The combat module "Bakhcha-U" is a potential "destroyer" of Western tanks

20
The combat module "Bakhcha-U" is a potential "destroyer" of Western tanks

Since the announcement by the West about deliveries to Kyiv tanks NATO model, there are discussions among experts whether the RF Armed Forces will be able to effectively destroy these combat vehicles when they appear at the front.

It is worth noting that the Leopards, Abrams and Challengers are certainly a formidable high-tech weapons. At the same time, they, like any existing armored vehicles, are vulnerable to certain types of weapons. By the way, we have enough of them.



Particular attention is drawn to the unique Russian combat module "Bakhcha-U", the production of which in the interests of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation started in 2005. What is remarkable about this weapon?

Firstly, the latest automatic loader and the ability to fire different types of ammunition from one gun. In particular, "Bakhcha-U" can launch an anti-tank missile, and then add a series of thirty-four 100-mm shells. At the same time, to select the type of ammunition, it is enough just to press a button on the control panel.

It is worth adding that in addition to the 2A70, the combat module is equipped with a 30 mm 2A72 cannon and a 7,62 mm PKT machine gun. The ammunition load includes 34 unguided 100mm projectiles, 4 ATGMs and about 500 rounds for the 30mm automatic cannon.

Secondly, Bakhcha-U received an all-round viewing module with television cameras with a narrow and wide field of view, as well as a laser rangefinder. However, an even more important component was the automatic target tracking. The use of the latter in combat completely eliminates the human factor.

Finally, thirdly. This combat module, which can become a potential "destroyer" of Western tanks, was created for lightly armored vehicles and weighs only 3600-3980 kg. Installed on the same BMD-4M, it allows you to fire at the enemy not only on the move, but also afloat. At the same time, the combat vehicle, which develops speeds of up to 70 km / h, has high maneuverability, and therefore is a difficult target for the enemy.

The “Military Acceptance” tells about how the Bakhcha-U module is created, tested and used in combat conditions.

    Our news channels

    Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

    20 comments
    Information
    Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
    1. +1
      17 May 2023 13: 17
      The use of the latter in combat completely eliminates the human factor.

      Just to blurt out.
    2. -7
      17 May 2023 13: 21
      Yes, yes, all these unique parameters: it weighs only 3600-3980 kg, speed up to 70 km / h, 34 unguided 100-mm shells, 4 ATGMs and about 500 shells for a 30-mm automatic cannon - will allow you to become a "destroyer" of Western tanks. Or a fighter, without quotes of their crews when meeting with Western tanks? And why not suggest just covering up triplexes with shit? And where to take? And as in that joke about the bear: as soon as you see a bear, it will immediately appear in your pants.
    3. 0
      17 May 2023 13: 22
      who gives these idiotic names? .. what the fuck, "melon"?
    4. -6
      17 May 2023 13: 24
      Yes, baby, yes, retro, like grandfathers we will destroy tanks like under Prokhorovka!
      Current grandfathers lived and fought with other technologies, but that's okay. The capitalists are imposing Soviet cosplay on you, well, get it. Bl, airborne self-propelled guns, again, well, how much can these Mriyas with a landing of vests on the enemy’s air defense system, like in a movie?!!!!!
      1. -3
        17 May 2023 13: 36
        Yes, baby, yes, retro, like grandfathers we will destroy tanks like under Prokhorovka!

        Incorrect comparison, there the Germans almost destroyed Rotmistrov's army
    5. +2
      17 May 2023 13: 37
      Finally, thirdly. This combat module, which can become a potential "destroyer" of Western tanks

      Can not.
      When you read such things, you begin to doubt the reality of what is happening around you and you want to wake up.
    6. -1
      17 May 2023 13: 43
      potential "destroyer" of Western tanks

      I don't even want to comment on such stupidity.
      That's how it's more reliable
      In August 1941, the cook of the 91st tank regiment of the 46th tank division, Red Army soldier Ivan Sereda, performed a feat in the Daugavpils region, which is now in Latvia. He captured a German tank that drove up to the field kitchen, and also captured four tankers.
      As they write in various journalistic works, a German tank drove up when Sereda was preparing dinner for the Red Army. The cook was armed only with a rifle and an axe. Ivan took cover behind the kitchen. The Germans drove up and got out. Sereda jumped out from behind the kitchen and rushed to the enemy car. The crew took cover in the tank, and the cook jumped on its armor. With blows of an ax, he bent the barrel of a machine gun, closed the viewing slots with a piece of tarpaulin. Then Sereda began to beat the butt of the ax on the armor and give orders to the Red Army soldiers, who were not around, to throw grenades at the tank. The crew got scared and gave up. Wednesday at gunpoint forced them to tie each other's hands.
      1. -3
        17 May 2023 22: 33
        It is impossible to bend the barrel of a machine gun with an ax blow. It's just not possible.
    7. 0
      17 May 2023 13: 43
      They thought and thought for 30 years and came up with the idea of ​​installing Bakhcha on the BMP-2 .... Finish. Our soldiers will continue to ride for another 50 years on museum exhibits with cardboard armor, upgraded to the level of a powerful bomb in the fighting compartment. There is already no place for people in the airborne squad, and then Bakhcha with 100mm high-explosives was stuck inside, so that if they already hit the BMP, then for sure it would split together with people into molecules when the ammo was detonated .... Mind chamber. Along the way, our design bureaus degraded completely.
      Already the BMP-3 is outdated for modern combat. And they are reanimating the museum exhibit of the 60s ... We need a new BMP. With all-aspect protection against close gaps 155 mm and 152 mm OFS. In front, she must confidently hold 30mm. And best of all from the front and from the side projections. We need real WORKING mine protection for the crew. We need modern monitoring devices. Individual observation devices with a thermal imager for the driver, gunner and commander. And perhaps another 2-3 devices for landing for all-round observation of the situation while moving. An UNINFORMED combat module is needed in order to exclude the detonation of the ammo in the habitable compartment and increase the internal volume for people. The combat module should include an autocannon (now 35-37 mm) with a fairly large ammo. A course machine gun and a 12,7mm machine gun in a separate remote control on the turret under the control of the commander. As an anti-tank weapon - a modern ATGM with the ability to use missiles with OFS and thermobaric warheads for firing at bunkers and buildings. Perhaps we also need an automatic 30-40 mm grenade launcher.
      Soldiers in the troop compartment should not only be able to observe the situation in their personal thermal imaging devices, but also be able to use weapons against identified targets from inside the BMP.
      BMP should have DZ in the standard version.
      For a complete fool, all this is obvious and understandable, except for our super tank design bureaus that have no analogues in the world ..... Complete degradation.
      1. +3
        17 May 2023 14: 38
        The cost of such an infantry fighting vehicle will unfortunately be such that there are very few opportunities to order.
        1. +6
          17 May 2023 15: 25
          The cost of pieces of iron is more valuable than the life of Russian soldiers? With the current mentality of our rulers, probably yes. Let's calculate the cost of official Mercedes, Audi, BMW, Maybachs and Auruses? How many billion rubles will the entire fleet of our officials cost? We have money for this fleet, but for armored vehicles that can REALLY save the lives of soldiers - no? It's not funny at all. It's very "funny" to me.
      2. -1
        17 May 2023 14: 51
        With all-round protection against close gaps 155 mm and 152 mm OFS

        This requirement already applies to medium tanks.
        1. +2
          17 May 2023 15: 26
          Well, if the lives of soldiers are not important to you, then you can leave everything as it is.
      3. +2
        17 May 2023 20: 38
        Why does an armored bus need a cannon that destroys tanks? Do you understand what you write?
        The bus must be a bus, and the support means must be separate on their own chassis. And with guns 125 mm, and 100 mm, and 57mm, and 30mm. And anti-aircraft weapons.
        And the bus should just be well armored, with a convenient landing and landing. Maximum machine gun 12 mm on the roof with remote control. And the bus should not be a big ikarus, but a rafik minibus. Fast, agile, and secure. Everything has been invented before us.
        1. 0
          23 May 2023 10: 23
          You are confusing. BMP is NOT an armored bus. An armored bus is an armored personnel carrier, MRAP and other armored cars that should not appear at the forefront at all. Therefore, their weapons are usually much weaker than those of infantry fighting vehicles. But today this line is blurred, because. there are never too many autocannons. And it’s better to have a 2A42 with you on the march in the rear than a machine gun.
      4. +2
        18 May 2023 13: 35
        Heavy infantry fighting vehicle ... What topic will compete with it in popularity on VO
        Probably only "tanks are unnecessary." The topic burned like a bright star after the unsuccessful use of tanks in the Chechen wars, but against the background of the feverish production of tanks in Russia and no less feverish deliveries to Ukraine from the west, Mom's analysts began to suspect something.
        Well, now heavy infantry fighting vehicles. Stupid scoops made them floating for some reason, but any couch mind knows that there are wonderful self-propelled pontoon bridges, why swim?
        The Achilles' heel of all mother's analysts is such a practical science: logistics. Half of the MAs are unaware of its existence, the other half reject it. Because their deep knowledge is based on tank simulators, where logistical problems are limited to slowing down on soft ground. Alas, in life everything is much more severe, namely l. problems are the cause of most of the wins and losses. You will probably be surprised if I say that, for example, WWII should not be called a war of engines, but a war of rears, because it was the rears that created victory at the front. The most famous military saying "it was smooth on paper ..." - it is also about logistics.
        It so happened that in the specifics of the NWO, the problems of logistics faded into the background. Well, MA has an extremely narrow outlook, they tend to elevate the experience of any war to an absolute. They do not understand the reasons why the NWO switched to a positional war with an intensive one, they do not understand that the wars of strong and modern armies will be completely different.
        Although even in the course there were bitter lessons that showed how important high cross-country ability and the ability to swim are for modern technology. These are losses at the crossing near Belogorovka and Ukrainian torments with Western equipment getting stuck in the fields near Artyomovsk and much more. But why MA need these boring traffic problems. It is much more interesting to fantasize 30-40 ton infantry fighting vehicles, "they don't save on the lives of soldiers."
        In conclusion, a little information for reflection: as you know, it was the Soviet army that was the first to massively introduce infantry fighting vehicles. So these infantry fighting vehicles grew out of the post-war Soviet concept of light tanks. They were supposed to be fast, compact and floating. However, it turned out that it was impossible to combine all 3 properties: a floating tank could not be compact. And then the Soviet developers sacrificed speed and dimensions, added troops and made the PT-76. The car went with a bang in the marines, but for the army it turned out to be too specific. From further work on this topic, the BMP-1 was born. I am writing this so that you understand: it was buoyancy that was the main advantage of the BMP. Because unlike the MA, the Soviet military considered mobility, not armor, to be the key to survival.
        1. 0
          23 May 2023 10: 29
          For some reason, an infantry fighting vehicle, in your opinion, must be light. Doesn't it bother you that tens of thousands of Soviet tanks have a mass of 40 tons or more? How are they with logistics and seaworthiness? Were they often airlifted? No? Well, i.e. with hordes of tanks during crossings, there are no problems in the global sense, but will it definitely arise with a heavy infantry fighting vehicle? It's not logical. But it would be logical to use heavy infantry fighting vehicles behind the tanks, protected from fragments of most artillery BPs. And if it is necessary to force the river while holding the bridgehead, use specialized units on floating equipment. For example, the Marines. Thus expanding their functionality. Practice shows that ordinary motorized riflemen on the BMP-2 have never crossed rivers in battle, and moreover, in fact, they CANNOT do this.
    8. +1
      17 May 2023 14: 08
      Octopus-SDM seems to have launched a release, it looks better, of course, than BMP 2, but as for me, BMP 3 with the P-19 module is not bad than this melon
    9. 0
      21 May 2023 13: 12
      Judging by the statements, we have a lot of these "Western tank destroyers"! Here and "Bakhcha-U", and "Chrysanthemum", and "Octopus", etc. hi Well, God forbid, let's see how it really will be! stop
    10. 0
      12 July 2023 17: 58
      Well, maybe it’s suitable for armored personnel carriers and others like them, but for more substantial vehicles it’s unlikely that while they are messing around with 57mm guns, the enemy will build up armor against them too ..

    "Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned)

    “Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"