaffle instead of using specialized technology ???
                      2. Blackgrifon
                        Blackgrifon 23 October 2022 12: 39
                        +1
                        Quote: garri-lin
                        Maybe this is an organization problem and not a technical problem ??? Come up with an ersatzwunderwaffle instead of using specialized technology ???

                        The "Ersatzwunderwafer" here is just an infantry fighting vehicle, which is designed not to drive columns, but to conduct combined arms combat, and has a significantly smaller resource. And it is the BMP-1/2 that is not a specialized technique, because. has a smaller resource, security is slightly better than an armored personnel carrier and zero mine protection.
                        And the armored personnel carrier is exactly what the workhorse of any army is - it is he who is used in battle and to escort columns. And the cannon armored personnel carrier is the result of the Afghan experience, which was implemented and proved to be effective.

                        The fact that our machines have certain shortcomings does not prove the viciousness of the concept at all, because. even 80s with a cannon as part of a normal column repelled attacks and left the battle intact.
                      3. garri-lin
                        garri-lin 23 October 2022 18: 41
                        +1
                        From what distance did the shelling of the columns usually take place?
                        The regular KPVT armored personnel carrier at this distance is very different from the 30mm gun ??? Maybe it's not the gun but the sight ???
                        The 80A had a pretty good sight for its time.
                      4. Blackgrifon
                        Blackgrifon 23 October 2022 19: 20
                        0
                        It may be so + the organization of the column, I don’t argue here - I actually didn’t see any details on the distance and diagrams - at most, these are descriptions that the thirty were flooded with fire - in principle, the BMP-2 was also done. From the literature - there were articles on Courage.
                        And yes, you are right, most likely, it was the organization that largely decided. But this does not negate the fact that the very desire to replace the KPVT came from Afghanistan.
                      5. garri-lin
                        garri-lin 23 October 2022 19: 43
                        +2
                        In the mountains, yes. Against rocks, 30mm is better than 14,5. In the field, behind the trees and other things like that, it’s not so important. You need a direct hit.
          2. Sergei Kazarin
            Sergei Kazarin 22 October 2022 01: 00
            0
            At the same time, this module does not take up space inside the Typhoon, everything is outside
          3. Postcode
            Postcode 24 October 2022 08: 21
            0
            you don’t read carefully)))) it was about armored trucks, and I wrote, just about escorting armored personnel carriers and tanks !!!! there is a difference between an armored truck and an armored personnel carrier, an armored personnel carrier has quite serious weapons, and a truck is a "motorhome")))
    2. Alexander Vorontsov
      21 October 2022 23: 57
      +1
      Quote from Cap
      now comes to the Armed Forces of Ukraine from abroad, it does not differ in any fundamental way and cannot differ from ours,

      https://www.youtube.com/shorts/zij_zmO507k
      Yes, what is the fundamental difference ... no ... in one case, minced meat inside in the second, whole people. is it fundamental
  36. Igor_Gerasimenko
    Igor_Gerasimenko 21 October 2022 15: 01
    0
    In modern ambushes, kamikaze drones can also be used very effectively, which makes it important to protect the top equipment. And there is a chance that with a kamikaze drone through a mechanical turret it will be possible to get into the interior of the MRAP with fragments
  37. kamakama
    kamakama 21 October 2022 15: 08
    +3
    Damn, why reinvent the wheel. Everything has already been invented centuries ago. The ambush on the column is an invention of the Stone Age. So, building on the march, fundamentally unchanged from the time of Julius Caesar to WWI. Head patrol, rear patrol, side patrols. Their whole task is to detect the enemy. But the column will go at the speed of infantry. Or slowly or into the unknown in front of each hill or bush. The lateral interval of 500-600 meters allows you to open any ambush with a portable weapon - a mortar, a grenade launcher. And opening and neutralizing heavier weapons is no longer the task of the column
    1. Postcode
      Postcode 21 October 2022 15: 38
      0
      Conducting a raid by a battalion?))) Basically, it’s about making a march, that is, moving yourself in the rear, what kind of patrols and outposts are there .... the main task of the march is speed and secrecy, putting forward to all military guards, how many will this battalion advance? and during the raid, the actions of the enemy’s enemy forces will be of the nature of harassing actions, in order to slow down the speed of advance, inflict maximum losses, transfer coordinates for air and artillery strikes and create favorable conditions for occupying advantageous lines and engaging their barrier units in battle.
      1. kamakama
        kamakama 21 October 2022 15: 52
        +1
        Excuse me, what the hell is the secrecy of a column of 5 (I am silent about a larger number) vehicles ... with the presence of the reconnaissance equipment that is. Well, then we run into everything the same as in Afghanistan, in Chechnya, now here. You can review the "9th company" again, in principle, the execution of a column is no different from a modern video.
        And the speed is reduced to 0 with one shot from an RPG. Or a mine in a pit. Or a decrepit wooden bridge, on which no more than 10 km / h, otherwise it will fall apart
        This is not a raid. This is a normal column. Like convoys of the allies of the Second World War, an absolutely identical scheme. Nobody came up with anything new
        1. Postcode
          Postcode 24 October 2022 08: 56
          0
          I see that you have read books and seen enough movies, but I have seen enough of these "militants" in my life, I have already watched two "serials", with an interval of a year and a half)))))) ... what are you writing about, what the hell Chechnya which Afghan? There, what you write about, there was the performance of specific tasks, there was no WAR, there were military operations, and these are two big differences. What the fuck are allied convoys?! Do you even know what you are trying to write about? )))) If the column goes in its rear, there is a movement, a regrouping of troops, this is called a march, in the frontline zone some security issues are envisaged, where there is a possibility of DRG actions, but this is a very narrow strip, but if the battalion is marching in Rostov region, on the territory of Crimea, on the horseradish goat button accordion?))) Stealth when committing and camouflage measures are provided always and everywhere, starting from movement in the frontline zone mainly at night, ending with silence on the air, including turned off mobile phones .
          And when a unit moves behind enemy lines, this is called a raid (raid actions), here all the "options" of organizing combat guards are included, starting with the expulsion of the BRD, BPO, etc.
          1. kamakama
            kamakama 24 October 2022 10: 56
            +1
            And where did I write about the raid? This is a typical march, just with an ambush of that very DRG. And I did not see the guards, but I saw a perfectly chosen place for an ambush. Elevation next to the bridge. Half of the group is cut off by undermining the bridge or destroying the equipment on it, since the speed should already be reduced, and then, according to the classics of the genre, coverage and surroundings. Maneuvering is limited by the terrain - there is nowhere to retreat, forward with a half unit - it also makes no sense. By the way, where is the checkpoint (at least) next to the object called the bridge?
            By the way, the concept of "one's own rear" here ends in Rostov, and not everything is so good with Crimea either. In new regions, such a concept should not exist at all - the loyalty of the population is completely ambiguous. Or is your self-conceit the same as those who thought of organizing a putsch in Kyiv in February-March? hat-bearing?
            1. Postcode
              Postcode 24 October 2022 11: 23
              0
              There is no arrogance, and even more so, there is no mention of hatred, because, as there is some knowledge gained in higher educational institutions, service experience, with the practical application of this knowledge, so to speak, turning into a skill))).
              Once again, I studied these subjects not from the cinema, what was shown in the cinema has practically nothing to do with the real state of affairs, because this is a movie, in a movie it needs to be shown beautifully so that it is watchable, especially for amateurs, because professionals watch these films with a slightly different immersion and perception.
              I wrote above that the march in areas bordering the database areas, that is, where there is a possibility of the appearance of a DRG, is carried out with security measures, but not like in the picture you provided. When making a march in the deep rear zone, such measures are not advisable, since they lead to a large loss of movement speed, which also affects the secrecy of the maneuver. The main thing is speed and stealth.
              1. kamakama
                kamakama 24 October 2022 11: 43
                +1
                Well, I'm waiting for your comment. What needed to be done (organizational, not hanging shields), so that what happened would not happen, namely, an ambush attack (shot from the forest from a height) on a column, next to the river at the time of the passage of the bridge (limitation of the maneuver zone, dissection of the column by the terrain, reducing the speed of movement). What rivers, what bridges, what railroad tracks with embankments throughout Ukraine abound
                I also happened to get some first-hand military knowledge and on the video I see banal sloppiness
                1. Postcode
                  Postcode 24 October 2022 11: 55
                  0
                  What video are you talking about? where the fighter screams, what hooked him? There is absolutely no idea what it is!!! What column? Judging by the footage, I see only two armored vehicles, I don’t see any road there. judging by the type of equipment, this is generally some kind of reconnaissance patrol or BPO, what kind of sloppiness are you talking about?))) Their task in itself is to advance along the indicated route, reconnoiter the area and local objects, in case an enemy of small forces is detected, destroy large forces on their own, organize defense, thereby ensuring favorable conditions for the entry into battle of the main forces, or, tie up in battle, providing the main forces with a maneuver in order to avoid battle.
                  1. kamakama
                    kamakama 24 October 2022 12: 01
                    +1
                    Well, let this be intelligence, which I strongly doubt. So, what would this intelligence see if they had not opened fire on it? She did not check the forest with her legs and would safely report that the passage was clear, which was fundamentally wrong and the combat mission had not been completed. Therefore, it is the enemy's mistake that he discovered himself. What if he hadn't made that mistake? This is what I call sloppiness
                    Maneuver - what maneuver? there is a river and a crossing with a dominant height nearby, and they stand in an open area and they are shot, as in a shooting range
                    1. Postcode
                      Postcode 24 October 2022 12: 11
                      0
                      The task of reconnaissance and security is precisely this, that to force the enemy, including, to somehow show himself, and the maneuver is not performed at a distance of visual communication with the enemy, for this the security organs are sent forward, although the task is to advance at a distance visual communication and fire support, the terrain does not always allow this, and the main forces can generally withdraw and make a deeper maneuver, no one says that at 500 m, this is km and two can be ... in enemy actions, rather just a mistake (it is difficult to assess the actions of the enemy without knowing his tasks), or maybe, on the contrary, they achieved their goals, inflicted a fire defeat, forced them to turn around and join the battle, that is, they slowed down the advance and inflicted losses than themselves, not a task .. Such actions are sometimes of a disturbing nature, they may force you to take a specific route, for example, to take you to a minefield, or to a site of a prepared fire ambush, etc.
                      1. kamakama
                        kamakama 24 October 2022 14: 01
                        0
                        so I just asked - what is the use of such reconnaissance if a grenade launcher did NOT come out from the enemy? if they went to comb the forest, then the usual shooting battle would begin. But since the grenade launcher fired the first shot, he was either not prepared, in what conditions and how to shoot, or the task was to destroy the detected targets, that is, it was recognized as the main one. In any case, I cannot call the actions of the operator and his group exemplary
                      2. Postcode
                        Postcode 24 October 2022 14: 21
                        0
                        Based on some short clips, it is very wrong to draw conclusions. We don't know what happened there at all. What you see says nothing at all. Intelligence on equipment, in general, is a specific thing))), well, as if the equipment is buzzing, you can hear it far away, it’s not literally like in the movies, they crawled under barbed wire at night and scratched their tongue))). If the grenade launcher fired the first shot, then such a task was in the army. especially in war, no one does anything without a team))) He knocked out the lead car, knocked out the back car, blocked the column, at least for a while, stopped the movement. We do not know the task of the DRG, once again, therefore, it makes no sense to evaluate their actions.
  38. Radikal
    Radikal 21 October 2022 15: 13
    +1
    Another thing is noteworthy in this episode - he opened fire, but he didn’t fire for long for obvious reasons - the enemy didn’t, and, having soberly assessed the threats, take it and focus fire on the machine gunner. As a result, the machine gun functioned (as a combat unit, I hope our fighter survived) for 40 seconds. And all this is due to the fact that our military in the ranks were not smart enough to put an armor shield there for 5 kopecks.
    Only not an armored shield, but a full-fledged turret, which the author of the article demonstrated in the photo with the American MCI. sad
  39. Radikal
    Radikal 21 October 2022 15: 22
    +1
    Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich
    It's not even that. Criticizing the BMP-3 and its small reserved volume, the author is breaking through an open door. On the basis of the BMP-3, there is already a BT-3F, and on the basis of the BMD-4, the BTR-MD "Rakushka" was created. These vehicles should be considered as auxiliary vehicles, they are spacious and can serve as a base for drones, additional ammunition and for evacuating troops from disabled infantry fighting vehicles.

    These machines need a turret, this is the main message of the article, I would have written the same earlier in the comments to another article. sad
    1. Sergey Aleksandrovich
      Sergey Aleksandrovich 21 October 2022 16: 06
      0
      Isn't there a turret on the landing "Shell"? There are questions about the execution, there the machine gun is, as it were, on the side of the hatch, but there is control from under the armor.
      As for the BT-3F, the MO just had questions. There, the "Crossbow" module with a machine gun was offered, frankly weak for such an important tracked vehicle.
      So, be careful, please.
  40. Radikal
    Radikal 21 October 2022 15: 24
    0
    Quote: Alexander Vorontsov
    Quote: Vladimir_2U
    The review with the development of optics is a small problem, from a turret with the same glass blocks to periscope devices in combination with a collimator sight.

    You are mistaken - this is a fundamentally unsolvable problem that has nothing to do with the "development of optics".

    Our eye is arranged in such a way that in the center there are light-sensitive elements that distinguish colors, but with less discreteness than at the periphery. This means that we are evolutionarily adapted to notice movement in the periphery of our vision. And for us it is the strongest irritant that makes us turn our heads in that direction.

    If a cat passes by your side now and its tail enters your field of vision, your brain will react to it faster than you can realize it. Just like driving a car, you can talk on the phone without changing the position of your head and not be aware of how many times you looked in the left mirror, and how many in the right. But nevertheless you receive a lot of information continuously.

    If now, while you are looking at the monitor, something falls from behind with a loud sound, how long will it take you to turn around? Split seconds.

    Sitting at the monitor and controlling the module, you see much less, and the image is distorted, you do not understand the speed, you do not "feel" the distance to the objects you observe. If a grenade launcher hits on the left, and the module is turned forward, you will not see anything and will not be able to understand what happened - turn it left or right. And the turning time will be much longer than if a person turns his head.

    Elementary! Feed through a sleeve from under the armor, and it is possible in serious calibers.

    The receiver is outside in any case and you will not have access to it from the inside.
    Therefore, the issue of reloading for such a turret from the inside is impossible. As well as eliminating the delay. It is worth 1 cartridge to misfire and the automation will stop.
    Therefore, there is only 1 option here - uninterrupted supply (but it does not solve the problem of disruption of the automation).

    Those. we can already forget about the carriage design - the combat module will take place in the troop compartment, because it will require at least a basket where a continuous belt for a large number of rounds will be placed.

    It will also be necessary to equip this tape and monitor the replenishment of the BC. Unification with light machine guns will be lost - if earlier BCs were located inside in boxes for 200 rounds and they could be taken by both an ordinary machine gunner and a shooter on a turret, then you can’t take a continuous tape for 1000-2000 rounds anywhere, it becomes exclusively BC of the combat module.

    It becomes impossible in the field by the crew to replace weapons with turrets for any they find. The very issues of breakdowns become fatal, because Shoigu will not arrive in a blue helicopter at the first call that some tricky part has broken in you (or a fragment has landed in the module). And where one crew throws out a broken barrel, puts some trophy in its place in 5 minutes and moves on, you will ride without a turret at all.

    In other words, unnecessary complications and rise in price without any advantages, but on the contrary, a decrease in awareness of the situation around.

    Totally agree with you! hi
  41. Mikhail Maslov
    Mikhail Maslov 21 October 2022 15: 50
    +1
    The author has no idea what situational awareness is. From this, the SAMs fall out of use. And this is the future. About the Urals and Kamaz, booking a cab and an armored module in the body. There we solve problems with or without a turret. BMP and armored personnel carriers in their current form is death .We need new cars. And most importantly, everything that already exists should be used with a head.
  42. Dimax-nemo
    Dimax-nemo 21 October 2022 16: 17
    -1
    Let's not be smart, shall we? Everything has been stolen before us. Turret with KPVT + PKT forev. And we will not confuse infantry fighting vehicles with armored personnel carriers either. The infantry fighting vehicle must participate in the battle along with the landing force. Therefore, it must have at least an automatic gun, and preferably more than 23 mm. For armored personnel carriers, weapons are more likely for self-defense, but he should have them.
  43. Graz
    Graz 21 October 2022 16: 21
    0
    the entire path of the column must be accompanied by a drone = quadrocopter
  44. Radikal
    Radikal 21 October 2022 16: 49
    +1
    Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich
    Isn't there a turret on the landing "Shell"? There are questions about the execution, there the machine gun is, as it were, on the side of the hatch, but there is control from under the armor.
    As for the BT-3F, the MO just had questions. There, the "Crossbow" module with a machine gun was offered, frankly weak for such an important tracked vehicle.
    So, be careful, please.

    I am more than attentive, so post a photo with a turret of at least a Rakushka armored personnel carrier with a turret. bully
    1. Sergey Aleksandrovich
      Sergey Aleksandrovich 21 October 2022 17: 58
      0
      In a previous article by the same author
      https://topwar.ru/201966-bronetehnika-2.html
      I have a photo of "Shells" from me.
  45. bk0010
    bk0010 21 October 2022 18: 03
    +1
    MRAP or armored personnel carrier?
    The question is meaningless. These are different cars. MRAP drives on roads, armored personnel carriers must drive everywhere, even through the ruins of cities. That is why MCI can be better booked. As for the simplification of armored personnel carriers, it seems to me that this can be done. The task of the armored personnel carrier is to repel the attacks of the DRG as much as possible, and not to go into battle. KPVT is enough for this (paired AGS would also not hurt). Going into battle in an armored personnel carrier is like coming to a gunfight with a knife. Some will say that the armored personnel carrier actually fights anyway. So it is necessary to stop the production of armored personnel carriers and produce only infantry fighting vehicles (possibly wheeled ones). And in peacetime, transport personnel on trucks (trucks will certainly come in handy in military).
    Glasses are designed to hit 2 shots from KPVT (14,5).
    IMHO, screens with cameras would be cheaper.
    Despite the fact that the ammo in the Arbalet combat module is listed as 450 12,7 rounds, it remains a mystery where they are placed, because the box is set there for 100 rounds.
    Perhaps this is due to how many rounds the machine gun can fire without interruption. So that a panicking fighter does not ruin the combat module.
    1. alexmach
      alexmach 23 October 2022 18: 22
      -2
      And in peacetime, carry personnel on trucks

      And at what exact moment should he be transferred from trucks to infantry fighting vehicles?
      Wait .. it seems there was a conversation about the lack of modern infantry fighting vehicles, but besides modern infantry fighting vehicles, you need another transport for drugs?
      1. bk0010
        bk0010 23 October 2022 21: 14
        +1
        Quote: alexmach
        And at what exact moment should he be transferred from trucks to infantry fighting vehicles?
        With the start of the war. Well, or some other kind of shooting, when, when moving, the armor is protection, and not extra weight.
        Quote: alexmach
        Terer, in addition to modern infantry fighting vehicles, do you need another transport for drugs?
        The alternative is the one we have now: armored personnel carriers, which are expensive in peacetime and easily perforated in wartime.
  46. Oleg133
    Oleg133 21 October 2022 18: 09
    +1
    It all comes down to good governance. The chiefs of logistics are not responsible for the logistics of combat units. At most, they will be transferred to another position. Why do they need mraps? They hurt the Urals. Not they will not reach the front on them. And combat commanders need both men and supplies, so they send what they have. BMP and armored personnel carrier
    1. deddem
      deddem 21 October 2022 18: 30
      +3
      There is another point here.
      Any armored vehicles with more or less serious weapons will inevitably be hijacked and go to the forefront.

      This is how it happened with battlecruisers at one time: it seemed that everyone understood that they were made of cardboard, that they were solving their task, and they should not be put in line with full-fledged battleships, but in fact no one could refuse the temptation.

      By the way, Tsushima and I were also ahead of the rest here: we put the walking misunderstanding "Oslyabyu" in line with the battleships, which in fact was an overgrown armored cruiser ...
      1. Per se.
        Per se. 22 October 2022 07: 21
        +2
        Quote: deddem
        By the way, Tsushima and I were also ahead of the rest here: we put the walking misunderstanding "Oslyabya" in line with the battleships

        Here it can be objected that the Japanese also had armored cruisers in the same formation with the battleships. By the way, the Japanese had only 4 squadron battleships in their main forces. You can argue about this for a long time, but it is obvious that the cruiser is definitely worse booked than the battleship, battleship.
        To our fleet analogy, speaking of an armored personnel carrier, which is worse protected than a tank, one cannot but recall the Israeli heavy armored personnel carrier "Namer" (from Hebrew - "Leopard").

        The main feature of the Israeli Namer armored personnel carrier is the level of protection that is unattainable for vehicles of this class. The armored personnel carrier built on the basis of the Merkava tank was specially adapted for the transport of soldiers with the highest possible level of protection. Weight gain from dismantling the turret with cannon armament went to strengthen the reservation of the combat vehicle. According to Israeli general Yaron Livnat, the armored personnel carrier has a heavier reservation than the Merkava Mk 4 tank, on the basis of which it was built. The total weight of the Namer combat vehicle exceeds 60 tons.

        By the way, the Israelis for a fundamentally long time put only machine guns on their heavy armored personnel carriers so that it would not occur to anyone to use them in the first line. Here, many do not want to understand that any, even the most reserved armored personnel carrier or infantry fighting vehicle, can become a "mass grave" if the equipment is thoughtlessly used, and even substituting it full of unhurried paratroopers. To work next to tanks, you need not a heavy infantry fighting vehicle, but an infantry fighting vehicle, which can be even better protected than a tank, having stronger specialized weapons than an infantry fighting vehicle, with normal dimensions.
        Otherwise, even having given birth to a mastodon (and fire function, and transport, and thick armor), we will not get a guarantee of safety for the paratroopers and the vehicle itself.

        Our T-15 infantry fighting vehicle is something, though, maneuverability and low silhouette, can be even more life-saving protection than thick armor.
        The technique is different, but, most importantly, it must be used correctly, competently for its intended purpose, taking into account the advantages and disadvantages.
  47. highlight
    highlight 21 October 2022 18: 13
    0
    Quote: glory1974
    A modern projectile or ATGM, when it hits a car, any one, as a rule, destroys it along with the crew. On the contrary, more cars with fewer troops are required. Instead of 3 armored personnel carriers or infantry fighting vehicles in a platoon, it is necessary to have 6 vehicles conditionally of the "Tiger" type. Such a platoon is 2 times more difficult to destroy, when one vehicle is destroyed, half as many infantrymen die.

    a three-axle tiger 6 * 6 will probably take away the squad. Place a machine gunner next to the driver, and the commander behind them with a panoramic triplex. Around the side to make boxes for storing all sorts of things, at the same time and additional protection. And a roof rack with spare wheels, at the same time, will also give at least some protection from roofers and any exploding shit from copters.
    1. Blackgrifon
      Blackgrifon 21 October 2022 20: 01
      +2
      There are already serial VPK-URAL (aka Spartak) - transports up to 10 people. l / s and has the best indicators of security and habitability.
      1. Sergei Kazarin
        Sergei Kazarin 22 October 2022 01: 01
        -2
        Did the manufacturer tell you? Nobody undermined him.
        Remdiesel makes the best - Typhoons
        1. Blackgrifon
          Blackgrifon 22 October 2022 14: 12
          +2
          Quote: Sergey Kazarin
          Remdiesel makes the best - Typhoons

          At a price of about 40 million rubles a piece of Typhoon-K and with a huge share of foreign equipment? And who told you that no one undermined the VPK-Ural? Is it okay that he was accepted for the supply of the RG and the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation?
          1. Sergei Kazarin
            Sergei Kazarin 22 October 2022 14: 55
            -2
            For frameless, which means lighter weight and additional armor, you have to pay. what is cheaper?
            And their production is piecemeal, they would buy hundreds and the prices would be different.
            Made a cheap Z-STS on a frame
            Better foreign than nothing. And they've already been heavily replaced.
            Everything is relative, the same Boomerang costs about $4 million.
            That's exactly what the Urals are mainly in the WG, because it's worse
            1. Blackgrifon
              Blackgrifon 22 October 2022 22: 07
              +1
              Quote: Sergey Kazarin
              Better foreign than nothing. And they've already been heavily replaced.

              Oh well. And what about the purchases of foreign products now? Maybe now you can easily buy a foreign suspension, rubber and ceramics for your native army? :)
              Everything is relative, the same Boomerang costs about $4 million.

              Yes, at least 100500 million. This is not relevant to the case. When an armored personnel carrier costs 28 million, and an armored car is around 40 million, then this is a clinic. Moreover, when the fur-bearing animal waved its paw, they immediately began to take relatively cheap Akhmats.
              I'm not talking about Patrol-A, the cat. on the basis of Kamaz for 11 million they produce.
              Quote: Sergey Kazarin
              what is cheaper?
              And their production is piecemeal, they would buy hundreds and the prices would be different.

              Welcome to the real world, several hundred typhoons have already been delivered to the sun. So there is no smell of "piecework" from the word at all.

              Quote: Sergey Kazarin
              The Urals are mainly in the WG, because it’s worse

              I won’t even comment on these fantasies :) Urals are “worse” :)))))))))))))))) You don’t say that anywhere else - this is game. What does it have to do with the rarest :) Yes, and such theses that the WG is supplied with what is "worse" - this is the rarest nonsense. After that, I don't see the point in talking about anything anymore. Good luck.
              1. Sergei Kazarin
                Sergei Kazarin 23 October 2022 01: 21
                0
                Quote: Blackgrifon
                Oh well. And what about the purchases of foreign products now? Maybe now you can easily buy a foreign suspension, rubber and ceramics for your native army? :)

                What difference does it make now, now even Russian production cannot be purchased.

                Quote: Blackgrifon
                Yes, at least 100500 million. This is not relevant to the case. When an armored personnel carrier costs 28 million, and an armored car is around 40 million, then this is a clinic. Moreover, when the fur-bearing animal waved its paw, they immediately began to take relatively cheap Akhmats.
                I'm not talking about Patrol-A, the cat. on the basis of Kamaz for 11 million they produce.


                Maybe because an armored personnel carrier is garbage even without normal mine protection, where all the protection is 1 cm of steel? As well as other Patrols. So they bought something cheaper with the slogan - they still give birth


                Quote: Blackgrifon
                Welcome to the real world, several hundred typhoons have already been delivered to the sun. So there is no smell of "piecework" from the word at all.

                Not a few hundred, but 300 pieces in 10 years, which is almost zero.

                Quote: Blackgrifon
                Yes, and such theses that the WG is supplied with what is "worse" - this is the rarest nonsense. After that, I don't see the point in talking about anything anymore. Good luck.

                RG is not an army and they do not need MRAPs
                1. Blackgrifon
                  Blackgrifon 23 October 2022 12: 34
                  0
                  Damn, fuck off.
                  Quote: Sergey Kazarin
                  What difference does it make now, now even Russian production cannot be purchased.

                  400 Akhmatov with a delivery date from August to the end of the year, T-90M and much more refute this.
                  Quote: Sergey Kazarin
                  Maybe because an armored personnel carrier is garbage even without normal mine protection, where all the protection is 1 cm of steel? As well as other Patrols. So they bought something cheaper with the slogan - they still give birth

                  You obviously don't know how much 82 holds. As well as not knowing what Patrol-A is.
                  Quote: Sergey Kazarin
                  Not a few hundred, but 300 pieces in 10 years, which is almost zero.

                  First, "300" is already "hundreds". Second, more. Thirdly, the volume of purchases is connected precisely with its price. Initially, the cars were released in general (judging by one interview) for 60 million. And this is somewhere around 60-70% of the cost of the BMP-3 and almost 2 BTR-82. Despite the fact that on 82k and 3k there is still a bunch of electronics and weapons, and typhoon-k is just an armored personnel carrier / armored car.

                  Quote: Sergey Kazarin
                  RG is not an army and they do not need MRAPs

                  Seriously?! :) The fact of the matter is that they are not an army, they have their own list of threats and just mine security is a higher priority. And that is why they actively use Patrols, capsules, Urals-BB and other vehicles with similar characteristics.
                  1. Sergei Kazarin
                    Sergei Kazarin 23 October 2022 15: 09
                    -1
                    Quote: Blackgrifon
                    400 Akhmatov with a delivery date from August to the end of the year, T-90M and much more refute this.

                    What hasn't been posted yet? Remdiesel produced 30 pieces a year, and now they will make 400 for you, yeah. T-90M will not be able to make more than 50 in a year

                    Quote: Blackgrifon
                    You obviously don't know how much 82 holds. As well as not knowing what Patrol-A is.


                    You don’t know what is garbage, which holds a maximum explosion of a couple of kilograms


                    Quote: Blackgrifon
                    First, "300" is already "hundreds". Second, more. Thirdly, the volume of purchases is connected precisely with its price. Initially, the cars were released in general (judging by one interview) for 60 million. And this is somewhere around 60-70% of the cost of the BMP-3 and almost 2 BTR-82. Despite the fact that on 82k and 3k there is still a bunch of electronics and weapons, and typhoon-k is just an armored personnel carrier / armored car.


                    What difference does it make to me how much the BMP-3 aluminum coffin costs and so on?
                    Piece production cannot be cheap, but no one bought in bulk.
                    Better calculate how much it cost to build props like Patriot Park

                    Quote: Blackgrifon
                    Seriously?! :) The fact of the matter is that they are not an army, they have their own list of threats and just mine security is a higher priority. And that is why they actively use Patrols, capsules, Urals-BB and other vehicles with similar characteristics.

                    That is why they buy garbage without mine protection like Patrols
                    1. Blackgrifon
                      Blackgrifon 23 October 2022 16: 19
                      0
                      Wow, now the BMP-3 has become a "coffin". A new level after the "bad Urals" :) The same is about remdiesel and production volumes on it and UVZ, the same with the purchase of typhoons, the same with the RG.

                      Dear, I'm already tired of arguing with you because
                      1) you are actively moving off the topic and
                      2) you really do not own the topic and 99% of your statements fall apart if you check them.
                      All the best.
                      1. Sergei Kazarin
                        Sergei Kazarin 23 October 2022 17: 03
                        -1
                        Quote: Blackgrifon
                        Wow, now the BMP-3 has become a "coffin"


                        Since the time of Afghanistan, when this miracle has not been deciphered as the Mass Grave of the Infantry. Do you think aluminum can withstand something serious?
                        Quote: Blackgrifon
                        2) you really do not own the topic and 99% of your statements fall apart if you check them.


                        of course you don’t own the topic at all, so there’s not much sense in the conversation
                      2. Blackgrifon
                        Blackgrifon 23 October 2022 17: 07
                        0
                        Quote: Sergey Kazarin
                        Since the time of Afghanistan, when this miracle has not been deciphered as the Mass Grave of the Infantry. Do you think aluminum can withstand something serious?

                        (Hand-face) BMP-3 did not participate in Afghanistan ...
                      3. Sergei Kazarin
                        Sergei Kazarin 23 October 2022 17: 43
                        0
                        Quote: Blackgrifon
                        (Hand-face) BMP-3 did not participate in Afghanistan ...


                        Expert, her predecessors participated, from which she differs little
                      4. Blackgrifon
                        Blackgrifon 23 October 2022 18: 05
                        0
                        Yes, yes, they "differed a little" :) damn it, I haven't laughed out loud for a long time - even with the "Ural is worse than Kamaz" I realized that I was talking with a mega expert :)
                      5. Sergei Kazarin
                        Sergei Kazarin 23 October 2022 18: 14
                        0
                        Can you tell me how booking is different?
  48. Mustached Kok
    Mustached Kok 21 October 2022 18: 19
    +2
    As in the first article, the author has mistakes, it is foolish to deny this, but these mistakes do not destroy the very problem of the fact that our armored vehicles are poorly protected, with excessive armament.
    Another thing is that because of such errors, the author only repels readers from the idea of ​​considering such a problem.

    It's as if a student of physics would put forward an advanced theory of the formation of quarks, but in his article, he would make a couple of spelling and a couple of small arithmetic errors. And these errors would not have affected the final calculations. But the professor, having seen the error, would not continue to read the article, thinking that "well, since he has an arithmetic error, then the whole theory is a mistake, why read it further."

    It’s the same here, voicing an actual and important problem, with examples of its solution (I don’t agree with all the decisions, but that’s why it’s a discussion). But due to minor mistakes (small ones, because these mistakes do not cancel and do not justify the fact of an imbalance between protection and weapons), many do not even want to read the article later and will not.

    And therefore, I wish the author to continue to lead the theory in the same vein, since I agree with this direction. But henceforth it is better to prepare and double-check the material. Nothing discredits an idea better than the author's own mistakes.
  49. Blackgrifon
    Blackgrifon 21 October 2022 20: 00
    +3

    Also, most of our tanks do not have a remote-controlled machine gun turret, but armored personnel carriers are equipped with a 30-mm cannon. Such a distribution of resources is simply irrational.

    But the problems do not end there, but only begin.

    It is the author's proposal regarding the use of predominantly lightly armed vehicles that is irrational here. Want to increase the number of infantry? Excellent - we add 1 BTR-3 to the motorized rifle platoon (there will be 3 BMP-3 and 1 BTR-3) + we give an autobattalion on MCIs (VPK-Ural, Akhmat) to transport l / s to each motorized rifle unit and in parallel we create 4-6 light brigades infantry on MRAPs.

    Moreover, why the author's proposal in this part is erroneous and even vicious:
    - Now the armored personnel carrier striker Yankees are being rearmed with autocannons.
    - It was the need for fire support that became the reason for arming AFVs with autocannons in our army.
    - Cars with autocannons have shown a lot more efficiency when getting into an ambush.
    - Vehicles with autocannons are extremely effective in combat.
    - The BMP-3 showed itself well in urban battles and demonstrates good (one might even say unexpectedly good) survivability now.

    Understand me correctly, dear author, many of your suggestions in the article are correct, but it is in terms of infantry fighting vehicles - right now (when we do not have heavy infantry fighting vehicles or infantry fighting vehicles) they are erroneous for the simple reason that a potential enemy already has 4 infantry fighting vehicles in a platoon of heavy brigades and equips his armored personnel carriers with autocannons. An attempt to arm the MBT with an autocannon has already been and not only in our country - it runs into many problems from price to technical complexity. In addition, the tank is not everywhere - but its own box right here and now at hand.
    Further, what you propose to create by transferring from BMP-BTRs to MCIs is called by our "partners" an "infantry" and "light infantry" part. And yes, they make up to 1/2 of the entire infantry, BUT they DO NOT replace heavy and medium brigades, but act in conjunction.
    1. Clone
      Clone 21 October 2022 22: 27
      +2
      Quote: Blackgrifon
      the author's proposal regarding the use of predominantly lightly armed vehicles

      Oooh ... during the period of my service there were not such "scientifically based delights" of military thought ... when it was proposed to put "light motorized rifle brigades" on ... fanfares !!! ... GAZ-66 (Motorized rifle brigade, Novorossiysk ... as soon as they formed, they immediately disbanded). The theorists of this, presumably, have become not only generals, but also order-bearers. My opinion: if you propose a new one, stay with your proposal on the "combat".
      1. Blackgrifon
        Blackgrifon 21 October 2022 22: 45
        +1
        Then they still imprisoned them :) Only a few battalions - the "Syrian experience" - our attempt at light infantry with motorized riflemen. Only if the Yankees have light infantry - these are very well-trained units with "fat" battalions, then we have ordinary motorized rifles on NIVA-picaks and UAZs.
        In addition, the Airborne Forces have something similar - paratroopers, special forces and ATGMs of the militia were noted in the NVO - they very successfully used their UAZs (photo materials and interviews of participants can be found in the cart and on YouTube).

        The very idea of ​​​​such units is sound - fat battalions, high mobility, good adaptability to battles in the forests / mountains, independence from armor (in the sense that its loss does not lead to a critical decrease in the firepower of the squad), BUT they (light infantry / infantry) do not will replace, but supplement motorized riflemen. And it is precisely with the implementation that we have no luck so far - we still can’t copy the state from the Yankees.
  50. Sedoy
    Sedoy 21 October 2022 20: 32
    0
    transport, such as MRAP, is for the transport of light infantry and no more ...
    those. on the line of contact (front), then artillery and other fire support systems should be waiting for them ...
    and comparing it with an infantry fighting vehicle is some kind of nonsense ...
    An infantry fighting vehicle is not a "transporter", but a combat vehicle that not only delivers the squad to the battlefield and also actively participates in it (considering 100mm and 30mm guns) ...
    Do you need MRAP - eats, but also a lot ...
    but this does not mean that it is necessary to take equipment sharpened for other purposes to deprive of weapons ...
    as for the BTR-82 and others like it, this is a real yo ...
    for such equipment you need to hang in one place ...
    in relation to stupid transport, at least with some protection for the so-called. "yellow zones" - there are a lot of BTR-50s in warehouses - up to 20 people + a couple of tons of cargo ...
    protection is really bulletproof, but you can put a ramp (foreigners just don’t put it on it) ...
    it is possible to only install a modern engine, well, there are all sorts of communication systems ...