Military Review

American GVC - the most protected BMP weighing 84 tons

179
At the end of November, an appraisal of the budget management in the United States Congress of the future BMP created under the Ground Combat Vehicle program, which will replace the Bradley BMP at the combat post, was issued. The mass of the new machine will be greater than the mass of the main tank. So, it weighs 1 times and 1 times heavier than the Russian T-1.3 than the M1.8A90 Abrams.

The future GVC BMP, which will begin to enter service with the American Armed Forces in the coming years, will be not only the most secure machine, but as a result, the heaviest. GVC will be the main BMPs used in future military conflicts involving the United States and NATO members.

American GVC - the most protected BMP weighing 84 tons


The weight of the GCV, more inherent in tanks, is explained by the need to ensure the main priority for such machines - to protect the crew and the machine from mines and mine decisions. You should know that the GCV mass is “gaining” mainly from modern complex high-tech solutions, and not just from the installation of thick-walled armor.

Protective systems will be installed according to the “onion” principle; armor plates will play the role of the last line of defense. The machine will be maximally protected from all sides, without exception. According to the project, the protection will be provided by the following solutions - early detection of probable targets, proactive fire, jamming, active protection. Active defense will be responsible for countering missiles and various types of grenades. The last will be involved armor protection, which will stop all types of ammunition, burst through the main defense. What will be the whole complex of protective systems, until it is not fully defined, it is possible that protective solutions that are currently being successfully developed will be used.

Today, the date of the first arrivals of the latest BMPs is announced - the beginning of 2018 of the year. The total number of machines required is 1800 units. Mass production will allow purchasing BPM at a cost of 13 million dollars. They will enter into service with the US Armed Forces and replace the Bradley infantry fighting vehicle on a combat position. They will replace about half of the entire Bradley Park. The new "GCV" will be able to ensure the safe movement of troops into the 9 people.



This performance is quite controversial, it has its pros and cons. The minus is a large mass of a car ready for battle, because it will become a big problem for ensuring maneuverability when making a march, passing through water and free-flowing barriers. For example, in recent times, US military units have been involved in military conflicts in countries with a rather hot climate, where the terrain is characterized by a sandy surface or a rocky, almost impassable surface. The advantages include the reduction of the required number of vehicles required for military operations, which will reduce human losses. This approach was successfully applied in Iraq and Afghanistan. It does not make sense to paint all the pros and cons - every decision has its supporters and opponents, the main thing is that such decisions do not lead to a negative result, an increase in value and a decrease in the main characteristics.

The customer, represented by the armed forces of the United States, is willing to spend at least seven billion dollars on the development of the “Ground Combat Vehicle” program in the coming years. However, the uncertainty in the technical parameters creates a certain confusion for its development. The program for the creation of the BMP has repeatedly stopped and re-started. The total cost of all programs and developments has long been calculated in billions of dollars, and the finished optimal machine has not been provided. In 2010, the customer requested to create a demo sample. The program was attended by three teams led by “SAIC”, “BAE” and “Northrop”, “General Dynamics”. However, concerns about the exorbitant costs of the program are closing it.

At the end of 2011 of the year, according to the new requirements for infantry fighting vehicles, its development begins in a new way. The main requirements - 2-3 of the year is allocated for development, seven years for the development of the production cycle. The cost of one copy should be at the level of 10 million dollars with operating costs per mile of no more than 200 dollars. After approval of the project, two production contractors will be selected who will compete until 2017. The design and start-up phase is scheduled for 2013 year. Perhaps the new BMP will be assembled at the production facilities of the latest modification of the Bradley and the main tank Abrams. This will help reduce the overall cost of developing the production base and mass production. In addition, the new BMP will be based on the technology of creation and production of Abrams and Bradley. It is possible that at this phase of program development, the weight characteristics of the BMP will be revised. The customer asks developers to find engineering compromises to ensure maximum protection and weight characteristics. But recently there has been a tendency to increase the weight characteristics of manufactured military equipment, the examples being the same "Abrams", "Bradley" and "Strikers". Probably, the ability to install hybrid drive systems will be able to provide the American BMP with the installation of all the necessary systems, equipment and weapons without regard to the weight characteristics.

Accepted development of the new BMP will move into the second phase of the program, where the design of a new generation of common platform will begin. It is possible to implement the phases of the program in parallel, to reduce costs. In the meantime, there is a high probability that the development of a new BMP will again be stopped due to the high material and financial costs.



View
On the Internet, you can find the views of military experts, who believe that the mass of the car in 84 tons counted on the American system. So, in certain conditions of counting one ton can be equal to 0.907 kilogram. If we proceed from this, the new BMP weighs in the range of 60-75 tons and is equal in weight to the Abrams tank.

As follows from the statements of the developers, the machines will be provided with a previously unused system of electric drives of the hybrid type. If the customer is satisfied with this system, then, in principle, the latest BMP can be created without weight limits. The applied systems will make the GCV more powerful, economical and functional than similar 70-ton machines.

Information sources:
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2011/January/Pages/Army%E2%80%99sGroundCombatVehicleStirsConfusionInIndustry.aspx
http://kitup.military.com/2010/02/features-of-future-army-combat-vehicle-revealed.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_Combat_Vehicle
http://www.armyrecognition.com/united_states_american_army_light_armoured_vehicle/gcv_ground_combat_vehicle_program_u.s._army_bae_systems_technical_data_sheet_specifications_pictures.html
Author:
179 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. Greyfox
    Greyfox 23 November 2012 09: 01
    +30
    Do Americans make a wunderwaffe? As in a joke- "And now with all this crap we will try to take off ...." wink They have already buried many similar projects of "super-duper machines of the future", having seen the results and buried many lemons of the green bubble. We decided to repeat ...
    1. sv-sakh
      sv-sakh 23 November 2012 09: 07
      +27
      And this is good for us ... so let's wish our "friends" not to stop there and develop projects of even more amazing machines laughing
      1. Hammer
        Hammer 23 November 2012 11: 38
        +15
        Right Such a machine is a dream not only of the American military, but also of our grenade launchers. wassat

        PS
        Serdyukov incident not transferred to the US military department? lol
        1. wasjasibirjac
          wasjasibirjac 25 November 2012 17: 04
          +2
          Quote: Hammer
          Right Such a machine is a dream not only of the American military, but also of our grenade launchers
          This machine does not need grenade launchers. you just need a rain, for two days and it will turn into a submarine. will have to call the Ministry of Emergencies to rescue the crew.
      2. predator.3
        predator.3 23 November 2012 15: 44
        +7







        Reply Quote

        Quote: sv-sakh
        And this is good for us ... so let's wish our "friends" not to stop there and develop projects of even more amazing machines

        for example, these!
        1. 11 black
          11 black 23 November 2012 19: 07
          +5
          Quote: predator.3
          And this is good for us ... so let's wish our "friends" not to stop there and develop projects for even more amazing machines laughing


          Predator - would you be surprised if I say something like that they are developing? laughing so yes, I wish them good luck ... yes
          1. Pimply
            Pimply 23 November 2012 19: 24
            +2
            In fact, the dog is very close to the serial
            1. rolik
              rolik 23 November 2012 23: 30
              +3
              About this "dog", the idea is very good. Allows you to unload the soldiers and plus you can carry more ammunition with the wallpaper.
              1. Joker
                Joker 23 November 2012 23: 46
                +3
                Amers often ride ATVs already, I've seen a dozen videos with them, I think it’s convenient, I threw them and rushed off-road, I arrived, I took the bags and went, and if you just need to take a position, it’s a beauty, I’ve arrived there on quadrics right away , and it’s not a problem to destroy him, he is worth a penny by American standards.
                1. silver_roman
                  silver_roman 24 November 2012 19: 28
                  +3
                  yeah, the citizens of america will soon be like "mcdrive" to go for all the purchases. their military, due to their laziness and throwing dough into the wind, drives ATVs. will soon weigh as much as their new GVC BMP lol

                  Undoubtedly there is a plus in something, but nevertheless, the military must first be able to carry out the task with the help of personal qualities.
    2. Skiff
      Skiff 23 November 2012 10: 12
      +5
      The point here is not in the "wunderwaffe", but in what, on what will this monster be transported ??? On aircraft carriers ?? Even he will not pull the C-17 "GLOBEMASTER III"
    3. Civil
      Civil 23 November 2012 10: 25
      +2
      Greyfox,

      child prodigy, not child prodigy ... and caring for personnel is laudable
      1. Joker
        Joker 23 November 2012 10: 43
        +8
        child prodigy, not child prodigy ... and caring for personnel is laudable

        Everything should be in moderation, if only proceeding from care, then you can equip a soldier with armor in everything, drag him to the battlefield, throw him in cover and let him lie shoot, and give them motorcycles to attack, so that they could move in all this as they could. Can you imagine what kind of engine this colossus needs, it will be terribly clumsy, there will be no transportation problems, there will be no cross, a huge silhouette, but it’s a dream of our tankers, it still won’t protect against the projectile, that’s all for the wind.
        1. Andriuha077
          Andriuha077 23 November 2012 11: 54
          +1
          About the engine: it is hybrid.

      2. Greyfox
        Greyfox 23 November 2012 14: 24
        +11
        Civil
        For protection against busting mines. From a projectile 125-152 mm will not save (despite the fact that the mobility will not be so hot). And the wunderwaffle turns into BMP (mass infantry grave). Transportation by air is a problem (provided that 84 "American" tons are equal to 76 common mankind, then this is the maximum load of the C-17), transporting such crap by rail is a problem, any river is a problem (not every bridge will survive). And what is the concern about the personnel?
        And so, continuing to care about the tankers, you can revive the German monsters from WoT and enjoy a tank like the Mouse tons of commercials on 150!
        1. wasjasibirjac
          wasjasibirjac 25 November 2012 17: 09
          0
          how in what - they brought this "BMP" to the base, put it on the foundation and that's it, it's worth it. the crew sits in it. the only threat to the crew is the tank. when a tank appears, the crew hides in cover. 100% safety
      3. smirnov
        smirnov 23 November 2012 23: 35
        +1
        It’s just that in other cases, none of the amerovoins would agree to go to war, they were always sensitive to losses. Well, at such a fortress you can ... with good advertising for your own.
      4. merkel1961
        merkel1961 24 November 2012 12: 17
        +1
        The cessation of aggressive foreign policy insanity is the real defense in the United States.
      5. wasjasibirjac
        wasjasibirjac 25 November 2012 17: 07
        0
        Well, yes, you won’t eat good concrete on it. and there it’s very difficult to mine; concrete digs disgustingly.
    4. beech
      beech 23 November 2012 15: 23
      +2
      this car will leave to the first bridge.
    5. Sleptsoff
      Sleptsoff 23 November 2012 16: 44
      -5
      If ours did you would surely now be described with happiness.
      1. MilaPhone
        MilaPhone 23 November 2012 16: 52
        +11
        We have long been developing a similar project. wassat
        1. 755962
          755962 23 November 2012 19: 21
          +7

          Francisco Goya. "The sleep of reason gives birth to monsters"
          1. Bad_gr
            Bad_gr 23 November 2012 21: 53
            +3

            On the Internet, you can find the views of military experts, who believe that the mass of the car in 84 tons counted on the American system. So, in certain conditions of counting one ton can be equal to 0.907 kilogram. If we proceed from this, the new BMP weighs in the range of 60-75 tons and is equal in weight to the Abrams tank.


            Another opinion:
            "... According to the manufacturer's official figures in full configuration, the GCV's curb weight is 140 lbs.
            i.e 63 500 kg .... "
      2. Joker
        Joker 23 November 2012 23: 41
        +1
        If ours did you would surely now be described with happiness.

        Are you talking to me? I wouldn’t describe it, if only out of shame, well, you look at this squalor yourself, yes it’s super protected, but it’s huge, it will be visible beyond 5 km, and it won’t be able to hit a tank shell anyway, bullshit, in short, the car should be mobile, rather than lug around like a turtle, this will nullify all of their armor upgrades.
        1. Sleptsoff
          Sleptsoff 24 November 2012 10: 57
          0
          And who said that she would fight against tanks. This machine is not made for the war against Russia, but against countries such as Iraq and Afghanistan, in general for the further conquest of the east, where there is no serious military equipment and there it will fulfill its function. And for us they’ll come up with something more serious, be sure.
          1. s1н7т
            s1н7т 24 November 2012 12: 14
            0
            Quote: Sleptsoff
            not for a war against Russia, but against countries such as Iraq and Afghanistan, in general for the further conquest of the east,

            Um. I would like to hear a list of countries where in the future it is possible to use Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya no longer offer!
            1. redstone
              redstone 24 November 2012 21: 43
              +1
              our former republics, with gas and oil
              1. wasjasibirjac
                wasjasibirjac 25 November 2012 17: 13
                +2
                ory will interfere. will not call
      3. Shuhrat turani
        Shuhrat turani 24 November 2012 09: 59
        0
        Quote: Sleptsoff
        If ours did you would surely now be described with happiness.

        in the 50s, the topic of a 65-ton tank was closed in the USSR (IS (T) -7 mine, if I am not mistaken). The reason for refusing to take it into service is that not every bridge can withstand this colossus on the battlefield complicated by rivers and ravines.
        1. silver_roman
          silver_roman 24 November 2012 19: 39
          +2
          yes, it is is-7.
          I was very sorry for this beautiful car. for decades it was ahead of its technological effectiveness of all then tanks of the world.
          In truth, the most beautiful car was, as far as it was worked out constructively (in terms of rational angles of inclination of the armor plates).

          and she didn’t go into the series for several reasons.
          1) during testing at the test site, the fuel tank caught fire. on the prototype, the tanks were not of the correct shape, which was caused by the design. The tank itself was kind of some kind of rubber.
          2) during shelling of the tank, the shell hit the chassis, as a result of which one of the trucks flew off and almost got into the Minister of Defense, who was present at the firing.
          3) Well, as you said, of course, the weight of the car. it was slightly larger than expected, but the dimensions allowed the car to be transported through the railway its weight is 68 tons.

          his S-70 cannon pierced almost any armor of any tank at a shot distance. and the frontal armor of the is-7 itself withstood the shot from the s-70. By the way, the 130 mm gun was an analogue of the ship.
          it is extremely unfortunate that such a machine did not become operational.
      4. redstone
        redstone 24 November 2012 21: 42
        0
        I don’t understand why you are so minuscule?
    6. rolik
      rolik 23 November 2012 23: 27
      0
      Fascist Germany also tried to make supertanks, to take the same "Mouse". Yes, it was a powerful peplatz, but the bridges under it broke. Either expanse for the partisans, sawed off the supports and watch how this "iron kaput" crashes.
      1. Podojdi
        Podojdi 24 November 2012 14: 38
        0
        I'd love to see it)
    7. Denzel13
      Denzel13 24 November 2012 10: 22
      0
      Well, yes, they will soon create their own version of Mouse. How much did he weigh there 180 ton? Let's wish you "good luck". laughing
    8. bremest
      bremest 24 November 2012 14: 12
      0
      And caterpillars are by no means a weak spot in this wunderwafer ........ ??? Saw the loot again. They didn’t drank on the F-22, then on the F-35, now on this armored tomb.
    9. Tjumenec72
      Tjumenec72 26 November 2012 21: 35
      +1
      The theme with the development of this machine resembles that of the Kamanchi helicopter.
      We made an "invisible" attack helicopter with the ability to indicate targets for other flying machines.
      They pumped a lot of dough - and then drones appeared - and he didn’t need him.

      Maybe it's better for them to equip their "steel dogs" with machine guns and sit with joysticks - one fig to fight against the Papuans.
  2. Dart weyder
    Dart weyder 23 November 2012 09: 08
    +16
    just like the Olympians - faster, higher, .... harder, more expensive - what a mutant !?
    somewhere we’ve already planned something similar, probably their next step will be like this!?:

    but I don’t like it at all - this is for fighting in urban conditions ........
    1. Green 413-1685
      Green 413-1685 23 November 2012 10: 00
      +10
      In fact, it seems to me that the essence of all such recent projects in the United States is that the parameters of the defense order and military policy in the defense industry are formed not so much by specialists from the army itself as military concerns through their lobbyists. And such uberwafles are beneficial to them, because these are giant orders at prime cost. But how few army men will drag these carcasses is of little concern to anyone. Amer in his style, the war and everything connected with it, is for them, first of all, a good business with super profits, and everything else is secondary.
    2. Civil
      Civil 23 November 2012 10: 27
      -2
      Dart weyder,

      but I don’t like it at all - this is for fighting in urban conditions ........


      But how do you now imagine the battle in the open field ?! only in settlements
      1. Kars
        Kars 23 November 2012 10: 41
        +5
        Quote: Civil
        But how do you now imagine the battle in the open field ?! only in settlements

        With the Yankees? In the open field? just a few countries will be able to at least try to fulfill such a number, and only the Russian Federation has chances to get something done if the S-400 is brought to its full condition and the Buk air defense system is pumped up well. still remain.
      2. Joker
        Joker 23 November 2012 10: 46
        -2
        So I imagine.

        And on our theater they will be in a clean field.
        1. Chicot 1
          Chicot 1 23 November 2012 18: 56
          +5
          Someone too easily and simply got it all from the brave American tankmen ... Just like in a parade ...
          You’ll be forced to think about whether or not it drives misinformation notthe "channel" of "Discovery" that I respect? .. How can you not recall the famous and relevant at all times "History winners write"...

          PS I had to meet Old (in fairly serious sources) claiming that the "Tavalkana" in that very battle knocked out at least the battalion of "Abrams" ...
      3. M. Peter
        M. Peter 23 November 2012 12: 04
        +4
        Quote: Civil
        But how do you now imagine the battle in the open field ?! only in settlements


        Do you still need to get to the settlements, or is this not being considered?
        1. Andriuha077
          Andriuha077 23 November 2012 13: 14
          +4
          And who does not remember our teletank TT-26.
          The layout is as follows.
          Abrams is relieved. Yes Yes! Only 61 tons left.
          One member of the Ekimage is charging.
          Even the air conditioning was ruthlessly thrown out. And a thermos instead of a coffee maker.
          The rest get into this BMP with gamepads, and try to steer them from safe scattering.

          1. Cosmonaut
            Cosmonaut 23 November 2012 21: 38
            +4
            Charging Negro?))
            1. Andriuha077
              Andriuha077 24 November 2012 16: 43
              +1
              Necessarily fresh, only true African-Africans are suitable.
        2. Sleptsoff
          Sleptsoff 23 November 2012 16: 52
          -2
          Following your logic, you need to abandon the army altogether, because still no one will get anywhere, will not reach, and even less will reach.
      4. majorlnb
        majorlnb 24 November 2012 00: 05
        +3
        For any armored vehicle, the settlement is a death trap. That is why the infantry in the village storms and the armored vehicles ONLY support the infantry with fire. At the same time, the infantry also covers the equipment from enemy grenade launchers. So there’s no point in fucking ... and there’s no fighting in the city. In an open field, such a target is everyone's dream. So imagine how it is to hide such a fool on the "front end". This is not to mention that it still needs to be delivered there. And how many people will be willing to make a heap of rubbish out of this "mechanism"? Mines will be in last place here.
        I would not be surprised if it was developed by the Israelis. Their concept of the development of technology and theater of operations is just suitable for such "miracles of technology."
        1. s1н7т
          s1н7т 24 November 2012 12: 22
          -1
          Quote: majorlnb
          the infantry in the village storms and the armored vehicles ONLY support the infantry with fire

          A very peculiar interpretation of the "assault group" for the battle in the command post laughing
          Or are you so joking?
      5. s1н7т
        s1н7т 24 November 2012 12: 18
        0
        Gee! laughing In "shpak" he taught nonsense! laughing What to take from civil ...
    3. Dimka off
      Dimka off 24 November 2012 13: 30
      0
      Quote: Dart Weyder
      but I don’t like it at all - this is for fighting in urban conditions ........

      Well try. Even the most protected armored object will not last long in urban combat. Although maybe they have super tactics bully
      and still it won’t save them.
    4. Zerstorer
      Zerstorer 24 November 2012 15: 14
      +3
      The following should be the Japanese - a self-propelled tower from the battleship Yamato)
    5. wasjasibirjac
      wasjasibirjac 25 November 2012 17: 17
      0
      Quote: Dart Weyder
      but I don’t like it at all - this is for fighting in urban conditions ........

      and it will not fail in the sewer or subway. Elsi will be 3 tons. then more or less, but 84 tons.] not every pavement will stand.
  3. evgenii67
    evgenii67 23 November 2012 09: 19
    +1
    In any case, the car is interesting, article + ..... BMP will be difficult to beat, but no one is safe from breakdowns, and how our American friends will organize the evacuation of this equipment, although the article says that the car may weigh as much as Abrams
  4. ICT
    ICT 23 November 2012 09: 20
    0
    So, one ton can in certain counting conditions be equal to 0.907 kilogram

    That is, the caliber has already been introduced for technology, as for air bombs
    1. Kars
      Kars 23 November 2012 10: 42
      +2
      The United States does not use the metric system, this has nothing to do with the caliber of air bombs.
    2. alex86
      alex86 24 November 2012 20: 36
      0
      TIT: in war conditions, pi can be up to five wink (only as fun) ...
  5. Samovar
    Samovar 23 November 2012 09: 23
    +9
    The mass of the new machine will be greater than the mass of the main tank. So, it weighs more than “M1A1 Abrams” 1.3 times and 1.8 times heavier than the Russian “T-90”

    BMP weighing under 70 tons is no longer just a bust - this is complete nonsense. The most heavy-duty aircraft of the Amer Air Force S-5 (carrying capacity 118 tons) will be able to transport only one such machine instead of 4 Bradley (the heaviest M2A3 - 37 tons). Considering that amers basically transfer their troops to the database zone with aviation, it will be necessary to use transport resources 4 times more. Consequently, there is more cost and there can be no talk of any sorting efficiency in such a case. In short, they will have enough problems with transporting such a machine.
    1. Hammer
      Hammer 23 November 2012 11: 44
      +11
      Shhh, don't fall to the office .... high do. They are rich, they will survive. laughing
      1. s1н7т
        s1н7т 24 November 2012 13: 02
        0
        Quote: Hammer
        Shhh, don't fall to the office .... high do. They are rich, they will survive.

        laughing laughing laughing + 100!
    2. borisst64
      borisst64 23 November 2012 11: 46
      +3
      And bridges will be built specifically for them. And it’s better not to remember about pontoon crossings!
    3. Tourist Breakfast
      Tourist Breakfast 23 November 2012 14: 43
      +3
      Are you all sure that the amers are idiots and did not foresee in the technical task the possibility of delivering infantry fighting vehicles by transport aircraft? 70 tons - this is the weight of the vehicle equipped for battle in the maximum configuration. And so there is a modular hinged reservation, which can be dismantled for transportation by air.
      1. tm70-71
        tm70-71 23 November 2012 16: 36
        0
        Finally !!! There are still people with brains, of course it will be modular, of course, and we need to go along this path. Moreover, I am sure that our new universal platform will be developed according to this scenario.
        1. Samovar
          Samovar 23 November 2012 16: 53
          +4
          Quote: tm70-71
          Of course it will be modular, of course, and we need to go along this path

          I hope in terms of mass we are not going to follow them. laughing
      2. Samovar
        Samovar 23 November 2012 16: 52
        +2
        Quote: Tourist's Breakfast
        And so there is a modular hinged reservation, which can be dismantled for transportation by air.

        And does it reach the DB place itself? No matter how you turn it, you still have to transport BMP and armor.
        1. Tourist Breakfast
          Tourist Breakfast 23 November 2012 17: 27
          +1
          It has the same mass as the Abrams - 63 tons. "Abrams" are somehow thrown through the air.
          1. 77bor1973
            77bor1973 23 November 2012 18: 19
            +1
            Dear, at least imagine for a start what 80 tons are. I look at the drawing already see that his chassis will fall apart after a very short time, and he will not have to ride on the asphalt!
            1. Tourist Breakfast
              Tourist Breakfast 23 November 2012 19: 55
              -1
              Once again, the original on the developer's website indicated a combat weight of 63 tons. The same as that of "Abrams".
          2. Samovar
            Samovar 23 November 2012 20: 06
            +1
            Quote: 77bor1973
            Abrams "somehow throw through the air

            I started from there - in order to transfer the required number of such infantry fighting vehicles, it will be necessary to use much more aircraft, or to reduce the rate of deployment.
            1. Tourist Breakfast
              Tourist Breakfast 23 November 2012 21: 12
              -6
              It will be necessary - involve. Are you seriously worried about them?
      3. 77bor1973
        77bor1973 23 November 2012 18: 10
        0
        Anyway, any equipment can be assembled before the battle, the main thing is to know how much and from which side they will go ...
      4. Gendalf
        Gendalf 23 November 2012 23: 19
        +2
        Ie it will be delivered to the place of hostilities for SEVERAL flights ??
        1. Tourist Breakfast
          Tourist Breakfast 24 November 2012 13: 44
          +1
          Ie it will be delivered to the place of hostilities for SEVERAL flights ??


          The carrying capacity of the Galaxy C-5 is 122 tons. That is, it can carry at least two infantry fighting vehicles without modular armor. Another C-5 delivers one BMP and armor to all three. And we also have three combat-ready BMPs.

          1. Samovar
            Samovar 24 November 2012 13: 59
            +1
            Quote: Tourist's Breakfast
            And we have three combat-ready infantry fighting vehicles.

            The same 2 planes will be able to transfer 6 Bradleys of the A3 modification with full "gear". There is a decrease in the rate of transfer.
          2. cth; fyn
            cth; fyn 24 November 2012 14: 00
            +1
            three naked, NOT combat-ready infantry fighting vehicles.
            1. Tourist Breakfast
              Tourist Breakfast 24 November 2012 14: 03
              -2
              Why naked? Three infantry fighting vehicles with modular armor, i.e. combat ready.
          3. 77bor1973
            77bor1973 24 November 2012 20: 25
            +2
            Do you even know how many C-5s are in the US Air Force? These are units and not all of them fly.
            1. Tourist Breakfast
              Tourist Breakfast 25 November 2012 02: 48
              +1
              A total of 131 aircraft were produced. Including C-5A and C-5B.
      5. serjio777
        serjio777 25 November 2012 16: 07
        +1
        Tourist Breakfast
        And so there is a modular hinged reservation, which can be dismantled for transportation by air.

        And the modules themselves will fly behind the plane like cranes behind the explosives on a hang-glider?
    4. smirnov
      smirnov 23 November 2012 23: 40
      +1
      Plus, do not forget that their wars are mostly very far away, and it’s still necessary to agree on delivery corridors ...
  6. Vanek
    Vanek 23 November 2012 09: 23
    +14
    AAAAAAAAA MEN, MEN, even their common truth and that is clumsy.

    How so ONE pancake TON is equal to 907 kilograms.

    Zadornov is right!
    1. Dart weyder
      Dart weyder 23 November 2012 09: 29
      +2
      wassat laughing yes - and that is true!
    2. Mr. Truth
      Mr. Truth 23 November 2012 09: 55
      +3
      Vanek,
      This short ton is called.
      1. Vanek
        Vanek 23 November 2012 09: 58
        +2
        Quote: Mr. Truth
        This short ton is called.


        This is a joke? Or really? I can believe it.
        1. Ksr
          Ksr 29 December 2012 21: 27
          0
          Not a joke. That's what short tons is called. Equals 2000Lbs or 908 kilograms.
      2. Middle-brother
        Middle-brother 23 November 2012 10: 03
        +1
        fun. And where did this name come from?
        1. Hammer
          Hammer 23 November 2012 12: 07
          +9
          This has happened since the 13th century ... the King of England Edward 1 decided to leave a mark on history - and he stopped by appointing new measures of weight, confusing them all ...
          And they came to America with English tea merchants. The English are still rascals. They were the monopoly tea traders in the North American kalonias. From American merchants who transported tea, they bought it in long tons (1016,047 kg each), and sold it to the same Americans, in short (907,145 kg each) tons. Naturally, the difference was put on the pocket, this is not counting the trade margin itself. This made the Americans very hot, and when the British introduced duty-free trade in the same tea for themselves, this became the reason for an incident called "Boston Tea Party". And then it became the prologue to the war of independence ... smile
    3. Sirozha
      Sirozha 23 November 2012 10: 21
      +5
      This is like a joke: Lamer believes that KiloBytes are 1000 bytes, and the Hacker believes that a kilogram of sugar weighs 1024 grams!
      You can go crazy, that is, the C system is sideways, write what you want there, but we will mislead a probable opponent)))
    4. Tourist Breakfast
      Tourist Breakfast 23 November 2012 14: 50
      -8
      Zadornov is right!


      Exactly!

      1. smirnov
        smirnov 23 November 2012 23: 53
        +4
        Come on ... how many Americans are there in the structure of the Apple? Indians, ours, are few in number ... but the Chinese are collecting.
        1. Tourist Breakfast
          Tourist Breakfast 24 November 2012 13: 15
          -2
          I will disappoint you, but today the states are the center of the world hi-tech, where research, development and production are concentrated. China is a stupidly assembly workshop using Amer’s technologies.
          1. irony
            irony 24 November 2012 20: 57
            +1
            Apple products are a marketing result. Gnusmas does the same and cheaper. And, yes, Jobs had a flair for development, but he did not invent. .
      2. Gavrn
        Gavrn 24 November 2012 01: 31
        +3
        Jobs is a cool marketer, a brilliant inventor, but a AWESOME ENGINEER.
        In the union, and even now sometimes, they taught that the device under development should do as much as possible at the lowest price. If you have not skipped classes in management and organization of production at the institute (this is what we call it here), then you can estimate the integral coefficient of competitiveness of goods from Apple.
        1. Green
          Green 24 November 2012 10: 15
          +1
          This is the trouble of Russia. There are many clever people who can to estimate the integral coefficient of competitiveness of goods from Apple. Produce a competitive product, and we, inspired by your success, will then be happy to listen to a lecture on how to "estimate the integral coefficient of the competitiveness of Apple products."
          1. Gavrn
            Gavrn 24 November 2012 11: 21
            +3
            Do you just know what this coefficient shows? And how do Apple products stand out from competitors in such a way that they have such a price? IMHO, the ability to vparit something is not a criterion for human genius.
        2. Pimply
          Pimply 24 November 2012 14: 10
          -3
          The integral coefficient, in this case, lies in the capitalization of his company, and in profitability. Remind you where it is in the world? On the first
          1. Kars
            Kars 24 November 2012 14: 34
            0
            Quote: Pimply
            The integral coefficient, in this case, lies in the capitalization of his company


            But what about the Namer coefficient? Or do we see the result of the American understanding of the Namer tests in the USA? Is it just interesting that the Americans drove at the training ground they bought or rented?
            1. Pimply
              Pimply 24 November 2012 19: 06
              -2
              When will such results be released? Is that some crumbs.
  7. Lieutenant colonel
    Lieutenant colonel 23 November 2012 09: 25
    +8
    There is worldly wisdom - a large cabinet falls louder! You can rephrase this - a heavy car will not go fast! And we are in +. hit me! I will tell skeptics from my own experience - the T-80 just does not turn at a speed of 50 km (weight 42-44 tons)
  8. Igor
    Igor 23 November 2012 09: 31
    +2
    Hmm .... such a colossus will be less transportable, but judging by its protection it will be difficult to knock it out of an RPG or to detonate a landmine with a fatal outcome for the crew.
    1. Hammer
      Hammer 23 November 2012 12: 14
      0
      Quote: Igorek
      it will be difficult to knock out from RPGs or to detonate on a land mine


      however, it may not be necessary. "Our roads are our secret weapon" lol


      "We are laying asphalt,
      in places and not much
      what would every occupier
      stuck on the approaches ... "(c) bully
    2. smirnov
      smirnov 23 November 2012 23: 54
      0
      But it's easy to just stop.
    3. majorlnb
      majorlnb 24 November 2012 00: 11
      +3
      To make this "miracle" trash, you just need to destroy a few road wheels ... Then it will be all the same what the crew will do with the landing party. While they are evacuating, while they bring the necessary, while they repair ...
    4. Dimka off
      Dimka off 24 November 2012 13: 33
      0
      depending on what to shoot from. Fortunately, the Russian army has good RPGs, ATGMs and other anti-tank devices wink
      1. cth; fyn
        cth; fyn 24 November 2012 14: 02
        0
        Well, sevens already obviously will not pull such a Wunderwafle, but there is still an RPG-29.
    5. KuigoroZHIK
      KuigoroZHIK 24 November 2012 23: 53
      0
      if they climb to us - we won’t need to beat her - in our conditions, she’ll just drown, get stuck ...
  9. david210512
    david210512 23 November 2012 09: 32
    +2
    the mass is too large and as a universal platform is not very suitable
    1. Mr. Truth
      Mr. Truth 23 November 2012 09: 42
      +1
      david210512,
      and they do not position it as universal.
      1. Dart weyder
        Dart weyder 23 November 2012 09: 44
        +11
        judging by weight - as stationary wink
        1. Fox
          Fox 24 November 2012 08: 29
          0
          and like a bomb yet ...
  10. Mr. Truth
    Mr. Truth 23 November 2012 09: 53
    +2
    I’ll write that I know.
    Why such a mass and dimensions?
    The Americans refused differential armor protection. Protection against kinetic weapons will be relatively small in frontal patches. KAZ will be against wearable PTS, which is unknown.
    But the main thing for them in the new "doctrine" is to avoid detection and a shot in their direction by maneuver and camouflage.
    Against mines at the level of MCI of the 3rd category.
    weapons like lasers / microwaves against infantry, or first 50 mm and then 30 mm mk-2 Bushmasters will not see. There will be junk m-242, which without starting dvigla / vsu will not shoot.
  11. Joker
    Joker 23 November 2012 10: 00
    +13
    I will only be glad if they accept him and replace their old BMPs with them. laughing Welcome to our off-road called laughing In the face of the degradation of the Americans, I thought with the 5 generation fighter they missed, and they have everything that turns out to be like theirs f-35-22. The fact that this bandura will break through with RPGs, I’m sure it’s all 100, it’s never possible to fully protect the equipment, there will always be vulnerabilities, and we’ll even need to improve the RPG a little and everything will be done by beating the tracks with a pinch, on such a machine they will change them. It’s interesting how they will transfer them, or rather on what, their planes are too small for such banduras, they complained about Stryker because of this, well, let them cut money, it’s better for us.
    1. M. Peter
      M. Peter 23 November 2012 10: 43
      +6
      Quote: Joker
      In the face of the degradation of the Americans, I thought with a fighter of the 5th generation they missed, and they have everything that turns out to be like theirs f-35-22.


      Come on, let me go ...

      1. igordok
        igordok 23 November 2012 11: 10
        +6
        Thanks for the movie. I like the irony.
      2. datur
        datur 23 November 2012 13: 12
        +3
        ,, a great example ,, the ability of Americans to sell a hammer belay , at the price of an aircraft carrier !!!! but how beautiful yes pompously lol and so on and so forth !!! laughing
        1. Green
          Green 24 November 2012 10: 24
          0
          And another example of excellent self-criticism and self-irony, which is so lacking in our broken-down inferiority complex people.
    2. rate
      rate 23 November 2012 16: 48
      +1
      They will not come to us. The future scenario in Syria and Libya is written. The USA as usual will be on the sidelines. And there will be nobody to use special b / p.
    3. arduan
      arduan 23 November 2012 22: 52
      +3
      I tried to imagine this car on THIS road. I could not.
      Well, or something like that ...
      1. Joker
        Joker 23 November 2012 23: 48
        +1
        Well, in the photo it seems to me the driver’s fault, he apparently decided to drive along the edge and fell on his side, he should have been on a straight line, maybe he would have driven.
  12. Karish
    Karish 23 November 2012 10: 01
    +3
    IN ISRAEL LONG USE HEAVY BMP AND THEY EXCELLENTLY RECOMMENDED. BUT WE DON'T NEED TO CARRY THEM BY AIRCRAFT, YES AND THEATER IN SUFFICIENTLY SMALL
    For America, the main BMP weights of 70 tons. This is some violation of their concept with the mobility of their troops. I wonder how they deal with this.
    1. Igor
      Igor 23 November 2012 10: 34
      +1
      Quote: Karish
      I wonder how they deal with this.


      Maybe they will make new aircraft, although such aircraft should take weight like the An-225.
  13. mizantropi
    mizantropi 23 November 2012 10: 03
    +2
    A rare toad!
  14. Karish
    Karish 23 November 2012 10: 28
    0
    In fact, Merkava, with the ability to carry up to 10 infantrymen, is better protected than any infantry fighting vehicle, and it weighs less. Why a BMP gun? Heavy BMPs are required only for battles in the urban stagnation, and the gun here is clearly superfluous.
    All this has been created in Israel for more than a dozen years, (from heavy infantry fighting vehicles and to a tank carrying an amphibious assault). The concepts have been worked out and all this is at war and is being improved accordingly. Apparently all over the world they realized that the protection of personnel is the most important thing in conflicts.
    Getting a BMP half the weight of a tank is a problem for air mobility, but apparently dropping 100 planes 5-10 times back and forth is not a problem for them.
    1. Aaron Zawi
      Aaron Zawi 23 November 2012 15: 53
      +1
      KarishThese are fairy tales. It’s difficult to shove 4 man-in-arms in full combat equipment into Merkava, 10 people when evacuating tankers from the battlefield, because there is no equipment there, it wasn’t hard to think about fighting efficiency after transportation.
      1. Karish
        Karish 23 November 2012 17: 08
        -1
        Quote: Aron Zaavi
        These are fairy tales. In Merkava, it’s difficult to put 4 people in full combat gear,

        In general, it’s nothing, because it’s neither BMP. good
      2. serjio777
        serjio777 25 November 2012 16: 19
        0
        What does Merkava have to do with it. It's about the BMP converted from the T-55 as far as I know.
  15. Tirpitz
    Tirpitz 23 November 2012 10: 35
    +3
    American "Mouse"
  16. M. Peter
    M. Peter 23 November 2012 10: 40
    +1
    C'mon, you need the American prom to give out a similar product, you have to contribute to this. laughing
  17. Rezak
    Rezak 23 November 2012 10: 42
    0
    Yeah, at one time the Fritz went to the limit mentally and built the Maus tank (they wrote about it here). 140 tons of delirium. And there was the Ratte project - 1000 tons of madness. And all from the fact that not for the truth they fought and their engineering ideas ran out.
    It is necessary to work on maneuverability, active and reactive armor, and not on the thickness of the monolithic protection.
  18. 8 company
    8 company 23 November 2012 10: 50
    +7
    Little, little ... Give 100 tons!
  19. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
    Andrei from Chelyabinsk 23 November 2012 11: 02
    +14
    Dear members of the forum, everything written in the article is a spreading cranberry. official developer site (BAE Systems, an English company) gives the device a lot of short tons in 70, which corresponds to 63,5 metric tons http://www.baesystems.com/product/BAES_020010/ground-combat-vehicle-gcv
    Actually, the cameras are confused with the weight - 84 tons is not the mass of the machine, but the English limit on the load capacity class of the cars of this class. This is a question of short tons, i.e. 84 tons correspond to 76,2 metric tons.

    And as for short and metric tons.
    The fact is that this is our SI system and we are fine with it. But Britain and the United States still use not only metric tons, but also their weights and measures systems.
    The American short ton is 907 kg. When weight is measured in short tons (take 100 tons), the British and Americans write 100 tons
    But when it comes to metric tons, the British and Americans write 100 tonns
    1. M. Peter
      M. Peter 23 November 2012 12: 09
      +3
      Thanks for the clarification, but still a bit too much for the BMP, and indeed for the equipment.
      1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
        Andrei from Chelyabinsk 23 November 2012 12: 31
        +3
        I myself think so.
        No, well, I understand when there were 100500 Soviet tanks on the western border (in the western part of the USSR, they seemed to have reached 40 000) - NATO was not interested in fat, about any raids in the Rommel style, blitzkrieg and other maneuverable war didn’t ring - exactly THEN the design of well-protected tanks in 55-60 tons was somehow justified. Their task is on a very specific theater, with well-developed roads, to give mortal battle to the hordes of Soviet tanks and try to destroy them more, until they are beaten. In general, such analogues of the German Tiger in WWII are not weapons for tank raids, but as a mobile anti-tank bunker, it will completely work.
        But now why? After all, this 60 + ton crap (it seems that it is also provided with some kind of kit so it can be heavier) will most likely be able to act only on the European plains and maybe even in the desert.
        But here specialist comments are needed, but I am not one
        1. Tourist Breakfast
          Tourist Breakfast 23 November 2012 15: 03
          -1
          This unit is supposed to have a high power density due to the hybrid installation. Again, ground pressure must be considered. And if you only compare the bare mass, it turns out that the "Oka" has better cross-country ability than the "Land Rover".
        2. Pimply
          Pimply 23 November 2012 19: 32
          -2
          Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
          100500 of Soviet tanks (in the western part of the USSR, they seemed to reach 40 000)

          Well, really at the peak was about 60000, hesitated back and forth.
          1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
            Andrei from Chelyabinsk 23 November 2012 20: 37
            +2
            Yes, but I spoke only about the European part of the USSR. the remaining 24 thousand were beyond the Urals
  20. gorkoxnumx
    gorkoxnumx 23 November 2012 11: 16
    +4
    More like a mobile pillbox !!!
  21. Andriuha077
    Andriuha077 23 November 2012 11: 43
    +1
    Mass is accurately calculated according to the American system of short tons. America, along with Burma and one other country, refuse to use the metric system. Despite the signing of the metric convention.
  22. IlyaKuv
    IlyaKuv 23 November 2012 12: 10
    +1
    Yes, even though 90 tons of weight, as they say, wherever the money from the USA flies away, it’s all the same end, and there you look and wither the American Democrats with their great projects. How many such projects have already been failed and all the money has gone developers pockets.
  23. leon-iv
    leon-iv 23 November 2012 12: 11
    0
    Ololo this is a shed.
    CARS do you have any reservation data?
    By the way people, I think so the side screens from a unique gas mixture.
  24. Locksmith
    Locksmith 23 November 2012 12: 11
    +1
    Quote: evgenii67
    BMP will be difficult to knock out

    But the Afghan natives will have a new mine, a big dirty puddle, it’s unrealistic to remove such a BMP from it laughing
  25. USNik
    USNik 23 November 2012 13: 03
    +2
    Judging by the layouts, the side armor will be modular and removable, and it will be pulled separately from the BMP. And if the project is finished before the release, the amers will finally have reliable protection from the RPG-7 grandfather tongue
    Question: why such an overhang in the rear of the BMP? From the rain fragments from the air to hide?
  26. understudy
    understudy 23 November 2012 14: 32
    +3
    The article is a plus.
    Ameram-further success in razderbanivanie budget for the creation of multi-ton "irons". laughing I am sincerely glad for our sworn "friends".
    How do they represent the movement of this object?
  27. Brother Sarych
    Brother Sarych 23 November 2012 15: 14
    +3
    In its pure form "Iron Kaput" from the famous newsreel ...
    Is the car virtually invulnerable? This does not happen ...
    The very fact that this super-karateka must get onto the battlefield and even move there in a straight line already makes it possible to immobilize it first and then destroy it ...
  28. Strashila
    Strashila 23 November 2012 15: 19
    +3
    As they said at our institute ... everything is on fire, you just need to know the conditions. Do not break through the armor ... fill it with napalm.
  29. rennim
    rennim 23 November 2012 16: 12
    +2
    And our Ministry of Defense is trying to transfer infantry to wheeled vehicles from foil ... such as for mobility. It's time to think twice and start remaking old tanks on something like BMP-T.
  30. Comrade1945
    Comrade1945 23 November 2012 16: 58
    0
    Oh! Guys, what does it smell like that? what
    Yes this is good old nonsense wassat
  31. AlexMH
    AlexMH 23 November 2012 18: 50
    +2
    Imagine how nice it would be for some Taliban to burn a $ 1000 million car from a grenade launcher worth $ 13, which he would not have earned on his opium poppy in a hundred lives ... Americans lose their sense of reality, so they will build "Mouse". How to take this fool to the theater of war? how will she pass bridges? An example of an F-22 fighter for 120 lemons, which does not shoot at anyone, but falls from time to time, did not teach them anything.
    1. Tourist Breakfast
      Tourist Breakfast 23 November 2012 20: 12
      -4
      how will it pass bridges?

      And so it will be:
      1. Samovar
        Samovar 23 November 2012 20: 41
        +3
        Quote: Tourist's Breakfast
        And so it will be

        Well, if in America, then yes. And so you know in the world not all bridges can withstand 60-70 tons
        1. Tourist Breakfast
          Tourist Breakfast 23 November 2012 21: 06
          +1
          Let us, before criticizing, wait for the release of the BMP on the "Armata" platform.
          Then we compare the weight and at the same time calculate how many bridges in the world can withstand the American and how many Russian infantry fighting vehicles.
          1. Samovar
            Samovar 23 November 2012 22: 46
            +1
            Quote: Tourist's Breakfast
            we will wait for the BMP on the platform "Armata"

            BMP will actually be on the platform of Kurganets. Or am I missing something?
            There, by the way, the estimated mass is quite adequate - 25 tons.
            1. Tourist Breakfast
              Tourist Breakfast 24 November 2012 13: 36
              -1
              It is planned to create a main battle tank, an infantry fighting vehicle, a heavy armored personnel carrier, a tank support fighting vehicle, an armored recovery and recovery vehicle, a chassis for self-propelled artillery, and others on the basis of the Unified heavy Armata cipher platform.


              Kurganets is a medium platform.
              1. Samovar
                Samovar 24 November 2012 14: 25
                +2
                Quote: Tourist's Breakfast
                Kurganets is a medium platform.

                So what, do you seriously think that our TBMP will weigh under 60-70 tons? Of course, the seer of me is so-so, but I believe that such a weighty BMP in our army will not be accepted with a bang. But on the whole I agree - it is better to wait for the platform itself to exit.
                1. Tourist Breakfast
                  Tourist Breakfast 24 November 2012 17: 21
                  -1
                  Well, judging by the presented models, there will be a pretty healthy fool there. It may well get out for 50 tons.
                  Wait, then compare. In an extreme case, there are always engineering troops who bring bridges with them:

          2. pinachet
            pinachet 24 November 2012 16: 25
            +1
            we can’t get out for 50 tons!
            for example, during WWII some tanks were transported without towers! good combat readiness, yes?
        2. Kars
          Kars 24 November 2012 14: 32
          +1
          Quote: Samovar
          And so you know in the world not all bridges can withstand 60-70 tons

          Well, the Yankees carry such a bridge with them.
      2. pinachet
        pinachet 24 November 2012 16: 23
        0
        and in Russia, on average, 50 tons of bridges hold. you dress at least five tracks, and 50 tons will not become smaller!
        1. Tourist Breakfast
          Tourist Breakfast 24 November 2012 17: 28
          -2
          But really, where can I find statistics on the carrying capacity of bridges in Russia in other countries?
    2. Samovar
      Samovar 23 November 2012 20: 38
      +2
      Quote: AlexMH
      How to take this fool to the theater of operations? how will it pass bridges?

      AlexMH this machine is only suitable for war with the Papuans (enhanced protection against IEDs and RPGs), mainly only in well-passable terrain with specially equipped means of crossing. In the case of a large-scale war with a developed army, their effectiveness is rather doubtful. There will be 100% problems with their delivery to the theater. If the most cargo-carrying American transporter is able to lift, roughly speaking, 1,5 such machines, then in which case the amers will have to solve a dilemma - either transport one fully "packed" BMP (and the delay in the transfer of troops can become fatal), or more, but "naked" without modular armor.
      However, we are to their problems ...
  32. Simple
    Simple 23 November 2012 19: 38
    +3
    I would also suggest combining track tracks on this “ugly duckling” with active armor.
  33. Kir
    Kir 23 November 2012 22: 34
    +1
    For all those interested in non-metric measures and their "oddities" I advise you to refer to the reference book "Navigator's Handbook in Mathematics. Issue 1. Elementary Mathematics. Beginnings of Higher Mathematics." Publishing house of the Hydrographic Office of the Navy in 1948, I do not quote the data as there are "such" many of them.
    As for the "miracle of technical thought" or how it is positioned there, then "the flag is in their hands", the only question is what next time they are going to "make the world of technology and weapons happy", but actually, as I am already somewhere here did not write in the first to bring nonsense to life
    A "Breakfast" and similar "Germans" (written in quotes !!!) I can't understand, or is this a "miracle" with the participation of Germany? or .......... in short I do not understand the birth?
  34. alex86
    alex86 23 November 2012 23: 45
    +3
    The mass of people was drawn, but seriously and essentially: an infantry fighting vehicle with a mass close to the mass of MBT does not in any way violate the technology of warfare that has developed for a given army in a given country in all its areas. Thus, bullying on this subject is exclusively malicious. If Abrams arranges the American army with its mass, then the BMP with the same mass will arrange. Secondly: there are two approaches to the person on the battlefield - to keep struggling (Israel, the USA and the West in general) and consider it a resource that can be sacrificed to achieve the goal (Russia, China, Arab countries). Both approaches have a right to exist. Plus a heavy infantry fighting vehicle - it will keep people on the way to the battlefield, minus - whether it is necessary to spend so many resources if the infantry need to go out and the soldiers become vulnerable. Everyone chooses for himself what he considers optimal - if there are a lot of people and they breed like rabbits (China, India, Arab countries, the USSR) - then it is better to choose the option that is optimal in terms of maneuverability. If there are few people and they are expensive (including, in the literal sense, qualified specialists, high insurance payments), then it is better to protect them. Something like that...
    1. Kir
      Kir 24 November 2012 02: 36
      +1
      Quote: alex86
      Secondly: there are two approaches to the person on the battlefield - to keep struggling (Israel, the USA and the West in general) and consider it a resource that can be sacrificed to achieve the goal (Russia, China, Arab countries)

      Do you really believe in what you say about the West (Israel with its values ​​is generally beyond my consideration!), Then it is more appropriate to talk about the value of "human life" in monetary terms, which is successfully done in the West, it is just that there is "cheaper security" than insurance payments and nothing more, so do not look for high matters where there is a banal calculation under the guise of "words" about the value of life!
      And as for Russia and the countries of the East, the same feat of Matrosov or "living bombs of the East" in principle is virtually impossible in countries where "wild" individualism and other delights flourish !!! So here it is probably not superfluous to understand that in one case Man is part of the community of Russia + East and even the same Israel. Another thing is the egoistically mercantile approach, vaunted Western values.
      1. Mitzhel
        Mitzhel 24 November 2012 10: 08
        0
        and where is it better to be a soldier - in a country that will provide you with maximum comfort, the best equipment, the most modern weapons and means of communication, a decent insurance payment to relatives in case of death or in a country that is accustomed to throwing corpses on the enemy, to save on everything on ordinary soldiers and in case of death family horseradish walrus send ?? It is not surprising that because of such jambs in the Russian Federation hundreds of thousands of draft deviators who do not want to be "part of the community" and the police have to carry out raids on recruits ...
        1. Samovar
          Samovar 24 November 2012 12: 32
          +4
          Quote: Mitzhel
          and where better and be a soldier

          In the country in which he was born.
          1. Mitzhel
            Mitzhel 24 November 2012 12: 54
            -4
            Aha ... even if this country feeds poorly servicemen, poorly dresses and shoes, pays little, disgusting equipment and, in case of death, will leave the family of the deceased soldier without compensation. And then some wonder why the prestige of military service has fallen so much, there are hundreds of thousands of draft evaders and recruits to be caught like criminals with the police. Apparently the people do not want to be "part of the community" and they are doing it right. A capitalist state with a comprador elite - a capitalist army.
            1. Samovar
              Samovar 24 November 2012 13: 22
              +2
              Quote: Mitzhel
              A capitalist state with a comprador elite is a capitalist army.

              How would you not like that - we won’t have an army of mercenaries, for grandmothers who are ready to shoot at least their mother’s own mother. They go to the army not for money, but to protect their people in case of emergency. However, since you need to provide
              maximum comfort, the best equipment, the most modern weapons and communications, a decent insurance payment to relatives

              passport in your hands and a drum on your neck.
              1. alex86
                alex86 24 November 2012 19: 51
                +1
                Samovar: You cling to Mitskhael in vain, he says that the state should value the people who live in it and protect it (the state). At one time I defended people and the state in one strange place and in a strange way - it still does not love me very much, I am not very offended as long as I feed myself, but if I don’t "move the horses" right away, but I have to suffer - I will not be delighted with the state, although goosebumps ran over me when in 87 after the army I looked through the cordon of Red Square at the stars and flags. So it is not necessary for everyone who disagrees with you to offer to leave - Mitskhael loves his Motherland no less than you and I, but the Motherland and the state - unfortunately, we have different things.
        2. Kir
          Kir 24 November 2012 14: 08
          +2
          Quote: Mitzhel
          and where it’s better to be a soldier - in a country that will provide you with maximum comfort, the best equipment, the most modern weapons and communications,

          I fully agree with the Samovar to serve your Motherland and improve life in It, including by eradicating 5collona and all kinds of "parasites" as an infection, and people like you can only regret because you do not have a sense of belonging to the Motherland, you are virtually everywhere strangers
      2. alex86
        alex86 24 November 2012 19: 24
        0
        Kir - the question is not what I believe in, but that the two approaches indicated by me exist objectively, and I'm talking about the right to the existence of a highly protected infantry fighting vehicle in countries where a person (everyone chooses the motive himself) is valuable. At the same time, I do not exclude the point of view in which a person is a resource that can be sacrificed for the achievement of a (possibly high) goal, while the selfishly mercantile approach is that the value of human life is insignificant compared to the achieved goal. You, Kir, in vain contrast some moral values ​​of the East and West - they are what they are, and it is they who dictate the main performance characteristics both in this case and in others - and there is nothing worthwhile of such emotions.
        1. Kir
          Kir 24 November 2012 20: 42
          0
          Quote: alex86
          goals, while the selfishly mercantile approach is that the value of human life is negligible compared to the goal achieved

          That is, you want to say that the exploits of Gastelo, Matrosov and other Heroes fit into this "evaluative system", or Kamikaze from there, but there were those who were "attached" to shells, But go to the machine gun with cold weapons, sorry! !! I cannot agree that when a person prefers Death to dishonor it is selfish mercantilism, it is another matter if you are talking about those who "send" to death, Yes, and sometimes the goals are false, Yes, there are questions, I don't argue.
          1. alex86
            alex86 24 November 2012 21: 59
            0
            An egoistically mercantile approach is, excuse me, your words, and the insignificance of human life in comparison with the goal achieved is not my choice, but the choice of commanders who have similar attitudes towards soldiers. The heroism of some is the idiocy of others. Firstly, there is no need to mold the opposition of "heroism or dishonor" to the heroes' feats - they did not need to compensate for their imaginary "dishonor" with their feat - this was not the case, and secondly, they (the heroes) largely compensated for the idiocy of those who sent them to their death, although there were other options. This is a topic for another discussion. And here, I repeat, we are talking about the fact that different approaches to human life in relation to TK for technology determine different structures and such approaches have the right to exist and, most importantly, exist. And the moral application here is specific (this is how I substitute it) - which is more moral: to protect your citizens by raising the price of technology or to talk about the need for heroism without protecting your citizens?
            1. Kir
              Kir 25 November 2012 00: 59
              +1
              Quote: Kir
              Another completely matter is the selfishly mercantile approach - the praised western values

              Yes, but mine in relation to the West and it is to them, and not to which others. generally given words or fall Hero or dishonor. one surrenders the name one cartridge, another shoots either with a cold weapon against a machine gun suicide Yes, but not only one But Honor, but about the idiocy of the leadership, the old topic is removed, I understand it's good to fight a machine gun against a man with a bow, it’s even better with a knife , by the way, there was a curiosity in the same Boer war when the Angels were sent well angry before the memory if the memory does not change the hippos, and Maori also had some asshole with a gunshot !!! And here, after all, like You with a machine gun and He, and even worse, he has superiority, and why then darn chtoli or give up, and indeed there is a good saying
              "Everyone imagines himself a strategist seeing the battle from the side" It is not known what idiocy you would hit if you were in their (bosses') place and in that particular situation in which idiotic command orders were given to you. And on account of the fact that the topic is different just quite suitable.
              1. alex86
                alex86 25 November 2012 09: 30
                -1
                The requirement for a soldier to shoot, and not surrender, is the cannibalistic manner of the political instructors sitting in the rear, who shake for their lives, and the rest are accused of cowardice. Surrender is not a shame, but a misfortune and a coincidence. But a person preserves himself for the country and (more importantly) for his relatives. We had one, so he said aloud that he would sit at the checkpoint "without leaving" until he was given the Order of Lenin - he never came out, during this time the personnel changed four times, sat out, gave (in the building of the checkpoint, we had, say, a command post). And idiocy always comes from the very top, and the talent of a commander of any level to turn idiocy down from above into a reasonable command is not easy, here I agree with you. And once again - it may turn out that a person will choose the option to "shoot himself" in a specific situation, but to demand this with arguments of honor and heroism, especially with a capital letter - this, excuse me, is the adolescent position of a person who has never even had a hint of such situation. Sorry for the harshness.
                For my part, I closed the discussion.
                1. Brother Sarych
                  Brother Sarych 25 November 2012 09: 59
                  +3
                  Anyone can get captured, of course, and in the war no one is safe from this, but ...
                  First he surrendered and saved himself for future accomplishments, then he betrayed his comrades in the camp, and again he saved himself, then he became a camp kapo, and again he saved himself, then he enlisted in punitive and saved himself, then he started shooting at former fellow citizens and again saved himself - well, well ...
                  1. alex86
                    alex86 25 November 2012 18: 09
                    0
                    Brother sarych, do not juggle, especially with "well, well," you can get in response - do not judge people on your own - so choose a tonality for your "well, well" millions of prisoners who did not betray anyone, and you walk them insulted.
                    1. Brother Sarych
                      Brother Sarych 25 November 2012 18: 48
                      0
                      I didn’t start, by the way! Who is singing about the cannibalistic orders entrenched in the rear?
    2. pinachet
      pinachet 24 November 2012 16: 33
      +2
      maybe you are right in something, but not achieve real goals without sacrifices!
      and here’s for you to think .. here I’m from St. Petersburg, where can we get a column of tanks and infantry fighting vehicles of 60 tons? (and this is 100 cars per battalion) after 2km they will stand dug in their belly! , and then the infantry will have to go in front without any reservation! then the victims will begin!
      1. alex86
        alex86 24 November 2012 19: 34
        +1
        pinachet: that’s what I’m saying about this - someday I’ll have to go out, and the whole question is that each of the developers chooses which is the best way to save lives on the way at the cost of a large mass and high price (sorry for the tautology) of the vehicle (again , according to the Western approach) or to sacrifice part of the equipment (and lives) for the sake of cheapness and tactical efficiency. War is a tough thing, everyone chooses his own tactics, and the aforementioned snot and pseudo-moral reasoning (not yours, pinachet) do not matter in a real war (only if propaganda). Therefore, to you and from me. +
  35. DuraLexSedLex.
    DuraLexSedLex. 24 November 2012 01: 09
    -1
    At the end of the article, it is indicated that there will be a single platform. The patriotic spirit in me started talking about what was combed out by the star-striped after the news about the promising single platform of the RF Armed Forces "Armata".
    But knowing who I feel, they will end up reading such a biie more quickly, and Ketai will lick it.

    By the way, about the roads, there is a rumor that they are not bad in the Middle Kingdom. So something like that. But this is my opinion and I'm not an expert)
  36. Gavrn
    Gavrn 24 November 2012 01: 33
    0
    Does anyone have any material on the combat use of TBMP / TBTR? Quickly found nothing, but there is no way to search for a long time.
  37. davoks
    davoks 24 November 2012 03: 32
    0
    what did the author smoke? where are 84 tons from? 63,5 tons she must weigh
  38. Gavrn
    Gavrn 24 November 2012 11: 26
    0
    As follows from the statements of the developers, the machines will be provided with a previously unused system of electric drives of the hybrid type. If the customer is satisfied with this system, then, in principle, the latest BMP can be created without weight limits. The applied systems will make the GCV more powerful, economical and functional than similar 70-ton machines.

    Very funny paragraph. The fact that the restriction on the weight of the machine imposes not only the chassis, the developers apparently do not know.
  39. older
    older 24 November 2012 12: 54
    0
    1 Belarusians went for popcorn! wassat With their swamps there is nothing to fear from war.
    2. Now it’s clear why the amers reduced the minimum prices for the purchase of ferrous metal from Russia. Putin admonished !? then set off
  40. AlexMH
    AlexMH 24 November 2012 13: 11
    +2
    Here I would like to clarify. If the weight of this crap is really not 84, but 65 tons, then the fundamental contradiction is removed - it has the same logistic parameters as the Abrams, which is also not very convenient in this regard, but so far the Americans have been coping with its transportation. Then the question remains - how much are heavy infantry fighting vehicles needed in principle? That is, if you are waging a small war, and it is not profitable for you to lose trained soldiers (for financial and / or political reasons), and you have a LOT of money and the cost of equipment does not scare you, then you are profitable. If the war is serious, then the issue of cost and mass character becomes paramount. A classic example - "Panther" was generally more efficient than T34-85, weighed one and a half times more, cost three times more, and Guderian called the mass production of "Panthers" a very big mistake of Hitler. I wonder what kind of wars the Americans were counting on (and they were counting, they don't keep fools there, like Serdyukov) this car?
    1. alex86
      alex86 24 November 2012 19: 59
      0
      I absolutely agree, but they are not preparing for war at all - they just chose the option in which at the start of the war the degree of protection will be maximum - and then, if the war is small, then they will have time to produce such, and if it is large, then it is difficult to predict. most likely it will be needed "in more numbers, at a cheaper price." And in this there is nothing offensive to anyone - this is the reality ...
  41. cth; fyn
    cth; fyn 24 November 2012 14: 09
    0
    my opinion: they were too underworldly, it was necessary to make spaced armor from sheets according to 50-70mm, protection from RPGs from gratings, it would be cheap and cheerful, and most importantly easy and effective (against a weak enemy who does not have tanks or the ability to use them)
    1. alex86
      alex86 24 November 2012 20: 07
      0
      You know, sergeant, they will do this when the money runs out (which is unlikely), but for now - in a rich way.
  42. Rus2012
    Rus2012 24 November 2012 14: 59
    0
    Quote: Greyfox
    and burying many lemons of green dough. We decided to repeat ....

    This is the first task, because their military-industrial complex dictates the conditions ... "Pilezh" bablos :)

    Quote: Civil
    child prodigy, not child prodigy ... and caring for personnel is laudable

    ? One 152mm shell of an 2 world’s cannon will strike in a couple of kilometers, even if it doesn’t take down the tower — all HP will be deaf and shell-shocked

    Quote: smirnov
    It’s just that in other cases, none of the amerovoins would agree to go to war, they were always sensitive to losses. Well, at such a fortress you can ... with good advertising for your own.

    Well, if the condition for obtaining insurance is to be only inside this mastadon ... :)

    Quote: Sleptsoff
    If ours did you would surely now be described with happiness.

    Rather burned out of shame ...

    Quote: Sleptsoff
    And who said that she would fight against tanks. This machine is not made for the war against Russia, but against countries such as Iraq and Afghanistan, in general for the further conquest of the east, where there is no serious military equipment and there it will fulfill its function. And for us they’ll come up with something more serious, be sure.

    "There is always a bolt for every clever nut, with a steep thread ...."

    Quote: cth; fyn
    my opinion: they were too underworldly, it was necessary to make spaced armor from sheets according to 50-70mm, protection from RPGs from gratings, it would be cheap and cheerful, and most importantly easy and effective (against a weak enemy who does not have tanks or the ability to use them)


    ... Mona is more likely to be used as a mobile checkpoint. Which is more convenient to put in the right place from concrete blocks. Or transport this prodigy on trailers :)))
    Although if the fuel is not brought in time, the landing party and the crew refuses to fight due to idle condition;)

    Quote: AlexMH
    I wonder what kind of war did the Americans count on (and they counted, they don’t keep fools there, like Serdyukov) this car?


    Dear colleague, their personalities there are more generational than stools:
    - some take loot for such mastadons
    - others - for the restoration of what was destroyed by these mastadonts, and nothing is being restored, because "the partisans came - yesterday and destroyed everything that was built"
    This is a new business ...

    Let us recall their hammers - high-speed and all-terrain, but not at all suitable for patrolling in the NP. Nakolkhozili protection and gratings - it seemed a little, now the military-industrial complex - is building a wunderwafel ...
  43. pinachet
    pinachet 24 November 2012 16: 21
    +1
    I want to quote Zadornov .. "well, stupid ..." "
    Well, the Germans went the same way (during the Second World War) along the path of increasing mass, ferdinants, tiger 2, etc. So what ? helped? or will they make special roads in front of them?
    that's who is interested to read how all the German heavy tanks were destroyed .., or by aviation or regiment artillery.
    even if they make three meters of armor, but it’s shy of a blank of 152 or 180 mm;
    or make our "cornet" pop more ...
    1. Kars
      Kars 24 November 2012 16: 29
      +1
      Quote: pinachet
      I want to quote Zadornov

      I love provocatively.
      Quote: pinachet
      that's who is interested to read how all the German heavy tanks were destroyed .., either by aviation or by the regiment artillery

      Didn’t you try to read it yourself? This is starting from the fact that there are no 152 artillery regiments in the regiment, and even more so 180 mm art systems. Aviation in the fight against tanks is more to the Allies. On our front, most of the losses are defeat on-board projection, and lack of fuel in the district and cut off due to low mobility of heavy armored vehicles.

      And in the third, there is no point in comparing it with the Second World War - the progress in engine quality is huge, being on tigers and ferdinand engines in 1200-1500l, everything would be different.
      Quote: pinachet
      or make our "cornet" pop more

      The article alludes to dynamic protection and active protection systems.
      1. pinachet
        pinachet 25 November 2012 21: 04
        +1
        Excuse me, but about 152 and 180 and the regimental artillery I have written in different paragraphs! but it doesn’t change the essence of the matter. The point is that the more piece of iron the greater caliber of it ... it’s not for nothing that they came up with su 152.
        you yourself correctly noted that you can fight it (and not only the allies).
        and I wrote about the "bigger cornet" for a reason, for each dynamic and active protection a cunning rocket is made.
        you protection ..we are a tandem charge!

        and you didn’t want to understand the whole point, but the fact is that a simple mass increase (70t) does not lead to a good result. And a powerful engine will not save. 100 tons can be made.
        1. Kars
          Kars 25 November 2012 21: 15
          +1
          Quote: pinachet
          that's who is interested to read how all the German heavy tanks were destroyed .., or by aviation or regiment artillery.
          even though they’ll make at least three meters of armor, but it’s shy of a blank of 152 or 180 mm, maybe it won’t penetrate, but there will be no living

          Maybe different lines?
          Quote: pinachet
          you didn’t want to understand the whole point, but the fact is that a simple mass increase (70t) does not lead to a good result. And a powerful engine will not save. 100 tons can be made

          Most likely you are just poorly versed in the topic. Progress is visible with the naked eye - compare KingTiger, IS-7 and Merkava 4 - and they will almost 68-70 tons in height. And do not scare the Mouse
  44. Selevc
    Selevc 24 November 2012 17: 12
    0
    84 tons of nifig to yourself such nonsense - not every bridge can withstand such a thing ... I think that if such a technique appears, it will have problems with mobility and cross-country ability ...

    Well, let’s say the Americans attack some banana country - only there is not a deserted area, smooth as a billiard table, but mountainous or crossed by a bunch of small rivers ... Is it that the bridge spacers should drive in front of the column of these cars? :))))))

    Not all the same, this project is rather just a beautiful picture - the finished product will probably be easier ...
  45. Selevc
    Selevc 24 November 2012 17: 42
    0
    And does anyone know why amers suddenly decided to replace their "Bradley"? After all, they praised her so much in the media (for example, on Discovery)
    1. Andriuha077
      Andriuha077 24 November 2012 18: 03
      +1
      They always wanted to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOtioVb2RLA
  46. Sadikoff
    Sadikoff 24 November 2012 17: 58
    0
    The use of electromagnetic weapons is also promising for the suppression of the active protection of modern tanks. One directed impulse - and the modern machine turns into an unprotected metal toy that can be destroyed by conventional means. At the same time, a tank, like any other modern military vehicle, not only becomes vulnerable, but also for a short time loses the ability to respond with a blow to a blow. In this regard, the development of electromagnetic weapons can be called among the priority tasks for modern military scientists.
    http://topwar.ru/8210-prizrachnye-celi-elektromagnitnogo-oruzhiya.html
    1. Andriuha077
      Andriuha077 24 November 2012 18: 07
      0
      For this, graphite-iron dust of half a bag (rocket) is enough, undermining beyond the limits of active protection. In an advanced version, optics for replacement engines stall.
  47. djon3volta
    djon3volta 24 November 2012 18: 17
    -2
    Why are Americans building up military power? Well, the bolt is clear not for the defense of their country, no one is attacking them, who needs them ??? but they are building up to attack themselves, here is their doctrine.
  48. Shulz-1955
    Shulz-1955 24 November 2012 20: 49
    0
    As I understand it, they do not expect active protection
  49. schapchits
    schapchits 24 November 2012 23: 22
    +2
    Quote: Hammer
    Serdyukov incident not transferred to the US military department?

    It would be nice wink
  50. Agronomist
    Agronomist 24 November 2012 23: 23
    0
    Nonsense, aftor ordinary troll fool .