Disputes around a promising airborne assault vehicle

Over the past few years, the command of the airborne troops has been “fighting” with the leadership of the Ministry of Defense for a new combat vehicle. The BMD-4M airborne combat vehicle has become the subject of controversy almost at the level of its concept: both sides require mutually exclusive characteristics from it. One of the last News about BMD-4M appeared in August this year. Then the First Deputy Minister of Defense A. Sukhorukov said that the Ministry of Defense would not purchase these military vehicles because of the level of protection that military officials considered insufficient. Now, against the background of rearrangements at the top posts of the Ministry of Defense, the BMD-4M theme can again become relevant and, in addition, the attitude towards the new car can change.

According to august statements by Sukhorukov, booking a BMD-4M does not provide an adequate level of protection against shells and mines. The first deputy minister was supported by other heads of the military department. However, the commander of the Airborne Forces, Colonel-General V. Shamanov, did not agree with such a “verdict”. He believes that the airborne troops have long needed a new combat vehicle and the BMD-4M fully satisfies the requirements put forward by the guidance of the "winged infantry". As a result of this clash of opinions, and four and a half years after the presentation, the new model of the assault vehicle remains a prototype with not very clear prospects. Let's try to understand the conflict and understand what could be the way out of this situation.

The armored class of the airborne assault vehicle is a Soviet innovation, proposed to increase the strike power of the airborne units. Created in the sixties of the last century, the BMD concept implied the creation of a relatively light airborne assault vehicle with the ability to fully participate in the battle, including against heavy armored vehicles. The further development of that old concept was eventually BMD-4M. Since the development of BMD-1, the appearance of this class of technology has changed significantly. In particular, the combat weight (13,5 t in BMD-4М versus 7,2 in BMD-1) almost doubled, and firepower increased. So, instead of the 73-mm cannon, the new assault vehicle has an 100-mm gun launcher, an 30-mm automatic cannon and a machine gun of the 7,62 caliber mm. As a result of such transformations, the firepower of the new machine has increased significantly.

The price for better weapons was a relatively large mass of combat. However, even with the weight of the machine in 13 tons, the Il-76 transport aircraft can transport and airborne two BMD-4М at once. In addition, one of the prerequisites for weight gain was the best level of protection. However, even more protected airborne combat vehicle did not suit the leadership of the Ministry of Defense. At the same time, a further increase in protection will lead to the weighting of the entire machine, which will not allow it to meet the requirements of the Airborne Forces in terms of landing capabilities.

In general, the main controversy surrounding BMD-4М is precisely the balance of protection and weight. Wherein story Soviet, and then the Russian airborne troops did not allow to verify the loyalty of a particular point of view in practice. Rather, the BMD of the old models participated in the conflicts; they did not succeed in working in the conditions of the large landing operations for which they were originally intended. In Afghanistan and Chechnya, airborne combat vehicles were most often used as another version of an infantry fighting vehicle, which had corresponding consequences. For example, BMD-1 and BMD-2, which is not surprising, were vulnerable to anti-tank grenade launchers. For this reason, there were demands to increase the level of protection, even at the price of amphibious capabilities, which in fact turned out to be unclaimed.

Judging by the statements of the leaders of the Ministry of Defense, they want to get some kind of tracked vehicle with weapons no worse than that of the BMD-4M, counter-booking and anti-mine protection. It is quite obvious that with such requirements it is almost impossible to “meet” the combat mass suitable for landing from aircraft. However, the Ministry of Defense stands its ground. Recently, Deputy Prime Minister D. Rogozin spoke about the promising airborne assault vehicle. He considers the BMD-4M to be a good car, but he agrees with the military about its armor protection characteristics. As for the resolution of disputes between the airborne forces and the ministry, Rogozin sees the solution to this problem in creating a new car that meets all the requirements. The Vice Prime Minister confirmed that at the moment, on the basis of the Kurganets-25 armored platform, a new airborne assault vehicle is also being developed.

Probably, the design of a new armored vehicle for the landing force is another factor that hinders the adoption of the BMD-4M. And, apparently, at the present time, the design of Kurgan is the main cause of all the problems of BMD-4M. Meanwhile, the airborne troops continue to update the existing fleet of equipment due to repair and modernization. In the near future, all available BMD-1 in the troops will be brought to the state of BMD-2. It is expected that this alteration will allow at least a little update of the fleet of airborne vehicles and increase its combat capability. In other words, while there is no Kurganets BMD, and BMD-4М does not meet the requirements of the Ministry of Defense, Russian paratroopers will have to use old BMD-2, including those converted from the machines of the first model.

Rogozin also made an interesting proposal for equipping the Airborne Forces with new equipment and features of its application. According to the experience of foreign countries, he proposes to arm the "winged infantry" not only with airborne combat vehicles, but also with light armored vehicles, such as the "Tiger" or "Lynx". At first glance, this alternative looks far from complete. However, it is worth remembering that the vast majority of the landing of armored vehicles belongs to the teachings. In real conflicts, the Airborne Forces almost always acted in the same battle formations with motorized infantry and tank crews. This fact may affect the revision of the entire concept of the use of airborne troops, followed by a complete change in their goals, objectives and methods of combat work.

And yet no one is going to change the look of the Airborne Forces and significantly recycle any documents related to their structure, weapons, etc. In general, the situation that has developed around a promising combat vehicle for the landing forces resembles a classic dispute between those who will use the equipment ordered and those who will pay for it. Judging by previous statements and processes, the last word in the retooling of the Airborne Forces will be not the command of this kind of troops, but the General Staff and other structures of the Ministry of Defense. And it is unlikely that the final decision will be in favor of the long-suffering BMD-4M.

On the materials of the sites:
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. traveler
    13 November 2012 08: 56
    Deja Vu !!! Why print the same thing? Ryabov kirtll lobbies BMD-4M (places hidden advertising) wink
    Yesterday the news was
    Kurganmashzavod OJSC is creating a new airborne assault vehicle (BMD) for the Russian Airborne Forces based on the promising Kurganets armored platform, Russian Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin said on Monday.

    “We are ready to further improve the work on new platforms, which is currently underway at the Kurganmashzavod. Including the promising Kurganets platform, on the basis of which the new BMD will also be executed, ”Rogozin told RIA Novosti.

    Earlier, Colonel-General Vladimir Chirkin, Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Ground Forces, reported that armored vehicles based on the latest light, medium and heavy platforms will begin to enter the troops after 2015. Fundamentally new families of standardized models of armored vehicles are created as part of the implementation of the state armament program until 2020.

    The article had this photo:

    1. +6
      13 November 2012 10: 55
      Quote: traveler
      Kurganmashzavod OJSC is creating a new airborne combat vehicle (BMD) for the Russian Airborne Forces based on the promising Kurganets armored platform, Russian Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin said on Monday

      That's when they will create and adopt it, then let Rogozin say. Now, if tomorrow the airborne soldier is left without equipment, What to fight tomorrow, and the pace of delivery of modern equipment, very much leave much to be desired. I don’t need to ask for equipment, but some people don’t think they need. But damn, millions are for Serdyukov’s girls. Give at least something to the Airborne Forces, there will be absolutely nothing. for the Airborne Forces, in fact, they didn’t do nichrome at all, the trepachs are sitting alone and hammering their tongues.
      1. +5
        13 November 2012 12: 37
        Namely, Kurganets will not have the same armor as a heavy tank.
        It’s as if the fleet ordered a torpedo boat, but with armor like a battleship, garbage is slow - we don’t use them ......
        Why then BMD, if they do not fit on the plane?
        1. +1
          13 November 2012 12: 46
          And, by and large, why now BMD? Large landing operations are not planned. IMHO now protection is more important.
          1. +7
            13 November 2012 12: 55
            Well, when they are needed, there will be old deuces and crumbling pennies. Nuclear war is also not planned, and we are building delivery vehicles in full growth. :)
            1. bask
              13 November 2012 13: 50
              Cyril, as always, thanks for the article. All about the case with good analytics. And without BMD 4M airborne forces until the 15-20s, there’s simply nothing to fight. The commander of the Airborne Forces Gen .. Shamanov said so. The whole question is closed by BMD4 to the troops ...
          2. +5
            13 November 2012 18: 08
            Quote: Poppy
            why now BMD? Large landing operations are not planned. IMHO now protection is more important

            Now, when the growth of the defense capability of the aircraft occurs due to the increase in their mobility and maneuver, and not due to quantitative advantages, the role of landing operations will increase ... IMHO.
          3. +2
            14 November 2012 02: 07
            But by and large then why the Airborne Forces? No landing operations planned at all? And we don’t need the MP - we won’t capture the coast, then the Mistral problem and the UDC in general will fall off by itself. By your logic, you need to build an iron box with a good armored guard and in it all of us will be buried. In the USSR, an EXCELLENT concept for the use of airborne forces was developed and implemented. And it’s not their fault (troops) but their pain that these glorious and highly trained troops take as ordinary infantry. Who interfered with the landing operations in the Caucasus? The stupidity and slowness of the leadership - that’s who interfered. Our airborne combat vehicle (BMD 4 or another) is urgently needed by our troops, as well as an updated BTA fleet. Of course, I would like l / s to be well protected after throwing, but there must be a balance between wish and reality. Many thanks to Shamanov for not giving offense to Uncle Vasya’s troops. BMP - 3 hypothetically, it is also possible to drop - but one on one side (mass).
            1. M. Peter
              14 November 2012 07: 17
              Quote: Reserve lieutenant colonel
              But by and large then why the Airborne Forces?

              But really, why?
              As you can imagine, the massed airborne assault is exactly the same as it was in the USSR during the exercises.
              BTA can at least bring it to its destination? Would such a massive landing operation be just a massacre of their own paratroopers, and ???
              1. +3
                14 November 2012 10: 22
                Quote: M.Pyotr
                How do you imagine the landing, massive ....

                Equipment, such as BMD, makes it possible to throw troops somewhere on the sidelines, without entering the air defense zone, and arrive at the battlefield in your own transport, moreover, well-armored and well-armed.
        2. 0
          13 November 2012 18: 02
          Quote: lelikas
          Why then BMD, if they do not fit on the plane?

          Somewhere, there was already a proposal to provide for the possibility of installing an easily removable reservation reservation on the BMD, which can be landed separately and, if necessary, installed by the crew.
          1. +3
            14 November 2012 00: 09
            Quote: Nick
            Somewhere, there was already a suggestion to provide for the possibility of installing on the BMD an easily removable reservation supplement that can be dropped separately,

            So this is exactly the BMD-4m: the parachute system weighs 2 tons, so the suspension is designed for it. But when it is not necessary to carry a parachute, then BMD, instead of it, hang additional protection in the amount of these very 2 tons.
            The logical approach.
            1. 0
              15 November 2012 12: 00
              Upgraded BMD-2


              BMD-4 with "Bakhcha-U" weapons complex

              BMD-4M with additional reservation
    13 November 2012 09: 07
    in general, as always, they dream and eat a fish and ......
  3. Rockets
    13 November 2012 09: 34
    Today, according to rumors close to the creators of Kurgan, SKBM. Of the 3 options, none satisfies the BMD requirements for load
    "Shortened" Kurganets "will not be able to provide the same carrying capacity and security as the BMD-4M chassis." And everything that was said to the press, dear representatives of the developers, about "By removing the skating rink or 2, you can get BMD, nonsense, the press and not that digest.
    MO did not give TK on BMD. For this Kurganets was sweating BMP. And when, suddenly, it was impatient for BMD, but it doesn’t work out. Conclusion: there will be no BMD 4 at the Airborne Forces, then a new BMD at such rates, squabbles and fuss, we will see in 10 years, at best.
    Who will remember besides Shamanov that the main technique of the Airborne Forces is still the same dinosaurs, BMD 1-2
    1. +2
      13 November 2012 14: 17
      Strange, but the article missed a comparison with BMD-3, which was more correct
      1. +2
        14 November 2012 10: 30
        In the Airborne Forces, mainly BMD-1-2, and if purchases of the BMD-4m begin, then it will replace them. Therefore, they are compared with them.
  4. +10
    13 November 2012 10: 00
    The BMD-4M is an excellent vehicle for the rapid reaction forces. The presence of kits for increasing the security: complexes of a curtain, arena and DZ of a hinged nature will increase the survivability of the machine. Discussions on the topic of weak protection against detonation have already been discussed many times. Equipment such as BMD and "Sprut" will be used either behind enemy lines or on their own territory to plug a breakthrough, where mining is often almost never encountered. The car is definitely a must for the Airborne Forces.
  5. Net
    13 November 2012 10: 21
    If the Ministry of Defense wants BMD-4M anti-ballistic protection, while maintaining the possibility of landing, then apparently you need to develop a hinged defense that must be dropped separately from the BMD.
    1. +2
      13 November 2012 10: 49
      What are we talking about. It is necessary either to make hinged survivability enhancement kits, or to restore the production of AN-124 (225) with the possibility of landing on unequipped and unpaved runways. Then there are no questions. AN-124 Regiment will be able to transport a tank regiment from Ladoga to Vladivostok.
      1. +2
        14 November 2012 02: 14
        There are no number of aircraft in the AN 124 regiment for the transport of 93 units of tanks and the accompanying metal of the tank regiment. Or the AN 124 regiment should not be a regiment but at least a corps.))))))) Well then, we will receive one corps in 30-40 years with our pace of new equipment entering the troops. Of course I would like to regiment AN 124, so you close your eyes and ....... dream. )))))))
    2. borisst64
      13 November 2012 11: 18
      Quote: Netto
      while maintaining the possibility of landing

      To date, the possibility of landing is not limited by aircraft carrying capacity, but by the characteristics of the parachute system. And about the transition to the ISS (multi-parachute system) under 14t, I have so far little information.
      1. Rockets
        13 November 2012 12: 12
        Quote: borisst64
        And about the transition to the ISS (multi-parachute system) under 14t, I have so far little information.

        20 tone P260M to help you
      2. Denzel13
        13 November 2012 18: 41
        Why? Back in 1990 we threw on the "shelves". There were also a lot of PRS, but the ISS was enough.
        1. +3
          14 November 2012 02: 16
          Here, just some people chose a logo for themselves and believe that everything is in order.)))) As one good man said - learn the Shura materiel, learn!
  6. +11
    13 November 2012 10: 22
    Why not consider having two sets of armored vehicles? Airborne units are the most belligerent, most combat-ready. Why not consider the possibility of keeping on the staff of the division a set of BMD-4M and promising infantry fighting vehicles, "putting" paratroopers on the equipment that is required in this and specific situation? I foresee objections that this is expensive. But keep in mind that armored vehicles should still be made with a margin to deploy framed units in the event of a major war. What difference does it make where the reserve BMPs will stand - based on storage or in the boxes near the paratroopers (it seems to me that the safety of the paratroopers' equipment will be higher). If necessary, BMPs will simply be handed over to deployable motorized rifle formations ....
    1. KamikadZzzE
      13 November 2012 21: 05
      very reasonable
    2. +1
      14 November 2012 02: 21
      I’ll say more - in one of the units of the airborne forces stationed in the Far East there was (is) an area for the transfer of equipment (the connection was equipped with BMP-2) to motorized rifle units. and themselves in turntables and ayda. True, whoever would have kept them in the rear is a sad and sad story.
  7. Samovar
    13 November 2012 10: 35
    they want to get some kind of tracked vehicle with weapons no worse than that of the BMD-4M, with anti-ballistic armor and mine protection

    Why so. Let's immediately drop tanks! wassat
    Here by the way is a role model. laughing
    1. Skavron
      13 November 2012 12: 22
      What is this horror story ???
    2. +3
      13 November 2012 12: 23
      amphibious MBT ... that's cool. someday and it will be
      1. Sergh
        14 November 2012 18: 37
        Quote: Skavron
        What is this horror story ???

        The horror story is here. You can continue.

  8. +2
    13 November 2012 10: 43
    Yes, I hope now the situation will become clearer thanks to the new Min. about .. Maybe someone in the past dreamed of transplanting the Airborne Forces to foreign garbage like Iveco or a striker there, and again get a lot of money. BMD-4M cool car, you can say the best for the Airborne !!!!!
  9. Rockets
    13 November 2012 10: 48
    Quote: Netto
    If the Ministry of Defense wants BMD-4M anti-ballistic protection, while maintaining the possibility of landing, then apparently you need to develop a hinged defense that must be dropped separately from the BMD

    For BMD 4m there is such an option, neither of which you need to develop
  10. Lustrator
    13 November 2012 10: 51
    It is unclear why the Russian Federation is flirting with the insanely greedy old woman of Europe, which is constantly dodging an adder - how would it be safer for her to bite?
  11. Brother Sarych
    13 November 2012 13: 28
    Yes - maybe at first it was necessary to decide whether the Airborne Forces are needed in this form at all?
    If they don't land anywhere, then why are there minimum weight requirements and air transportability? And if they are just "advanced infantry", then why should they fight on "cardboard" and die because of this?
    1. +2
      14 November 2012 00: 20
      Quote: Brother Sarich
      Yes - maybe at first it was necessary to decide whether the Airborne Forces are needed in this form at all?

      And who better than the paratroopers to know what kind of equipment they need? If they say that the BMD-4m is most suitable for them at the moment, then it is with this equipment that they must be provided, since if there is any conflict, the landing will be in the forefront, and it is better if they are with the weapon with which it’s more convenient for them to complete the task.
  12. +4
    13 November 2012 13: 36
    a chic car, you definitely need it ... it’s definitely better than buying foreign trash that this beauty doesn’t fit into soles ...
  13. zavesa01
    13 November 2012 18: 13
    What paratroopers need to ask paratroopers.
  14. +5
    13 November 2012 18: 27
    If the airborne forces are needed by the army, and the BMD-4M is needed by the airborne forces, what's the problem? Miracles do not happen, the semblance of a "Merkava" for landing will not work, just as a paratrooper will not be a paratrooper without the opportunity to participate in landing operations, for which such a machine is needed, and not a tank, not an infantry fighting vehicle or armored personnel carrier. Well, use regular infantry with heavy equipment where necessary, don't destroy the essence of the Airborne Forces. Simply, sabotage of some kind or terry lobby. The concern for rationality and economy of the stealing team of Serdyukov is touching, maybe at least Shoigu will solve the issue with the equipment for our landing troops.
  15. Denzel13
    13 November 2012 19: 01
    I don’t see a problem at all, except for money.
    BMD-4 troops, moored with parachute systems, equip and storage, just in case you need to land.
    And in cases where the airborne forces are used "on foot", have a second set, but already full-fledged infantry fighting vehicles.
    PS Of course, you will need to spend time on additional training of driver mechanics, gunners-operators and commanders, but I think very few people will regret the time spent. Moreover, our BMP and BMD traditionally strongly "intersect" in equipment and weapons.
    1. +3
      13 November 2012 19: 10
      He wrote about the same only in the morning — for the most warring troops it is possible (and necessary) to have two sets of armored vehicles ....
    2. +1
      13 November 2012 21: 01
      Quote: Denzel13
      BMD-4 troops, moored with parachute systems, equip and storage, just in case you need to land.
      An interesting solution, but if the landing force will work "on foot", it is possible to strengthen the BMD protection with sets of removable additional armor closer to the BMP level. As for the "second set", it is embarrassing that if it is required from the march "on foot" to quickly load onto the transport carriers, the BMD may be far away in the rear boxes. Removable armor could be dropped separately from the vehicles to strengthen them on the ground.
      1. Denzel13
        13 November 2012 22: 46
        All the same, there will be no level of BMP security. And, of course, you can attach additional protection, but there is such a thing - the standards for transferring the dropped equipment into a combat position. Why is it possible to drop crews in vehicles? That's right - from the sky into battle. For the efficiency of the paratroopers, you can return to technology. Moreover, we do not practice throwing the entire airborne forces into current operations. There are always subdivisions of the so-called "first ascent", they are already ready and with the equipment ready. Moreover, an airborne operation is not carried out without preparation, a lot of forces and other types of armed forces are involved. And this is the time during which everyone will return to their places of deployment.
        1. bask
          13 November 2012 22: 57
          Denzel. The concept of using airborne airborne forces has remained unchanged since the 70s. But in reality, airborne airborne forces fought like the elite Guards infantry over the past 30 years. And the release with the use of parachute systems has not been applied. Yes and the buoyancy of the BMD4 has practically lost its relevance. The future BMD should only fit for portability to IL-76. And not any airborne landing. Protected, mobility, weapons, to solve the problems of even a single BMD ..
          1. +3
            14 November 2012 02: 38
            I would like in more detail about solving the problems of a "single BMD", which, where, in what types (methods) of combat operations. And I would also like to study your postulate about buoyancy in more detail - does it mean we cancel all rivers? And what instead of them? In Afghanistan, there was an BMP-2D that could not swim - this was understandable, in the areas of operations of our troops there were no large, especially large rivers that needed to be crossed, again mountains. And mountain rivers are basically shallow in mountainous terrain (in the places where these rivers actually start) are shallow and practically inaccessible for forcing. In Chechnya, a number of bridges were preserved, a number of bridges were installed by our engineering waxes (on the plains) - in the highlands - see earlier. But what about the middle Russian plain? Or are we going to fight on sensitive territory maybe? What to do with the rivers of Europe? When you fulfill the requirements voiced by you for security, mobility, armament, BMD as a class of combat vehicles may not even be considered.
          2. Denzel13
            14 November 2012 11: 23
            The created concept of the Airborne Forces is still relevant. Imagine such a turn of events, for example, in Syria: the rebels attacked our naval forces in Tartus with large forces. At the same time, the airfield was blocked. Government forces are failing. An agreement was reached to assist the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation. What then? Or take a conflict with China. We have that in that part of the country there are many airdromes suitable for delivery by landing method? Or do you think that the Chinese will strike at places where it is easier for us to deliver equipment and troops? This may not happen, but the Chinese generals should be aware that we can build up our forces there very quickly due to the airborne forces, which will provide time for the approach of the main forces. This is the main task of the paratroopers. The very presence of the Airborne Forces is also a deterrent, as it makes it clear that significant forces can be where their adversary does not expect in a short time. Therefore, a landing technique is needed and it must swim, Lieutenant Colonel of the reserve writes correctly.
            1. Sergh
              14 November 2012 16: 35
              Quote: Denzel13
              due to the Airborne Forces, which will provide time for the approach of the main forces. This is the main task of the paratroopers. The very presence of the Airborne Forces is also a deterrent, as it makes it clear that significant forces can be where their adversary does not expect in a short time.

              Yes, right men! It was only Pashka Grachev who could throw the Airborne Forces on foot to Grozny with a set of BMDs. The mediocrity of these "warriors" is already known. The Airborne Forces speaks for itself that this is the Airborne Troops and that says it all! If you really want to, then equip several regiments or division (s) with ground-based equipment, as it should be with reinforced armored equipment in the range, but you can't throw the T-90 into the air (right at the top of the guys), it's a no brainer. Anyway, what are we talking about, Vladimir An. Shamanov knows better what to whom and lope ..., another question is that he is lobbied by careless staff generals, such as the former Makarka, etc.

              PS Yes, a strange proposal ... about the landing of "Tigers or Lynx", I would add here on my own behalf: ... more three-wheeled crawler bicycles with a sidecar. Complete nonsense, such as the BMD-4M is weak in armor, and the Tigers and Lynxes are great. In short, an eight-eyed seven-bolt. Makarova & Co ° drive in the neck ...
  16. The comment was deleted.
  17. 0
    14 November 2012 18: 05
    Money spent on BMD-4, if nobody needs it, who will return it to the treasury? Industry or customer (BC)?
    1. Denzel13
      14 November 2012 20: 27
      If we approach it according to this principle, then we will have no technology at all and nothing will be developed - no one wants to "substitute". This machine is needed, which was clearly indicated by the commander of the Airborne Forces.
    2. 0
      15 November 2012 02: 24
      BMD-4 own development of factory workers (although if you understand it in detail, it’s also state money).
  18. Dikremnij
    14 November 2012 22: 47
    But I wonder why, for a period of time before the adoption of the Kurganets-type machine, the same BTR-82A with a new parachute system for it should not be adopted by the Airborne Forces?
  19. Fandorin
    15 November 2012 01: 25
    If you need to lose weight, maybe it makes sense to abandon the Bakhcha-U module?
  20. 0
    15 November 2012 02: 50
    I would like to draw the attention of respected members of the forum to one important fact - airborne landing is not carried out by itself. The Airborne Forces, not for the sake of the Airborne Forces, all kinds of troops take part in the preparation and conduct of the landing operation and it is carried out for the purpose of combined arms combat. This is due to the fact that a passage karedor is necessary (you understand that it itself will not be organized), comprehensive support at the landing sites, support for the landing assault and the actual withdrawal of the assault from the battle - this is the whole surface, in detail - a lot of work. It is necessary, when determining the appearance of the armored object for the Airborne Forces, to consider the tasks to be solved by the troops in certain conditions. Very briefly and superficially - the tasks of the landing - the capture and retention (destruction) - of important command posts, launching positions (areas of deployment) of missiles, bridges and objects ensuring the unhindered progress of our troops. It is logical that the enemy will try to counterattack the captured objects and repel them. The landing armored object must have powerful enough weapons to destroy the largest possible range of enemy objects, be mobile (the more you move, the more difficult it is to destroy you) and be able to cross in a convenient place for yourself (your troops). In this case, all the actions of the landing will be restrained by the forces of the main group. This is all quite short and abbreviated - there is no way to write a textbook, and it is not necessary.
    Questions are asked about the expediency of landing the Tigers and the rest of the "menagerie" - why not? There was a wonderful car R-142D, if it is on the Tiger base - why not drop it? And I would like to express this idea - we do not need UNIVERSAL armored vehicles (yes, everything universal), because there will be no result. A tanker must fight on a tank, a helicopter pilot must fly a helicopter, a submariner must go on a boat. And an attempt to unite everything in one pot will not lead to good - something will always be prejudiced. BMP - for the infantry (marines), BMD for the landing. By the way, the RF Armed Forces completely forgot about the glorious marines (they do not have their own Shamanov) - I'm not talking about the Mistrals (they are more for control). With regard to these troops - only half measures!
  21. Dikremnij
    22 November 2012 12: 17
    Recently, such an idea appeared: since there has recently been a tendency to increase the mass of combat vehicles, which is caused by their armor and increased armament, is it not time to start creating new cargo landing platforms and new parachute systems for landing, if it certainly makes sense in the current conditions of warfare, since I believe that airborne landing by parachute method is the last resort in modern b / d.
    More likely, by parachute method, if they drop, then the l / s of the unit is no more than a brigade or regiment, since BTA aircraft may simply not be enough for a larger connection, and the equipment will be delivered by landing method. If at all they will land troops, but will not deliver it to the place of military operations by rail, by sea or on its own.
    If it’s honest, I can’t understand at all why the USSR continued to create BMD after the first model, I mean BMD 2,3,4, because the war in Vietnam already showed that the mass landing will not be used, and the airborne forces will be used in helicopter landing . Which by the way, the Defense Ministry took into account and began to create new units, air assault brigades, which were intended mainly for participation in helicopter landings.
    I didn’t take these speculations from the ceiling, but simply watched the actions of the airborne units in the latest conflicts: from Afghanistan in 1979 to Iraq 2003.
  22. kostello2004
    3 December 2012 10: 41
    Watermelon fountainheads will approve, another worthless Soviet project, with armor protection from dust and moisture. Interestingly, our developers of such "masterpieces" do not watch what they create in other countries, in Israel or the USA? Or do they naively think that it is possible to fight on this?