Kurganmashzavod launches production of Sprut-SDM1 self-propelled anti-tank gun

"Kurganmashzavod" is preparing to put into production the newest self-propelled anti-tank gun "Sprut-SDM1", the corresponding production is already being prepared. This was reported by the press service of Rostec.

The Ministry of Defense signed additional contracts for the supply of highly demanded armored vehicles to the troops, including the Sprut-SDM1 self-propelled anti-tank gun and the BT-3F armored personnel carrier. In addition, Kurganmashzavod will continue to supply new BMP-3, BMD-4M, BTR-MDM, BREM-L, as well as BMP-3 after a major overhaul.

Since 2023, Kurganmashzavod has the status of the lead contractor for the state defense order. The plans for deliveries for the coming years include BMP-3, BMD-4M, BTR-MDM, BREM-L, modernization of the BMP-2 with the Berezhok combat compartment (...) of the 125-mm self-propelled anti-tank gun 2S25M, armored personnel carrier BT-3F

- leads RIA News Rostec message.

State tests of the Sprut-SDM1 self-propelled gun for the Airborne Forces began in August 2020 and ended in August 2022. The gun was created on the basis of the BMD-4, it received a new fire control system, a power plant, an information and control chassis system, a new sighting system and the most modern software and hardware.Also, "Octopus" received an additional remote-controlled machine gun installation.

The Sprut-SDM1 combat vehicle is armed with a 125-mm cannon, a 7,62-mm machine gun paired with it and a 7,62-mm machine gun mounted on a remote-controlled module. strong points and defensive structures of the enemy, conducting military reconnaissance and combat security.

Comments

[Orange Bigg]

"Kurganmashzavod" is preparing to put into production the newest self-propelled anti-tank gun "Sprut-SDM1", the corresponding production is already being prepared. This was reported by the press service of Rostec.

Not even a thousand years have passed since they began to prepare production, not even to produce.

[Graz]

it seems to me that an octopus is not needed there, it would be better if something like nons were released, sao, that is, a howitzer or a self-propelled mortar is needed, and anti-tank missiles will not do well against tanks

[Orange Bigg]

We need a mortar on wheels Phlox, self-propelled guns Malva (an analogue of the French Caesar), self-propelled guns Coalition-SV, but they are still in testing. I hope this year their mass production will begin.

Phlox.

Mallow

Coalition-SV

Oh, those eternal trials.

[Hermit21]

"Koalas" from the first days of the NWO at the front.

[bayard]

Quote from Orange Bigg

Oh, those eternal trials.

For "Coalition-SV" it looks like a new chassis is being tested. If this is a seven-roller elongated one, then we can say - finally, because it was necessary to start with this chassis from the very beginning of its design.

[Alex777]

Greetings!
A year ago, the idea of ​​SPRUT seemed useful to me.
But the past year has shown that this is an expensive and poorly protected solution for CBO. MBT direct fire can hardly withstand.
It seems to me that it is applicable only in conflicts of low intensity. In Syria for example. What do you think?

[bayard]

Quote: Alex777

It seems to me that it is applicable only in conflicts of low intensity. In Syria for example. What do you think?

It is not applicable anywhere, except for the parade and the fight against insurgents armed with spears. But there are no such (with spears) for a long time.
This whole idea with a parachute-borne "tank" is a gamble and pure sabotage ... implemented with the help of the so-called. "landing lobby", which has a head only to crack bricks about it.
Recall at least one example for the entire post-war period, when parachute landing was carried out in combat conditions as part of a division + and achieved a positive result. As a rule, they landed by landing method, and with a parachute no more than a battalion. So why all this circus?
In Syria, MBTs are needed, and in the desert, wheeled vehicles based on the Boomerang would be useful. And even then, instead of the Sprut turret, I would put the BMP-3 turret.
To be honest , I do not see any place for this paper misunderstanding . What could be a light amphibious and airborne (but not parachuted) tank, I described below:

Quote: bayard

And if our Armed Forces of the Russian Federation really need a amphibious tank with an MBT gun, then it should be done on the basis of the BMP-3M - with a forward MTO, aft door / ramp and a tower slightly offset (for weight balancing) to the stern. And if such a tank succeeds and is able to swim, then it may well be in demand in the Airborne Forces (as an airborne light tank) and the Navy (as a light amphibious tank). But at the same time, like the BMP-3M, it will be able to hold 30 mm in the forehead. projectile, and if there are side screens from the "Kurganets" (they are provided for the BMP-3M) and keep the side 30 mm. projectile normal. And heavy fragments, of course. Such a light tank weighing up to 24 - 25 tons will really be in demand in the RF Armed Forces, and not only for the Airborne Forces and MPs of the Navy, but also for arming the avant-garde units of the tank and motorized rifle divisions of the RF Armed Forces. For crossing water barriers, capturing and holding bridgeheads until the main forces approach. Only in this case, the production of such light amphibious tanks will be justified and in demand.
But not THAT that is going to be put into series at Kurganskmashzavod!

[stankow]

This is not a tank, this is a self-propelled anti-tank gun. By the way, as an artilleryman I will say - just wonderful!

[bayard]

Quote: stankow

This is not a tank, this is a self-propelled anti-tank gun. By the way, as an artilleryman I will say - just wonderful!

And how much does this "not a tank" cost?
With a parachute in the ass?
Like one and a half or two T-90Ms?
As the cost of upgrading 4 - 6 pcs. T-72B in T-72B3M?
Why not an ordinary MBT, which also has excellent armor ??
For the sake of being "beautiful" and with a parachute?
Do you really believe that in a real combat situation, during the NMD or during any military conflict in the next 10 years, this misunderstanding will "parachute jump" at least once?
Just be honest?
And to be honest - he will never jump, then why put this aluminum foil into a series ???
Can FINALLY launch the BMP-3M "Dragoon \ Manul" into the BMP-XNUMXM series at the same capacities ??
Or will you argue with me that the BMP-3 \ 3M in a real battle is more effective than this miracle?
Which (BMP-3M) holds 30 mm in the forehead and sides. normal projectile?
Which has not only a 100 mm gun. (which also shoots ATGMs), but also 30 mm. machine gun (which will simply tear this octopus to shreds), and 8 fighters in the airborne squad !!
On the fronts of the NMD, TANKS and highly \ well armored infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers are needed.
The tanks are built by UVZ. In the same place, both in Omsk and in St. Petersburg, the T-72B is being upgraded to B3M, T-80BV to BVM, tanks of other modifications are being raised and repaired, and the T-62M is being modernized. Any of them will plug this tin "Octopus" into the belt, because it has a multiple of its combat value.
The troops need well- and highly protected infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers. Including TBTR and TBMP based on tank hulls (T-64 and T-55).
And it is with these orders that ALL available capacities should be loaded.
This is me telling you as a (in the past) command and control officer.

[karabas-barabas]

You are absolutely right, this whole concept of parachute under-infantry fighting vehicles and under-tanks over all the decades of BD experience has not justified itself. In fact, airborne troops have to fight on tin cans, without any protection even from fragments. 1000 times from all irons they shout about the T-BTR! At least in the form of an ambulance for the front line, to take out the wounded. Recently, another terrible statistics regarding the wounded from the Russian side, It turns out that more than 50% of the wounded who managed to provide first aid on the spot, save their lives, die due to the fact that they get to the rear for too long. But they don’t hit for a simple reason, there are not always comrades nearby who can drag you for several kilometers under shelling. Yes, and dragging is such a thing, not always useful for a wounded body. And now, with pomp, they announce the production of an analogue of the AMX10, and not about the T-BTR.

[ramzay21]

If the leadership of the Ministry of Defense and Rostec were adequate and thought about increasing the combat capability of the army, then Kurganmashzavod should have focused on the production of BMP Kurganets, which are really needed like air, at least in a simplified version without Afganit and with an already mastered combat module from the BMP-3 or BTR-82A
From the release of BMD-4 must be abandoned completely

[bayard]

Quote: ramzay21

Kurganmashzavod should focus on producing Kurganets infantry fighting vehicles, which are really needed like air

“The Kurganets is a crude vehicle, with an engine that is not fully tuned, oversized and with too high a novelty factor. Therefore, the rhythmic and mass production of such equipment is impossible. But the production of the BMP-3M “Dragun” or “Manul” (the difference is in the combat modules) will not cause any problems with production. The transfer of the MTO to the front part of the hull, a convenient ramp for dismounting, a spacious troop compartment, high mobility and EVEN preserved water navigation, will give the RF Armed Forces an excellent modern infantry fighting vehicle with high production rates and a sufficient level of protection.

[stankow]

Well, how much does it cost, whatever one may say, the price by weight, such are the realities of mechanical engineering. Much lighter than a tank, which means cheaper. And not many of these are needed, per division per airborne division. Will it jump? Well, once every half century, you will definitely have to serve how long. And this landing will decide the operation and the war. There will be more to come.

[bayard]

Quote: stankow

Well, how much does it cost, whatever one may say, the price by weight, such are the realities of mechanical engineering.

Let’s not forget that “Sprut-SD” is still made of duralumin, and it is much more expensive than steel. In addition, the price of a tank mainly consists of the cost of weapons, avionics and combat equipment, and this set is approximately the same for MBT and Sprut. But the novelty factor and low serial production make the Sprut-SD more expensive than a T-90M type MBT built from scratch. Precisely because of its exclusivity, novelty, small production, water navigation and a parachute in the butt. At the same time, its “armor” does not even hold heavy fragments and large-caliber bullets in the side!
Airborne divisions are best equipped with conventional MBTs delivered to the theater of operations by air (An-124 or Il-76MD-90A). True, in order to load the MBT into the last one (IL-76MD-90A), it is necessary to remove the side screens, because the width dimensions barely allow the tank to be loaded into it, but the load capacity allows it.
But if you still need a light air transportable tank, then it is best to make it on the basis of the BMP-3M hull (with a front MTO). It will turn out to be of this weight within 25 tons, it will hold 30 mm. shells in the forehead and sides, heavy fragments, and even one Il-76MD-90A can take 2 of these on board.
Everything else is from the crafty pest.

[stankow]

No, armor-clad aluminum is not more expensive than armor-plated steel. In addition, it is easier to process. On-board equipment, a gun, yes, add price, but the engine, transmission, surprisingly, the price of the product is always “per ton”, there is no way to escape from this model. Ask the technologists...

They were right about the landing. But for transport workers from “real tanks” to arrive, someone must capture (and hold!) the airfield. Landing by parachute. Sprut’s place is in those ranks.

[bayard]

Quote: stankow

Ask the technologists...

These debates have been going on for many years; I have written a lot on this topic and talked with experts. It was from them that I learned about the cost ratio of the Sprut-SD and MBT. I told you the reasons for this ratio. The main ones are low serial production and a high coefficient of novelty + water navigation and parachute specifics. As a result, combat stability is near zero, and the combat value is lower than that of an MBT. In addition, the Airborne Forces already have a BMD-4M with 100 mm. gun and 30 mm. automatically.
If you need a light tank, I also described it to you. They can equip not only the Airborne Forces, but also the Marine Marines of the Navy, as well as light, reconnaissance and vanguard units within the tank and motorized rifle divisions of the Armed Forces of the Russian Armed Forces. And the export potential of such a light tank will be much greater than that of the misunderstanding called “Sprut-SD”.

Quote: stankow

In order for transport workers from “real tanks” to arrive, someone must capture (and hold!) the airfield. Landing by parachute. Sprut’s place is in those ranks.

For this, there are already BMD-4s with 100 mm that are more than sufficient for this purpose. gun and 30 mm. automatically. And it will not be possible for a flock of heavy transports to fly over enemy territory and drop parachute troops - now the “Papuans” already have MANPADS and other machine-gun and cannon air defense systems. Not to mention full-fledged air defense systems. And we don’t have so many BTA aircraft for such risks.

[stankow]

No, the Sprut is not a light tank, it is the most typical, excellent, necessary, self-propelled anti-tank gun. Trust me, artillery captain. No matter how much it cost, it is needed and it’s good that it went into production. And since it’s not a tank, any comments about the reservation are removed. All self-propelled guns have the same armor - anti-fragmentation, bulletproof, maximum, in some places, if possible, against 30 mm caliber. And comparing a 100 mm BMP gun with a 125 mm tank gun in 48 calibers is like comparing a club and a cane.

[bayard]

Quote: stankow

No, the Sprut is not a light tank, it is the most typical, excellent, necessary, self-propelled anti-tank gun.

Believe me, as a person who has been living at war (in Donetsk) for ten years, that “Sprut-SD” is pure sabotage. And occupying the production capacity of the Kurganskmashzavod with this eccentricity, instead of producing the really urgently needed BMP-3M, is a crime.
Have you seen how tanks return from battle? With elements of dynamic protection torn off, smoked, but alive. "Sprut-SD" will not survive even a hundredth of a fire load. Therefore, all KMZ production lines are required to rivet BMP-3M and armored personnel carriers on their basis. And tanks must be tanks. We still have a lot of them at storage bases for modernization, and their modernization to T-72B3M and T-80BVM costs several times cheaper than ONE “Sprut-SDM”, which is not even suitable for them.

Quote: stankow

The Octopus is not a light tank, it is the most typical, excellent, necessary, self-propelled anti-tank gun.

Quote: stankow

Since it’s not a tank, any comments about the reservation are removed.

Anti-tank warfare is now being carried out by anti-tank systems, and if ... such a "self-propelled gun" rolls out into a conditional field - for direct fire ... it will be simply ... some kind of amazement.

Quote: stankow

No matter how much it cost, it is needed and it’s good that it went into production.

Have you ever done business? Economic activity? Have you ever struck a balance... At least a family one?
I have. And create macroeconomic level programs too.
Already at the last exhibition, "Sprut-SDM" stood covered with additional armor panels and bars... Because in the light of the current SVO, leaving it in its original form is simply an outrage against common sense. This is a materialized admission of failure. Both the customer (MoD and Airborne Lobby) and the contractor.
Launching such a product into series is a crime.

[stankow]

What about your shortage of infantry fighting vehicles? Is there no production capacity for the Octopus division?

ATGM is an infantry weapon. With insignificant ammunition, unmaneuverable. Designed only for tanks, expensive. Without a HE projectile, thermobaric - how much will you suffer? The paratroopers need something different. So we got it. How would you like to land with an ATGM?

The time of the Octopus in this Northern Military District has not yet come. But now they are preparing. The North Military District began with a landing party, let's see how it ends...

[bayard]

Quote: stankow

What about your shortage of infantry fighting vehicles?

The Russian Armed Forces are deploying a whole bunch of new divisions, corps, armies, they all need to be armed. Therefore, both armored tanks and repair factories are working to the limit of their capabilities. And the more BMP-3Ms are supplied, the better.

Quote: stankow

ATGM is an infantry weapon. With insignificant ammunition, unmaneuverable.

This is if you drag it by hand. In addition, the BMP-3's ammunition load ranges from 5 to 10 ATGMs launched through the gun barrel.
In addition to ordinary shells, of course.
And you can even put an ATGM on a buggy.

[stankow]

And a good weapon can be mounted on a tracked chassis. Here's Octopus for you

[bayard]

So that such an “anti-tank gun” is 125 mm. caliber “put” on a tracked chassis, just remove any T-72, T-80 or even T-64 from the storage base, carry out restoration repairs and - here you have an “anti-tank gun” on a tracked chassis, only with TANK-level protection. And it will cost 4-6 times cheaper (if with a full modernization) or 10+ times cheaper than building a cardboard “Sprut-SDM” from scratch.
All this time I have been writing to you about a RATIONAL approach in wartime conditions. When it is necessary to resolve issues of supplying the Army in the shortest possible time, in the maximum possible quantities and at an affordable price. And if instead of one "Octopus" for the same money you can get 4 - 6 modernized (!) T-72B3M or 10+ simply restored and repaired... only a madman or the Enemy can insist on purchasing "Octopus". Moreover, at the front the BMP-3M is needed MUCH more than the strange and ridiculous Sprut-SDM.

[stankow]

About 4-6-10 times cheaper, you are exaggerating. This doesn't happen. I repeat to you. Multiply the weight of the armored vehicle in tons by $50000 and get the manufacturer’s price +/-20% And the task was not to get a cheap ersatz anti-tank weapon, but a modern, power supply-compatible, floating and landing one. According to the requirements of the Airborne Forces. It is possible, with an eye on exports, to increase serial production and reduce prices.

[bayard]

Quote: stankow

About 4-6-10 times cheaper, you are exaggerating. This doesn't happen.

Look at the cost of upgrading the T-72B3M, it’s exactly 4-6 times cheaper than the new T-90M. And 10+ times if a tank with a DH is lifted, repaired WITHOUT modernization and put into operation. At the peak of demand, this is exactly what they did with some tanks last year. And not only with the T-72 early versions (not B), but also with the T-62 and even with the T-55 - these are even cheaper to repair because they do not have an automatic loader. But their guns are better than any Rapier anyway.

Quote: stankow

The goal was not to get a cheap ersatz VET, but a modern one, compatible with the BP, floating and landing.

And it turned out to be nonsense. In its previous form, the Sprut based on the BMP-3 was even better in terms of security. And swam. But no one will allow them to parachute in anyway - we don’t have extra military transport aircraft for this. And there will be such in at least some acceptable quantities for a very long time.

Quote: stankow

with an eye to export, to increase serial production and reduce prices.

Yes, you don’t need such a LT or VET on track NI-KO-MU. They were in a hurry to screw over the Indians. And those are needed for the HIGH MOUNTAINS! And the Indians chose a new light tank from South Korea. Look at it and you will understand the difference and why the Indians on "Sprut-SDM" ... no, actually they went, looked and made a categorical conclusion.
But they would have made it on the basis of the BMP-3M, and with all the body kit (side screens from the Kurganets), and with an engine from the Kurganets with a power of 860 hp... this would be exactly THAT light tank for the highlands. And such a light vehicle would be right for us - not only in the Airborne Forces, but also in the Marine Marines of the Navy, and in the ground forces as a light amphibious one.
And now our airborne forces are not engaged in dashing landings, but are fighting on the ground like ordinary assault infantry. And they don’t need Octopuses, but MBTs, and more.

[stankow]

Yes, now they need MBTs. But in the final phase, the SVO may have to parachute. And then the Octopus will come in handy. Guess after the war what the world will buy - Korean sophisticated and expensive, or the weapon of the winner?

Rapier is good, but 125 mm is better!

[bayard]

Quote: stankow

Guess after the war what the world will buy - Korean sophisticated and expensive, or the weapon of the winner?

We win - we'll see.

Quote: stankow

Rapier is good, but 125 mm is better!

That’s what I’m talking about - MBT from storage is much better, more reliable and more secure.

[stankow]

And it doesn't float. And it doesn't fly. And there are no planes to transport it. And fuel is consumed beyond measure, and there is a shortage of diesel fuel behind enemy lines. And also try to quickly dig it in, while the enemy is gathering forces to eliminate the landing force, just a few hours. Octopus is better.

[bayard]

Quote: stankow

And it doesn't float. And it doesn't fly. And there are no planes to transport it.

If you are talking about MBT, then it floats quite well on a pontoon, and if you remove the side screens from the tank, then, even with small gaps, it will fit into the IL-76MD\MD-90A and fly.

Quote: stankow

And fuel is consumed beyond measure, and there is a shortage of diesel fuel behind enemy lines.

Any equipment eats up diesel fuel, but if you land with full tanks, and even a “barrel on wheels” with diesel fuel to boot, then it will be enough for the needs of the landing party. Such landings are not for months in all-round defense.

Quote: stankow

Also, try to quickly dig it up

Yes, he will quickly dig in himself, and he can also dig caponiers for other equipment. This is a tank, it has everything of its own.

Quote: stankow

Octopus is better.

Let's take the Sprut and the T-90M into the field... or the T-72B3M, and let them find out who is better.
"Octopus-SDM" in its current form is the fruit of the headless "Airborne Lobby", which needs to be beautiful and with a parachute during exercises.
I repeat - you can parachute onto the bridgehead with a BMD-4, which has 100 mm. a gun that also fires ATGMs (any tank will take it), and even a twin 30 mm one. automatic - for complete and unconditional Happiness. Moreover, it also takes landing troops, and consumes no more fuel than the Octopus. And when the bridgehead is expanded, so that it will be possible to supply landing equipment, then they will give you a lift on the Il-76MD-90A and T-72B3M. And there will be a landing Happiness .

[stankow]

Well, you can’t compare Octopus with MBT. Compare with Rapier, Chrysanthemum, Sprut-B, Venu, Msta-B or even Msta-S. Who is better to protect the landing position from advancing enemy tanks and infantry fighting vehicles? They have already compared it with the BMD-4 - it doesn’t even come close in terms of firepower, but the armor is the same. Who will make the defense more stable? Who will be in those ranks anyway, the first wave? Who will follow with the entire column to their own, through the roads and rivers?

[bayard]

Well, how incorrectly the site works and is slow... I wrote a comment and everything froze.

[bayard]

Quote: stankow

Well, you can’t compare Octopus with MBT. Compare with Rapier, Chrysanthemum, Sprut-B, Venu, Msta-B or even Msta-S.

"Sprut-SDM" is a classic LPT (light amphibious tank), and also airborne. And all these antics about PTSAU are from the evil one. And the price is more expensive than the new MBT.

Quote: stankow

Who is better to protect the landing position from advancing enemy tanks and infantry fighting vehicles?

Camouflaged anti-tank crews.
Well, it’s not like “Spruta-SDM” should be rolled out against MBT in an open field. And from an ambush, ATGM crews can work quite well, and mobile ones - say, in buggies. And the BMD-4, whose ammunition racks can contain up to ten ATGMs for firing through the barrel. Any MBT will be in trouble, especially if not aimed at the forehead from an ambush. Or you can do it even simpler - use FPV drones, cheaply and very cheerfully.

Quote: stankow

The BMD-4 has already been compared - it doesn’t even come close in terms of firepower

In addition to direct fire with ATGMs, the BMD-4 can also very effectively assist landing forces from closed positions with a large gun elevation angle - like a mortar. And I'm not even talking about 30 mm. machine gun, which can be used to destroy an entire column on the march from an ambush at once.

Quote: stankow

Who will make the defense more stable?

ATGM and FPV drone operators.

Quote: stankow

Who will follow with the entire column to their own, through the roads and rivers?

BMD-4, which will also carry a landing party.

[stankow]

No, Octopus is not a tank. Only complete amateurs call it a tank - well, the barrel sticks out, there are tracks, that means a tank. But no. The tactical purpose and use are different.

A car weighing 18 tons cannot be more expensive than a car weighing 43 tons. Especially after entering the normal series.

ATGM is a weapon for repelling one attack. To defend the bridgehead for three days in a row until the main forces arrive - you need an Octopus.

Fighting in an open field is the destiny of MBT. And self-propelled guns will meet him from the trench. Shooting in advance. For infantry, it’s like one shooter from a trench stops three running towards them across the field... And the weapons are the same.

With the OP closed, Octopus can too. Why only the landing party? He has targets within line of sight. That means, yes, direct fire.

ATGM, BMP - this is good. And a self-propelled gun with a powerful gun is even better

Put yourself in the place of a battalion commander who is loading up on a mission. Well, take over the key station there and hold it for three days. Oh, how good it is to know that you have a platoon (3 cars) of these things with you. Place it in a tank-dangerous direction and even an enemy tank company will not be able to break through there.

[bayard]

Quote: stankow

No, Octopus is not a tank.

"Octopus" (in its original form) was precisely the LPT. Replaced PT-76. It is from this LPT that the legs of the BMP-3, BMD-4, and even more so “Octopus” of all varieties grow (the first was on the BMP-3 chassis). And the fact that he has no armor and can only do it from an ambush and a trench... well, the LPT did not shine with armor protection.

Quote: stankow

A car weighing 18 tons cannot be more expensive than a car weighing 43 tons.

Well, it’s about the same as for ships whose hull cost does not exceed 15%. Everything else - power plant, weapon systems, general ship systems, avionics and at least/about 40% - the cost of the ship's air defense. And this does not include the cost of ammunition.
So imagine that in front of you are two ships identical in armament, saturation and equipment, but at the same time one of them has a battleship-class armored hull (but at the same time a serial one), and the other has a light armorless hull, moreover, an aluminum hull as a exclusive product. Of course, the exclusivity of the second will outweigh the cost of the armor of the first. And if for ships it will still be more difficult to get such a difference in price, then for a serial MBT and a light exclusive armorless tank... easily.
Comparative prices were given to me by people involved and knowledgeable several years ago.

Quote: stankow

ATGM is a weapon for repelling one attack. To defend the bridgehead for three days in a row until the main forces arrive - you need an Octopus.

The experience of almost 10 years of war in Donbass (and I still live in Donetsk) testifies that I am right. In a BTA aircraft, instead of one "Octopus" there may be an "Octopus" (or two), instead of each there may be 3-4 ATGM crews on buggies or ATVs with a reserve of anti-tank weapons.

Quote: stankow

Fighting in an open field is the destiny of MBT. And self-propelled guns will meet him from the trench. Shooting in advance.

A landing is a landing, and its task is to seize and hold a bridgehead in conditions of limited resources. In such conditions, the BMD-4 provides much greater capabilities, it is more versatile and solves many more problems. And she is carrying a landing party. And you will have to choose exactly this way - either the Octopus or the BMD-4. And in such a situation, for such tasks the BMD-4 is much preferable - transport for landing forces, more versatile weapons, and the ability to conduct effective fire from indirect positions.

Quote: stankow

With the OP closed, Octopus can too. Why only the landing party? He has targets within line of sight.

Why did they create “Nona” for the Airborne Forces? I'm talking about shooting at a mortar - with a large barrel elevation angle - up to 70+ degrees. “The Octopus will never be able to do this. For parachute landing, it is superfluous. But for landing by landing method and from flying over the runway (with a pilot parachute), it is quite sufficient.

Quote: stankow

Put yourself in the place of a battalion commander who is loading up on a mission.

I put myself in the place of a battalion commander, a meto, a brigade commander, a division commander, and even an Airborne Forces commander. That is why I give complex answers.

[Oleg Ogorod]

Phlox would have been good 50 years ago.
Now it is not at all clear why he is being promoted.
Manual loading of the rear guns with mines with additional charge pouches...
No matter how many exhibitions he has traveled since 2016, no one needs him.

[PROXOR]

Honestly, I didn’t understand why the FLOX is needed if there is a 2S31 VIENNA. They both can fire the same projectiles and mines. Make normal fire control with topographical reference and we will be happy. Why plant a garden? FLOX is the first mine at the gun and the calculation is at best 300s. In VIENNA, the calculation is at least inside the armor. No matter what, but armor. Yes, and the running BMP3 has proven itself VERY well.

[Alexey Koshkarov]

Phlox is probably cheaper than Vienna and there will be more motor resources

[PROXOR]

So we are for the price of iron or for the combat capability of units.

[Sergei N 58912062]

Phlox based on the Urals. Ural is cheaper to manufacture. Phlox armored.

[PROXOR]

Where is it armored when deployed to fire?

[Sergei N 58912062]

Self-propelled guns Malva are inferior to the French self-propelled guns CAESAR in their performance characteristics.
Where is the self-propelled guns Coalition-SV-KSh? Here it is needed instead of self-propelled guns Malva.

[bayard]

Quote: Graz

it seems to me that the octopus is there and is not needed in its own

Quite right, absolutely useless and harmful undertaking. Paper armor, MBT cannon ... We have a lot of MBTs at our storage bases, but they have armor and active protection, and at a cost - three or four T-72s can be upgraded for one Octopus.
And it also distracts the capacities that can and should be used for the production of the BMP-3 and armored personnel carriers based on it. Moreover, at the facilities that they want to give to the "Octopus", it would be better to organize the mass production of the BMP-3M "Dragoon \ Manul" with the front placement of the MTO, a more capacious and convenient troop compartment and a convenient landing. as well as with much higher security - the forehead and sides hold 30 mm. projectile normal.
We also really need armored personnel carriers based on the BMP-3, which will be useful not only for the landing, but also for supplying the front line and evacuating the wounded.
on the basis of such (more protected armored personnel carriers), self-propelled mortars can also be placed.

Quote: Graz

howitzer needed

We still have enough "Carnations". If there are enough shells for them, no analogues are needed YET.
We need highly protected BMP-3M and armored personnel carriers based on them. It is with this that the capacities of Kurganmashzavod should be loaded to the maximum. ONLY this!!
And also to finally resolve the issue of converting old tanks from storage bases to TBTR, taking as a basis the projects and developments of the Kharkov Tractor. It is this project (!) Because it is the best and most optimal for such a remake of the T-55 and T-64.

[Krivobokoff]

We need a BMP-3 with a 100mm gun, but we don't need an Octopus with a 125mm gun. L-Logic

[bayard]

Quote from Krivobokoff

We need a BMP-3 with a 100mm gun, but we don't need an Octopus with a 125mm gun. L-Logic

Iron logic - to support infantry (including winged ones), 100 mm is quite enough for us. land mine or ATGM. And do not forget that 30 mm is paired with it. an automatic cannon that will dismantle everything except a tank and a reinforced concrete pillbox. But the BMP-3 \ 3M also has a landing squad, and it can take out the wounded / wounded, and bring the ammo to the front line. Infantry is enough to support 100 mm. land mine, but it is often much more important to have 30 mm. machine gun with a good supply of shells.
What will the Octopus give us from 125 mm. cannon, but paper armor?
An amazing price tag, uselessness in a real battle (if you hide it in an ambush, isn't it easier to place an ATGM crew in an ambush?) And the satisfied ego of the "landing lobby".

[Sergei N 58912062]

Quote from Krivobokoff

We need a BMP-3 with a 100mm gun, but we don't need an Octopus with a 125mm gun. L-Logic

A 100-mm gun-launcher 2A70 + 30-mm automatic gun 2A72 is enough to support the infantry. In addition, the BMP-3 has the ability to transport infantry.

[stankow]

There are tanks, there are infantry fighting vehicles, there are howitzers, but the Octopus goes in an unfilled niche - a self-propelled anti-tank gun. So he doesn't need armor. With such a gun, he simply does not let the shooter and 30 mm guns near him.

[Alex777]

Quote: stankow

With such a gun, he simply does not let the shooter and 30 mm guns near him.

The MBT holds RPG and ATGM hits (with some luck).
This is the main threat. The SPRUT has no chance against her.

[karabas-barabas]

Quote: stankow

With such a gun, he simply does not let the shooter and 30 mm guns near him.

As soon as the Octopus unmasks itself, after the 1st shot, everything will fly at it, including bursts of 20-30mm guns and 82-120mm mortars. And the Octopus will be burned right there. Why is he needed? The only thing that comes to mind is an analogue of the AMX10, for the GRU special forces, which, on fast legs, breaks through the front somewhere and takes something in the rear, for example, an important ops. But then again, all modern armies use heavy mechanized brigades and battalions for such maneuvers, because surprise is becoming increasingly difficult to achieve due to detection and reconnaissance equipment, and heavy armor still allows you to approach and land troops brazenly and right under fire. So at the moment the Russian army does not need the Octopus, in this war he will not be able to reveal his talents, he needs T-armored personnel carriers (on which the DBM from the BTR-82 is put on the way) and MBT at least at the level of T-72B3 and that’s all, what the industry will pull and what is really needed.

[stankow]

As the Octopus “uncamouflaged”, it means it opened fire. At a distance inaccessible to the opponent. Camouflaged and entrenched! This is a very bad idea for 20-30 mm firecrackers to come into fire contact with it. Not their weight category. It’s better to look around where the nearest beam is located.

[Oleg Ogorod]

The landing equipment has always been made in Volgograd at the tractor factory. The plant is no longer there, but the southern production (the same one) is still glimmering, or rather, it survived after the former graduate of the Ryazan Airborne School, Hero of Russia, came to the governorship in 2014.
He lobbied for further production there.
And the octopus was collected there, the gun itself was made ... well, we will not reveal all the secrets. But let's say she drove a long way in a circle.
The southern production in Volgograd is, by the way, a branch of Kurganmashzavod.
The governor's first deputy is also a former paratrooper. To give up landing jumps now is to admit to them that their youth has gone wrong.
But changing the MO mentality is very difficult.
Maybe that's why in many countries civilians are appointed to ministers of defense. Like ours.

[Alekseev]

The octopus of lightly armored vehicles, it is not comparable to MBT in terms of security.
It is not suitable to break through the defense, it can only be used from ambushes. Perhaps in some quantity it is in demand to strengthen the fire and, especially, anti-tank capabilities of mobile subunits.

[Alexey Lantukh]

Well, the Octopus is an amphibious light tank with a 125mm gun. If used as an amphibious fire weapon, then it is needed, but if on the front line, then an ordinary tank is better.

[karabas-barabas]

Quote: Alexey Lantukh

If used as an amphibious weapon, then you need,

The problem is that for all the decades they have never been used for their intended purpose and apparently they are not used.

[Orange Bigg]

What docks? Under what heading? The entire Internet is littered with these pictures, and performance characteristics are posted on the sites. Wake up. About the fact that Kurganmashzavod is preparing to launch the newest self-propelled anti-tank gun Sprut-SDM1 in a series is written in this article on the website or is this also classified information?
Quote from this article.

"Kurganmashzavod" is preparing to put into production the newest self-propelled anti-tank gun "Sprut-SDM1", the corresponding production is already being prepared. This was reported by the press service of Rostec.

[bars042]

Wake up

Here FOR THE SAKE I didn’t “mark” this note with emoticons! ))
Not only everything!

[AAK]

Now, based on the experience of the Northern Military District, the issue of urgent reformatting of the Airborne Forces as a branch of service is on the cutting edge, and here they are launching into the series a BMP boat with a weakened tank gun, absolutely inapplicable in modern combat ... truly - neither steal nor guard ...

[Hermit21]

Where is 2A75 weak? Weak compared to what?

[bayard]

Quote: AAK

Now, based on the experience of the SVO, the issue of urgent reformatting of the Airborne Forces as a branch of the military is urgent, and here they are launching a BMP boat that is absolutely inapplicable in modern combat

The Airborne Forces, as exclusively parachute troops, really need to be reformed. And fast, clear and hard. Without changing the name, but changing the system and training program, removing / reducing parachute training in favor of combined arms training on SUFFICIENTLY PROTECTED and EFFECTIVE EQUIPMENT. All the old "soapboxes" must be written off, the airborne BMD-4 and armored personnel carriers based on them should be left only for reconnaissance and sabotage and vanguard units. The entire bulk of the airborne divisions should be re-equipped with BMP-3M and armored personnel carriers based on them. Thus, turning them into Rapid Response Forces with readiness for landing by landing (!) Method in any part of the Country or the World. But with NORMAL armored vehicles! And the time saved from the abolished parachute training should be used to deepen the skills of combined arms combat and combat on unfamiliar terrain with regular enemy forces.
The entire experience of the existence of our Airborne Forces has shown that there will be no massive parachute landings. No, we don’t have so many BTA aircraft for this. Leave parachute training ONLY for reconnaissance, sabotage and vanguard units as part of the airborne divisions. And only they are armed with parachute-borne equipment.
The Sprut-SDM1 program must be curtailed as harmful and inappropriate. And if our Armed Forces of the Russian Federation really need a amphibious tank with an MBT gun, then it should be done on the basis of the BMP-3M - with a forward MTO, aft door / ramp and a tower slightly offset (for weight balancing) to the stern. And if such a tank succeeds and is able to swim, then it may well be in demand in the Airborne Forces (as an airborne light tank) and the Navy Marine (as a light amphibious tank). But at the same time, like the BMP-3M, it will be able to hold 30 mm in the forehead. projectile, and if there are side screens from the "Kurganets" (they are provided for the BMP-3M) and keep the side 30 mm. projectile normal. And heavy fragments, of course. Such a light tank weighing up to 24 - 25 tons will really be in demand in the RF Armed Forces, and not only for the Airborne Forces and MPs of the Navy, but also for arming the avant-garde units of the tank and motorized rifle divisions of the RF Armed Forces. For crossing water barriers, capturing and holding bridgeheads until the main forces approach. Only in this case, the production of such light amphibious tanks will be justified and in demand.
But not THAT that is going to be put into series at Kurganskmashzavod!
The capacities of which must be fully loaded with the production of the badly needed BMP-3 \ 3M and armored personnel carriers based on them !!
For our troops need a LOT of such well-protected infantry fighting vehicles.
What kind of sieve the BMP-1\2 turns into from fragments, rapid-fire cannons and even heavy machine guns, I hope everyone knows well and have seen enough examples.
I repeat - ALL CAPACITIES of Kurganskmashzavod for the production of BMP-3 \ 3M and armored personnel carriers based on them !!!
Any other decisions can be safely qualified as sabotage and sabotage of Common Sense.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Your words, yes to God's ears ... But alas.

[bayard]

Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk

But alas.

I know . That is why I am writing in such detail.
But if everything is so hopeless, then they will certainly miss a blow to the Bryansk region. And they will definitely miss.

[Mordvin 3]

Quote: bayard

Thus, turning them into Rapid Response Forces with readiness for landing by landing (!) Method in any part of the Country or the World. But with NORMAL armored vehicles!

That is, as the Ukrainians did. And how they neighed above them that they no longer jump with parachutes.

[bayard]

Quote: Mordvin 3

That is, as the Ukrainians did.

Is this the measure for us?
Yes, they no longer had not only airplanes, but also normal parachutes left by that time. therefore, they turned the airborne forces into airmobile forces.
Look at the weapons of the US paratroopers.
If we have already transferred our entire history to remote theaters of operations, our Airborne Forces precisely by landing, despite the troops and equipment trained on parachutes, landing large forces (for example, a regiment) only during exercises ... then the Mother of Sciences itself is STATISTICS (!! ) indicates that a parachute is harmful for armored vehicles, and armor is useful. Moreover, the Il-76MD90A has a payload of 52 - 60 tons. That is, both in terms of carrying capacity and dimensions, it can take both two BMD-4s and two BMP-3Ms (the weight of each is 21 tons). And instead of bales with parachute systems, instead of bales with parachute systems, load ammunition, fuel and equipment on top of the BMP armor, because in terms of weight it is possible to take another 10 tons of cargo - at least.

Quote: Mordvin 3

And how they neighed above them that they no longer jump with parachutes.

Their parachutes were worn out. Since Soviet times, they have not bought a nifiga. And the officers always landed on sports "mattresses" in order to also show off maneuvers in the air.
And the Armed Forces of Ukraine renamed their airborne forces airborne and transferred them to helicopters. For they also had only a few pieces of IL-76. There were four pieces that seemed to be serviceable ... then two were destroyed at the Luhansk Airport (one was shot down by MANPADS, the other was burned by fire on the ground).
The main and main task of any troops (not only the Airborne Forces) is readiness for battle with an equal and stronger enemy. And for this, naturally, we need appropriate military equipment. Providing Protection, Mobility, Firepower.
Without the latter (Security), both other components sag in capabilities.
Now for the war (which of course we don’t have), we don’t need the Airborne Forces, but heavily armed and well-trained for this, ASSAULT INFANTRY on heavily armored vehicles. The efficiency and effectiveness of assault operations, then, will increase many times over. Losses of l / s and equipment will also be reduced by a multiple.

But Shoige is all to give a damn, of course.

[mmaxx]

The question is that landing is a caste. From top to bottom. And it differs, whatever one may say, both in combat and brain training. And in terms of initiative and thinking. And all this will become infantry ..... What is our attitude towards infantry? March and dig. They said - do it, they didn't say - don't shine. It is in any war that the infantry does all the work. And it is she who is the elite. But the war ends and that's it. Dig again, etc. It seems that no one interferes with preparing infantry. And to make service in it prestigious. But this is for the officers to tear off the ass from the chair and start working. Sometimes with the head. But the head is busy with a cap.

[Oleg Ogorod]

Why infantry? Air assault troops.
Yes, and the infantry in the USSR was called motorized rifles. In terms of their movement, they should be mainly on wheels or trucks.

[mmaxx]

I know about shooters. But the infantry, it is the infantry. In our army and navies, they liked to call a lot of things as the generals liked. But the essence has not changed. Rangers used to be called shooters. And in the presence of that weapon. which our "motorized riflemen" now have, they can be called anyone, but not shooters. Although, in general, I do not insist.

[karabas-barabas]

Quote: mmaxx

But the infantry, it is the infantry

In my opinion, the conclusion suggests itself that a professional army is needed, where there are no separate battalions of "pencils" and "separate castes", where each combat brigade may have its own specifics, but is not second-class.

[mmaxx]

It is good to. But then our army should always fight a bit. To bring out the hangers-on. And so our bosses never figured out how to make military service at least somewhat interesting and useful. Few people even know how to shoot after the army. This is despite the fact that there are all sorts of techniques now - you can’t study everything.

[Alex777]

Quote: bayard

But Shoige is all to give a damn, of course.

There is still hope.
The transfer to the Airborne Forces MBT and Solntsepekov supports it.

[bayard]

Quote: Alex777

The transfer to the Airborne Forces MBT and Solntsepekov supports it.

Without them, they now cannot survive in the fields at all. Yes, and they have no place in the fields and urban development in the conditions of a positional war. It's just that the fans of the "Little Army" had no other trained infantry in the first phase (and in the second) ... there were almost none. And is it any wonder if from all the Ground Forces numbering AZH 280 we subtract the DIRECTIVES, logistics, staff, tankers, artillerymen, chemists, Air Defense Forces, Engineering Troops ... and take into account that from the remainder it is necessary to cover our entire boundless border. .. And what did we get?
But it turned out that having detached tanks, artillery, military air defense and supply units / subunits from the SV ... almost all the possibilities for the SV RF Armed Forces ended there. The infantry was taken from the mobilized corps of the republics of Donbass, the forces of the Russian Guard were brought up (which were completely unprepared for this) and ... they remembered that the Supreme High Command has a RESERVE - the Airborne Forces (50 thousand) and the Marine Marine (about 20+ thousand). That is why the latter were involved with all the bourgeois scope.
Well, yes, later volunteer battalions and companies appeared, Ramzan pulled up his guards, PMCs received contracts ... And in September, realizing the obvious catastrophe ... they did mobilize. Crooked, askew, noisy, with the flight of hundreds of thousands of potential recruits and simply "Frightened Patriots".
But the mobilization gave its limited (because it was limited itself) fruits - it was possible to build an echeloned ... DEFENSE. This is for the army, which started with an offensive, and with the goal of "denazification / demilitarization".
And now the actions of the NWO group are positioned as "waiting for a counteroffensive" of the Nazis ... on the territory of the Russian Federation.
... "It was the second year of the NWO ... it was getting dark ...".

Quote: Alex777

There is still hope.

There is no hope, but action must be taken. Send all newly produced BMP-3 \ 3M to the rearmament of the units and subunits of the Airborne Forces participating in the NWO - First of all! For the fighters of the Airborne Forces and the MP are currently the most trained, trained and motivated units of the RF Armed Forces in the NWO. They need to provide reliable armor, better weapons and TANKS.
And the Artillery.
And MLRS.
In sufficient and even excessive volumes.
Just because they are protected at the moment WORSE ALL! And their weapons are mostly light - standard for the Airborne Forces.
And if they put paratroopers and marines in the trenches, then they should be equipped and armed to the maximum, because this is the best that we have today in the RF Armed Forces. This is our Guard.
And if there are delays in re-equipping, then at least re-equip them from BMD to BMP-2, strengthening the armor with side screens (against fragments) and additional armor plates in the frontal projection. Let the BMP become less mobile / torquey, but security will increase. And in an endless positional war, the security of l \ s is the first concern of the command ... It must be ...
Shoigi is different ... Everything is different.
It is necessary to establish additional armor elements for the BMP-1 \ 2 at all possible production facilities (triples seem to be completed), and send them directly to the NVO zone, where in the near rear, in workshops and rembats, install them on armored vehicles.
Why wasn't this done yesterday?
Shoyga.
And Co.
Which, despite peppy reports about "an increase of 7 - 8 times", continues to have shell hunger.
Why, having lost European markets, are our metal producers not loaded with the task of producing shells and other ammunition? They are not able to establish the production of shell castings?
These commanders burn the Guards in positional battles and assaults (!). Where are the reserves in case Poland, NATO and / or other players enter the war? Are they being prepared?
I would very much like all these speeches by Prigozhin to be a subtle game to disorient the enemy ... But life experience claims that everything will be as always.
If they turned the Airborne Forces and the MP into assault infantry, arm it accordingly! And immediately!
And if SUCH nonsense continues in the second year of the CBO - preparation for mass production ... "Octopus-SDM1" ... at the price of modernization (! full!) 4 - 6 pcs. T-72B to T-72B3M ... when the troops need the most armored BMP-3M like air ... and the maximum withdrawal rate from storage of all the T-72, T-80 and even T-62 available at the bases !!
How can it be qualified?
... "Stupidity"?
Or targeted wrecking and sabotage?
WHERE can this aluminum tin with a parachute in ZaDnitse be applied? Whether right now or in the future?
Now we need to open new repair plants at the AVAILABLE (!) Sites. To drive T-72, T-80 and T-62 from storage bases, repairing and upgrading at the pace of Stakhanov. Put on the T-55 and early versions of the T-72 combat modules of the "Terminator-2" or even BM from the new BMP (30 mm cannon and 4th ATGM in an uninhabited module), and drive everything to the front.
And not to master the budget of wrecking projects.
Therefore, the Indians looked at this "Octopus-SDM1" ... with surprise that it was a TIN. And they would have done it on the basis of the BMP-3 \ 3M - they would have ordered several hundred! And everyone knew about it - that this is how it will be. But they insisted on ... a parachute in ZaDnitsa and tin "armor" ... Now they insist on the mass production of this misunderstanding.

Quote: Alex777

Hope

My earthly compass.

[stankow]

Well, let there be such a light tank. And the anti-tank guns SAU Sprut than hinders him?

[Alexey Lantukh]

In fact, we do not know what shells the Sprut's armor can withstand. If the BMP-3 can withstand 30mm in the forehead, plus dynamic protection is possible, then the Octopus for what reason is only 12,7mm

[bayard]

Quote: Alexey Lantukh

If the BMP-3 can withstand 30mm in the forehead, plus dynamic protection is possible, then the Octopus for what reason is only 12,7mm

Because it is made on the basis of BMD-4!!
This is a "parachute" tank! At the same time, waterfowl.
If the "Octopus" were made on the basis of the BMP-3 (as they were originally done), then it would have turned out to be quite a decent amphibious Light Tank. But the "landing lobby" wanted to "with a parachute".
What for ?
"It's beautiful" ... "from the sky, but on a parachute" ...
And the funny thing is that even the Airborne Forces don’t need a lot of them ... Well, maybe a battalion per division ... or a company ...
And even more so, no one needs them in the foreign market.
And they would have done it on the basis of the BMP-3 \ 3M - the queue would have lined up for 20 years. Indians would be the first to order 300+ pieces.
Why did they do the opposite?
Because ... we have the best defense minister in the world and the "landing lobby".

[karabas-barabas]

Quote: bayard

I repeat - ALL CAPACITIES of Kurganskmashzavod for the production of BMP-3 \ 3M and armored personnel carriers based on them !!!

It is clear why you advocate for the BMP3, in comparison with the useless platform and armor of the BMDs and their pedigree, it has at least some survivability. But if you think well and divide it into goals today-now and tomorrow-the near future, then the BMP1,2,3 platforms follow the insufficient level of protection after the BMD to send, at least not to be used as front-line vehicles. If the goal is today, now, only mass production of T-armored personnel carriers, 30-50 T, which are not afraid of either artillery, or 120 mines nearby, or 30mm, or RPGs and LNGs. And the goal tomorrow or the day after tomorrow is the armored hull of an armored personnel carrier made of superhard steels, with initially high characteristics of ballistic and mine protection, as an example for the correct approach, the Swedish CV90, a very strong base and with additional armor, the level of the T-armored personnel carrier, but at the same time compact in comparison with the competition light. The modularity and rigidity of the hull, running gear with a long service life, makes it possible to make an LT with a 12,7 - 90 (120mm) gun from an armored personnel carrier with a 125 DBM.

[stankow]

Why is she "weakened"? Quite complete!

[paul3390]

To be honest, I don’t see any areas of application for an aluminum box with a tank gun in the NVO .. No - in some conditions it will probably come in handy, but not on a flat, highly urbanized theater of operations, stuffed with anti-tank weapons and drones of all stripes .. Here - She definitely won't survive.

[Orange Bigg]

Yes, now it’s not a matter of spheres. We must produce everything that we can. In any case, there will not be an extra tank gun, especially a new one.

[bayard]

Quote from Orange Bigg

.We must produce everything we can. In any case, there will not be an extra tank gun, especially a new one.

Tell me, how (??) is the tank gun of the old T-72 or T-80 inferior to this "new gun"? The cost of production of "Sprut-SDM1" exceeds the cost of a new MBT by 1,5 - 2 times !!! With this money HOW MUCH (??) T-72 or T-80 can be upgraded? If the modernization of one T-72 is 3-4 times cheaper than the production of a new MBT?
So how many T-72s can be upgraded to B3M for the cost of one brand new Sprut-SDM1?
5 - 8 pcs. ??
And is it REALLY worth it?
On those production lines that they want to give to the "Octopus" it is necessary to produce BMP-3M !!! That's what our troops need! And in the current NWO, and for future conflicts.
Where are you going to shove that cardboard undertank with a parachute in your ass?? Who needs it and what benefits can it bring? ... At a price of 1,5 - 2 T-90M ??
All capacities of Kurganskmashzavod ONLY (!) For the production of BMP-3 \ 3M and armored personnel carriers based on them !!!

[lukash66]

And of course, it’s better to carry a rapier on your hands. Where the thread from the ambush is quite suitable for itself. See example ml. Lieutenant Pegov on the T70 and 2 Panthers he destroyed from an ambush. It would seem, where is the steel "box" T70 with a 45mm cannon and Panther? According to specialists, the best tank of the Wehrmacht. An no. The main thing in a weapon is the head of its owner, and not the performance characteristics drawn on paper.))))

[paul3390]

And of course, it’s better to carry a rapier on your hands.

And what - there is no alternative, either Rapier or Octopus? For example - an ordinary tank will not suit you in any way? How many times have people broadcast from the front - well, light landing equipment is not suitable for serious battles, especially in the city! Not for that it was originally imprisoned. In general, the meaning of the existence of the Airborne Forces in its modern form is not obvious, because there are extreme doubts about the fundamental possibility of carrying out any airborne landing operations. With the current air defense. Then - why do we need such prohibitively lightweight machines?

No - somewhere in the mountains, or there in a sparsely populated difficult area, when mobility and cross-country ability are significantly more important than security - yes, go and come in handy. Barmaleev, let's say, drive, or we have in the North. But not in urban battles.

As for your example - well, you understand that the release of the T-70 is just a desperate measure in an extremely difficult situation .. When there was a simple choice - either such tanks, or none at all. Under normal conditions, it would never have been put into service .. Thank God - our situation now seems to be not so critical ..

[lukash66]

Aren't we in extremely desperate conditions now? More than 50 countries are fighting indirectly against us. So all means are good. The possibilities of Uralvagonzavod are also not unlimited, they work 24/7.

[paul3390]

Well, not as much .. Have we run out of, say, early versions of the T-72 in storage? After all, after at least a minimal modernization, they will be more tenacious than the Octopus. And the tool is almost the same.

[lukash66]

I do not argue that the tank is worse than the Octopus. But UVZ is fully loaded, and the production of new T90M, and the modernization of 72 - ek. And Omsk is loaded with modernization of the 80s to the fullest. We will not go into details of how it all happened, we have what we have. Not to fat.

[bayard]

Quote from: lukash66

Not to fat.

And if not to fat, then what the hell, instead of releasing the magnificent BMP-3 \ 3M, launch a cardboard parody of the tank into a series ??
Do you need infantry support, but UVZ can't cope? Get the good old T-62 and T-55 from the storage bases! They have both armor and a gun, which certainly will not yield to the Rapier.
There are A LOT of tanks at storage bases, shells for 100 mm. and 115 mm. cannons were also heaped. So why not support the infantry? Anything is better than the Rapier, the BMP-1 \ 2, even stronger and more lethal than the BMP-3. And the refurbishment of the T-62 and T-55 is much easier, cheaper and FASTER than repair with the modernization (or without it) of the same T-72 and T-80.
Can you even imagine the COST of this "Octopus-SDM1"? Do you even know that it is at least (!!) one and a half times EXPENSIVE than a brand new T-90M?
Yes, one BMP-3 \ 3M in terms of combat effectiveness will surpass this "Octopus" by 2 - 3 times - in terms of survivability, fire productivity and overall efficiency and demand. So it should be produced at the same Kurganskmashzavod, and not engage in nonsense and cuts.
An old and very true truth - if, contrary to Common Sense, the opinion of Specialists and the very Course of Events, someone pushes a wrong or harmful decision, then he is either an ENEMY, or look for a corruption component.
Think about it .

[stankow]

Yes, one BMP-3 \ 3M in terms of combat effectiveness will surpass this "Octopus" by 2 - 3 times - in terms of survivability, fire performance and overall effectiveness

Against Leopard? BMP? And the positions where the Octopus dug in, the cats will bypass for 5 km They will climb where the infantry fighting vehicles are.

[Captain Pushkin]

Quote from: lukash66

So all means are good. The possibilities of Uralvagonzavod are also not unlimited, they work 24/7.

Then, maybe explain why they scrapped a repair plant in Saratov with a capacity of 300 BMP repairs per year with one-shift work?

[bayard]

Quote: Captain Pushkin

why was a repair plant in Saratov scrapped with a capacity of 300 BMP repairs per year with one-shift operation?

Well, it's obvious, Watson. This site has already been promised and SOLD to the right one of the towers, to a person. He will build a shopping center there, or a housing estate ...
But the towers will now be built by two new repair plants!
Look for examples in the history of WWI in the Republic of Ingushetia. Then, too, the bourgeoisie had fun and cracked from the profits for military supplies ... of course, no one thought about the consequences.

[Alex777]

Quote: bayard

But the towers will now be built by two new repair plants!

If 2 modern factories are built, it won't be bad.
In Moscow, industrial zones near the Paveletsky railway station are being dismantled before our eyes.
So they are not needed in the city center. At all. The devil is in the details.

[shikin]

Are you not considering the option of highly mobile groups for developing success after a breakthrough of defense? Of course, there is no point in talking about this now, but the same enemy brigade with Strikers is a very dangerous thing if they are allowed to break into the operational space. And the highly mobile landing equipment of the Airborne Forces is no worse in this regard.
But such breakthroughs must be very well organized and carried out, otherwise it is a one-way road.
And I repeat: in conditions of a stable front, this does not work, but if it breaks through somewhere seriously, then there can be many problems for the enemy.

[Ivan F]

"Aren't you considering the option of highly mobile groups for developing success after breaking through the defense?" - we are considering. And there you need wheeled vehicles, not caterpillar ones, otherwise you won’t go far and quickly anywhere. As if your example with the striker hints. There are also Cougars, ATVs, DIAs, Humvee varieties, and a bunch of support vehicles.
Therefore, the fact that "the highly mobile equipment of the Airborne Forces is no worse in this regard." - somewhat incorrect.

[cat Rusich]

Quote: paul3390

No - somewhere in the mountains, or there in a sparsely populated difficult area, when mobility and cross-country ability are significantly more important than security - yes, go and come in handy. Barmaleev, let's say, drive, or we have in the North. But not in urban battles.
..

Somewhere in the mountains self-propelled howitzer - for shooting from reverse slopes or vice versa along the reverse slope of the height, or again up the steep slope of the mountain (peak) to where the enemy sat down.
The self-propelled guns make it possible to fire at the area on the spot within a radius of up to 20 km (older versions are short-barreled) while providing target designation and adjustment.
In the North, you need a chassis with wide tracks (for example, MT-LB)
If you really need an "anti-tank self-propelled" - then "Chrysanthemum-S" (BMP-3 chassis) and "Kornet-D1" (BMP-4 chassis) - they are more long-range - Chrysanthemum up to 5-6 km, Cornet up to 8 km.

[oldmetal]

Just wondering what kind of specialists consider Panzer-v the best Wehrmacht tank?
I heard different versions (panzer-IV, VI, even VII), but for the first time about the panther.

[lukash66]

And what is this Pz. 7? Just a revelation for me. If possible in more detail. How exactly was the Panther anti-tank gun with its 7,5 cm KwK42 cannon even better than the 8.8 Tiger. The long-barreled four was a workhorse, but by no means the best tank. The tiger was more like a reinforcement tank, it was not for nothing that they were brought into TTBs, like our TGvs. TP. It is interesting to know your opinion, but what was the best tank in the Wehrmacht? In terms of price / quality / quantity produced?

[oldmetal]

Pz-7 I called Tiger B (as if Royal). The best linear was 4-ka with reinforced frontal armor and a gun L43. The best tank of high-quality reinforcement Tiger-1. The fact that the Germans disrupted the production of these working machines due to chimeric construction is their problem.

[lukash66]

Figase pz 7. Even Goebbels didn’t finish this.)))) And you probably made a mistake on the little fluff, 43 caliber is the four F2, spring 42, but further and all the way 48 calibers. On tigers: have you seen his price tag? And the manufacturability of its manufacture? Not the technologies embedded in it, but the manufacturability of mass production. And what kind of chimeras do the Germans have, are they really nonbelwelfers?)))) Well, like, by analogy with modern mattress MLRS.

[oldmetal]

Chimeras are an upgrade of Pz-3, Pz-5 and Tiger E

[lukash66]

Damn, it's hard with you.)))) Three-ruble note upgraded to 43 years old, then curtailed their production. Their base went to the shtugs up to the defeat, and the shtugs were intensively riveted in ever-increasing quantities. Panthers, as I wrote above, went to replace the fours. But it didn't work out. So their modernization is a routine, a purely improvement in performance characteristics. Nothing outrageous. Panther 2 did not go into the series, did not have time. Tiger E is practically the same N. Nothing innovative, the undercarriage has been changed to rollers with internal shock absorption, the engine, the turret roof has been reinforced and a new turret with a turret has been installed. Well, there is something else on the little things. But on the contrary, they removed and simplified something, for example, they installed a monocular sight, removed adaptations for underwater driving, the feyfel filter, etc.

[lukash66]

You just look at the number of H/E and B tigers released by year and month. And compare with the same fours and panthers. And even better with the T34. I'm talking about the manufacturability of mass production.

[lukash66]

Directly even interesting, what is this seven? It is possible more in detail? Do not offer any wunderwaffles, only mass-produced cars. The tiger is a kind of reinforcement tank, it was not for nothing that they were brought to the department. TTB. Something like our dep. Guards TTP. And the Pantherka was started as a replacement for the fours. And by the way, as a PT remedy, she has proven herself from the best side.

[Andrei from Chelyabinsk]

Quote from: lukash66

See example ml. Lieutenant Pegov on the T70 and 2 Panthers he destroyed from an ambush

You see, if Lieutenant Pegov had a choice - to fight with two panthers on one T-70 or on four T-34-85s, then he would have chosen the second option.

[Vincent price]

But the Yankees are adopting a new light tank. Why is an octopus not a light tank?

[stankow]

The octopus itself is a means of PTO. Not her goal! He is a hunter, not a dobycha.

[your vsr 66-67]

Kurganmashzavod is preparing to launch the latest Sprut-SDM1 self-propelled anti-tank gun into series production, the corresponding production is already underway, the press service of Rostec reports.

Just getting ready?
This should have started yesterday!
"Rostec" - that says it all!

[Sebostyuan]

Double sense. On the one side. A useful machine when landing. With another. Where to land?

Kurgan produces a large range of products: "The plans for deliveries for the coming years include BMP-3, BMD-4M, BTR-MDM, BREM-L, modernization of the BMP-2 with the Berezhok combat compartment (...) of the 125-millimeter self-propelled anti-tank gun 2S25M, armored personnel carrier BT-3F"
There is a feeling that officials live in a world of pink ponies.
Saturate the BMP-3 BMP-2M and APC troops. Now is not the time for colorful exercises. With the landing.

[Rus_80]

And why are they not engaged in the modernization of the BMP-3! 3M Dragoon, if I'm not mistaken. How to protect the infantry with a cardboard BMP-2 with the Berezhok module?

[Almeka]

You can downvote, but this machine does not at all correspond to the realities of modern warfare. Just read about her.

Thin bulletproof armor is justified only by the need for landing. But landing behind enemy lines in modern conditions with the dominance of air defense is simply suicide. They won’t even be able to deliver it to the landing site, they will shoot it down on the approach.

The Airborne Forces, which are the main users of this vehicle, are used in modern warfare as elite infantry units. And they engage in battle with enemy units armed with heavy armored vehicles. And because of weapons like Octopus, they suffer losses. No wonder now the question arose of equipping the Airborne Forces with tanks.

In general, if such machines are needed, then in extremely limited quantities. And it is better to redirect production facilities to infantry fighting vehicles and infantry fighting vehicles, which this plant also produces.

[oldmetal]

In modern conditions, the Airborne Forces, first of all, the rapid deployment forces transported by the BTA at the stage of the beginning of the conflict (the most important), this is what airmobile equipment is needed for. The octopus is its qualitative enhancement.

[Sebostyuan]

"In modern conditions, the Airborne Forces, first of all, the rapid roaming forces transported by the BTA at the stage of the beginning of the conflict (the most important), for this, airmobile equipment is needed. The octopus is its qualitative reinforcement."

What is the beginning of the conflict? I look at the calendar 29.04.2023/XNUMX/XNUMX More than a year there is a "war"

[oldmetal]

You propose to release equipment not just for a specific conflict. But also its phase? No one has ever had such a bubble and never will.

[Ryaruav]

even to start a conflict for landing, self-propelled howitzers and ptura are preferable, remember the Dieppe operation where instead of Churchills (forehead 150mm) artillery systems were more needed, and an octopus is an eggshell armed with a hammer

[lukash66]

Well, you compared Dieppe and NWO. And what artillery systems do you think it was necessary to roll out into the sands? Half of the Churchills simply got stuck in the sand and were finished off by artillery. Yes, and in our time, the Anglo-Saxons do not shine with intelligence, look at their "peppy" landings on the coast during exercises. But by the way, the Octopus would show itself there in all its glory. For the MP, it’s the most on the unprepared coast, everything is better than the BTR82 or an armful of RPG7.)))) By the way, we are not the only ones who are fond of light tanks, to which the Octopus can be safely attributed. And the latter is also airborne and waterfowl. Look at the same mattresses, Chinese, Indians. Yes, even the PT76 is still in service with many countries. The stump is clear that they need to be used in appropriate conditions, and not sent to storm Kuev in the forehead.)))

[oldmetal]

A landing operation on a pre-prepared defense is one thing, but real tasks like Kazakhstan are another.

[alexoff]

It seems that their Indians wanted to buy in bulk two years ago, maybe they suddenly remembered about exports?

[Dave36]

Plus, apparently - relatively cheap to produce ... like an infantry fighting vehicle with greater firepower ... Now the meaning of an infantry fighting vehicle is changing ... its target is the same as a tank, and it is just as easy to kill it, but the firepower of an infantry fighting vehicle is very weak. .From here, apparently, the meaning. Let's see how it will show itself in CBO - because this music will apparently be eternal.

[Victorovich]

A tank is a target incomparable with 2S25 !!!!!
SPRUT is enough for a 122mm land mine to explode nearby !!! And fso.
SPRUT is a technique with pistol bullet armor. Booking at the level of BT-2!!!

[stankow]

Any technique, even a tank, "is enough for a 122mm land mine to explode nearby." And what, let's not do the technique at all?

[Victorovich]

If a 2mm landmine explodes next to the 25s122, then the car will be destroyed !!!!
And if next to the tank, then the tank will be damaged.
Feel the difference!!!!! Destroyed or damaged.

[stankow]

There is no difference - the vehicle has left the battle, the enemy’s plan has been thwarted.

[16112014nk]

The Ministry of Defense signed additional contracts

The second year of the war is underway. And only now some movements of the MO have begun.
The performance is amazing.
In 1941, they managed to dismantle the factories in 3 months, transport them, reassemble them, develop new weapons, put them into production and start mass production.
The activities of the MO defy any logic.

[your vsr 66-67]

I have read all the comments. And an amazing thing looms!
Who says more or less the right things, EVERYONE is downvoted! It suggests that it is not ukrofascists who are sitting on the site, but desperate Russophobes have settled among the administration of the site!

[16112014nk]

About the minuses and admins. The site looks like a program that reacts to certain words. Recently I wrote a comment, clicked "reply" and immediately a minus appeared. Not even a second passed!

[75 Sergey]

1. The site belongs to one citizen.
2. The Internet was turned on for the dill and they have fun with pleasure, their strong point is NLP, hence the cons, to create an opinion, they are super good at it.

[Evil_minusator]

Rostec bots are abundant on the Internet in general and on this site.

[VladimirNET]

Quote: paul3390

To be honest, I don’t see any areas of application for an aluminum box with a tank gun in the NWO.

Maybe it's because we don't produce simple guns anymore?
And to release a tank or an infantry fighting vehicle (with a gun) - there is a difference in timing.
Also:
if we force the Dnieper, then the Sprut-SDM1 are just needed for fire support from the water (and after).

[Prokop_Pork]

Why is 125 mm fire from the water better than that from the shore?

[km-21]

Such a machine must have a powerful fire control system (FCS), which allows most of the time to be on the move and fire either on the move or from very short stops. The main feature of lightly armored vehicles is mobility and maneuverability. But, as soon as she stopped, she immediately turned into an accessible target.

[Victorovich]

Ehe .. YOU tankers ask about shooting on the move - and after that talk about how the SPRUT will figure out everything on the go !!!

[75 Sergey]

Well, enlighten us, I'm not a tanker at all, what's the catch?

[storm]

The plans for deliveries for the coming years include the BMP-3, BMD-4M, BTR-MDM, BREM-L, the modernization of the BMP-2 with the Berezhok fighting compartment (...) of the 125-millimeter self-propelled anti-tank gun 2S25M, the BT-3F armored personnel carrier

Instead of all this significant list of armored vehicles, Kurganmashzavod should put into mass production:
1. BMP-3M Manul with combat modules "Bakhcha-U" and "Epoch",

2. BREM-L
3. BMP-3MF, for marine units based on the BMP-3M Manul

Modernization of the BMP-2 is carried out according to the project of the Kurganmashzavod BMP-2M,

which is almost two times cheaper than the option with BM Berezhok, where the BMP hull does not receive any additional protection.
Instead of the standard 9K111 Fagot or 9K113 Konkurs missile system, it is proposed to use the 2K9 Shturm/Ataka on the upgraded BMP-120.
. It is planned to install additional armor on the frontal and side plates of the hull, as well as on the bottom. In addition, it is possible to install anti-cumulative grids and active protection systems. Inside the troop compartment, it is proposed to install landing seats that absorb part of the energy of a mine explosion.

BMP-3 - withdraw from production
BMD-4M and BTR-MDM - discontinue production
Octopus-SDM1 - postpone the start of production indefinitely

[stankow]

It's time for the Octopus. Cats are coming, you need to meet. More precisely, indicate to them exactly where they should not meddle.

[storm]

Quote from shikin

Are you not considering the option of highly mobile groups for developing success after a breakthrough of defense?

The mobility of the T-72B3M or T-90M is no less than that of the Sprut, the firepower is comparable, the armor protection of the tanks is an order of magnitude more powerful.
So tanks to support highly mobile groups are much more preferable than a "tin can" with a tank gun for the price of a tank.

[Victorovich]

I see - someone ziminusil quite sound reasoning.
T-90, T-80 or T-72BM3 is much better than SPRUT.
Well, those who stand up for the SPRUT - you first read its characteristics and its planned use. And then downvote.
And the word is, to launch equipment with armor from pistols into the attack is utter nonsense. You don’t even need to hit it from artillery or a mortar - you can cheat with shards.
And it’s also interesting - from what distance will this SPRUT hold armor-piercing bullets from various machine guns and machine guns of calibers from 5,45 to 7,62x54 ?? That is, from a typical shooter, we will not even consider coarse (12,7 ... 14,5).
And it’s also interesting - with what damage to the undercarriage is it possible to fire from a gun without consequences ??? Or if the hodovke is kerdyk, then we will shoot until the SPRUT falls apart from recoil ???
And it’s also interesting to know the nomenclature of shots - what will the SPRUT really shoot ??? I doubt that the SPRUT will shoot with MANGAS and LEADS ... and it will not have modern shells from the T-90M.

And how to send it as part of highly mobile success development groups???
And what are these groups?
Let's say there will be 10 SPRUTES in the composition of such a group !!! So they, standing in the bushes of the BTR-80, can destroy them for 2 km !!!!

[75 Sergey]

To destroy the T-72 or the Octopus, you will need the same projectile, but the Octopus is lighter, faster, swims, it has no problems with bridges, no one will send it to the frontal, its element - flew in, shot or from an ambush shot and screwed.
Mobile, mobile complex.

[Oleg812spb]

One key "if" - if no one will really send him to the frontal and suck. And then there are still enough geniuses who can only scale the arrows on the map.

[d4rkmesa]

You are directly pouring out revelations, it turns out that not only the Abrams have problems with bridges, but also the T-72. "no one will send it to the frontal one" - even the BTR-82A and MTLB are sent to the frontal one, if necessary and there is nothing more.
"the same projectile" - you are silent that in the case of the "Octopus" a mine or a shot dropped from a "mavic" will suffice.
"his element - he flew, shot, or shot and screwed from an ambush" - you literally described a flying drone.

[stankow]

.And how to send it as part of highly mobile success development groups ???

Octopus for anti-tank defense. Not for "development success." Let them first stop the cats, dug in up to the neck, and develop success - there is someone!

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

And for development success, too, thanks to the ability to swim and pass on light bridges.

[Zaurbek]

You can simply compare it with bmp3m. Chep, except for BOPS, IS IT SO BETTER, HOW MORE EXPENSIVE?!

[Zaurbek]

Who can tell me why I need it now?

[75 Sergey]

Force the Dnieper and so on, bring down the Abramoaiches and other animals from afar, without exposing themselves to their return fire.

[d4rkmesa]

Uh-huh, in wet lampas and philistine dreams.

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

You are confusing something, those who are in stripes did not let the Octopus into production for 20 years, or even thirty.

[stankow]

It is needed because the APU has got cats. And where the Octopus stands dug in, Leo has nothing to do. Not profitable. We'll have to look for another place to break through. A 125 mm gun dug into the sight for a tank is worse than Chrysanthemum ...

[75 Sergey]

Good car, anti-tank and floats.
I wonder if she has an automatic loader?
And is a variant with 152 mm being developed. cannon?

And how does the "Octopus - SDM1" differ from a light tank?

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

And why does he need a 152-mm gun? Buoyancy will definitely be lost. There are Akatsiya and Msta-S self-propelled guns, which are quite serious vehicles with 152-mm guns.

[stankow]

It differs in that it is not a tank, but an SPG. Anti-tank.

[AlexWar]

For heavy infantry fighting vehicles to float, it is enough to make a hitch with pantones in front and behind

[Yuriy77]

Why is this cardboard box with a tank gun not needed in the NWO!
Give Wagner shells as much as they ask!

[Murakow]

Technically, the machine is made at a high level, but if the BMD-4 base is used, then for the SVO it is more relevant to use the SAO with a 120-mm mortar gun. A good and clear example: self-propelled guns 2S34 "Khosta".

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

No, it's not more appropriate. The flatness of the trajectory of the tank gun significantly exceeds that of the 2S34 Khosta mortar gun. Which is very important when firing direct fire, and even when firing from closed positions, with the difficulty of detecting by radar due to the low trajectory.
And for the SVO, with mass production and low price, it was considered preferable to have a 120-mm cannon-mortar on wheels in the form of the Phlox SAO. Difficult to operate and more expensive tracked chassis consider it necessary to divert to more powerful guns.

[Zaurbek]

The difference is in the presence of BOPS and the ability to use it. Is it worth all the dancing with a tambourine around a tank gun on an infantry fighting vehicle chassis? in 120mm you can:
- use just cumulative
- use correct mine
- use ATGM

and a 120mm HE mine is unlikely to be much inferior to a 125mm HE projectile. and the range, due to the elevation angles of the barrel, will not suffer.

[stankow]

Quote: your vsr 66-67

I have read all the comments. And an amazing thing looms!
Who says more or less the right things, EVERYONE is downvoted! It suggests that it is not ukrofascists who are sitting on the site, but desperate Russophobes have settled among the administration of the site!

It is so. Since September last year, VO has not been recognized. They bought it, or something, it is not clear.

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

In general, I agree with you. But you, too, when discussing articles on the merits, gave out such things that I really wanted to put you in the opposite camp.

[stankow]

I ? Glad you're wrong
.................

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

What is worth the mere assertion that a single drone per battalion is enough.

[stankow]

Well, this may be my military-technical delusion, but not an anti-Russian attitude

[BorzRio]

I don’t understand at all why parachute landing in modern conflicts with the current realities of air defense ...

[terms]

The correct spelling is "opposite")

[YOUR.]

Quote: bayard

vanguard units

But what about the rearguard and flank?
Why are they so???

[YOUR.]

Quote: BorzRio

parachuting in modern conditions

It is this one that is not needed in this one.
I agree.

[Vashek]

It seems that anti-tank self-propelled guns were liquidated early. Now a PSAU with a 152 mm cannon would be really needed. Like "St. John's wort" in World War II.

[Zaurbek]

With the Airborne Forces, in general, there are a lot of questions and it is strange that they decided to launch it.

[VladimirNET]

Quote: Prokop_Svinin

Why is 125 mm fire from the water better than that from the shore?

Since the target is closer and there is no need to adjust it, we hit with direct fire.