The Airborne Forces will be reinforced with additional tanks and their own helicopters

Tanks Airborne forces at exercises, 2020

During the current Special Operation to protect Donbass, Russian airborne troops are demonstrating high potential and capabilities to solve a variety of tasks. At the same time, the Ministry of Defense is looking for and finding ways to further develop the Airborne Forces and increase their combat effectiveness. Recently it became known that for this purpose it is planned to increase the number of tanks in the troops, as well as give them their own army Aviation.

New power-up

The new plans of the Ministry of Defense in the context of the development of the Airborne Forces were reported on October 2 by Izvestia. It learned from unnamed sources in the department that a fundamental decision to improve the organizational structure and equipment fleet of the airborne troops had already been made. In the foreseeable future, the troops will begin to implement it.

In order to increase firepower and provide support for airborne formations in solving various tasks, it is planned to increase the number of tank units. The number of combat vehicles and tank crews will increase accordingly. At the same time, Izvestia cannot yet name specific numbers, formations that will be strengthened, etc.

It is also proposed to create its own units and army aviation units within the Airborne Forces. They will have to replace the corresponding structures from the Aerospace Forces and perform the same functions and tasks. Combining airborne/air assault and aviation units within one branch of the military should provide organizational advantages.

Transport-assault Mi-8AMTSh-VN

Some features of staffing such units are revealed. The functions of transport and fire support in airborne aviation will be performed by modern Mi-8AMTSh-VN helicopters. In addition, squadrons of Mi-28 and Ka-52 attack aircraft will appear, which will be provided with support.

However, all the details of the future reorganization have not yet been announced. It is unknown which formations will be reinforced with new tank and aviation units, how much equipment the latter will receive, and when this will happen. However, the fundamental decision has been made, and now, probably, all changes are only a matter of time.

Land potential

According to known data, the Russian Airborne Forces currently have only two tank battalions - in the 7th and 76th Guards Air Assault Divisions. The total number of MBTs in them reaches 150-160 units. Other units and units of these and other divisions are equipped with light armored vehicles, such as airborne combat vehicles, specialized armored personnel carriers, armored cars, etc.

Depending on the assigned tasks, the situation on the front, etc., tank battalions must interact with other units and units of their divisions and other formations. As in the ground forces, airborne tanks must provide fire support in the offensive and defensive, carry out breakthroughs, etc.

The newest strike Mi-28NM

Probably, the adjusted plans of the Ministry of Defense involve the formation of new tank battalions. Such units may appear in divisions that currently do not have their own tanks. They will increase the overall firepower and level of protection of formations, allow them to solve more complex tasks, and also simplify the organization of combat work due to greater independence.

It should be recalled that in the past, the Airborne Forces have repeatedly demonstrated the need for the simultaneous availability and use of both specialized airborne equipment and “regular” tanks. The latter effectively accompanied and supported the paratroopers with fire. Since February last year, airborne units have been constantly participating in battles that do not involve airborne assaults. At the same time, standard MBTs and the ability to use them correctly confirm in practice their necessity and role in the troops.

Depending on the exact intentions of the Ministry of Defense, the number of tank units in the Airborne Forces may increase by one and a half to two times or more. Accordingly, the number of tanks will increase to several hundred. This is less than that of the ground forces, but is enough for a significant increase in all indicators of airborne units and formations.

Own aviation

Currently, the Russian Airborne Forces only have unmanned aircraft of some classes. Tasks of transportation and landing of troops, fire support, etc. are solved by attracting aircraft and helicopters of the aerospace forces. Such interaction between different types of troops is regularly practiced in exercises, and since last year it has been used as part of the Special Operations.

Ka-52 attacks a target

However, quite a long time ago there was an opinion about the need to create within the Airborne Forces their own aviation units capable of performing transport and combat missions. It was also proposed to form appropriate landing units. Since the end of the last decade, this issue has been studied at the theoretical level and within the framework of airborne troops exercises.

Back in 2019, it was reported that in the foreseeable future the Airborne Forces may have their own helicopter brigade, including several squadrons for different purposes. According to media reports, it was planned to include Mi-8AMTSh transport and combat helicopters, as well as Mi-35M combat helicopters.

It was proposed to make maximum use of the potential of helicopters and their capabilities for landing troops. For this purpose, on the basis of one of the airborne brigades, they created the so-called. airmobile battalion. It had to be transported by helicopters and landed by landing. During the exercises, the battalion performed well, and it was reported about the possible creation of such units in other brigades and divisions.

However, at the turn of the decade such ideas were not developed, and the Airborne Forces continued to rely on the support of the Aerospace Forces. However, this concept is now being returned to. At the same time, the general idea remains the same, and the methods of its implementation become more relevant. Yes, according to the latest news, the aviation units of the Airborne Forces will receive transport and combat helicopters of the latest models, which have proven themselves well during the Special Operation.

Enemy armored vehicle seen through the lens of the Ka-52 helicopter

As reported, transport and landing tasks will be assigned to the Mi-8AMTSh-VN helicopter. It is capable of transporting up to 16 paratroopers with weapons, and also has standard weapons and controls. The modern AMTSH-VN differs from other helicopters of the Mi-8 family in its expanded range of ammunition and improved sighting and navigation system.

At the same time, the attack Ka-52 and Mi-28 will be the main means of support for the airborne forces. These helicopters carry full-fledged missile defense systems and weapons control equipment. They are capable of highly effective combat against a wide range of targets, from manpower to tanks. As practice shows, modern domestic attack helicopters are capable of operating in different conditions. Accordingly, the airborne forces on the front line or behind enemy lines will not be left without effective support.

Active development

The Russian airborne troops in their current form are capable of solving a wide range of combat missions, both independently and in cooperation with other branches of the armed forces and branches of the armed forces. In the latter case, a significant increase in performance and efficiency is ensured, due to the combination of all the best qualities and capabilities of different structures.

Taking into account the experience of numerous exercises and real combat operations within the framework of the current Special Operation, the Ministry of Defense decided to finalize the organizational structure of the Airborne Forces and strengthen their fleet of equipment. To improve various capabilities, the troops will be supplemented with aviation and new tanks. It will take some time to implement such plans, but the results will fully justify the wait.

Comments

[Escariot]

Quote: Vladimir_2U

In general, the Airborne Forces are made into an aerial analogue of the US Marine Corps, with the exception of aviation and subordination to xs, whether this is good or bad.

The ILC in the USA is a separate alternative army subordinate to the President personally, bypassing Congress. By the way, the Americans are now abandoning such a policy and are going to once again make the ILC for the Marines by taking away their tanks.

[El123]

Aren't you ashamed to invent fairy tales? Reports personally to the President through the Secretary of the Navy, who reports to the Secretary of Defense

[TermNachTer]

The ILC reports directly to the president, so Congress really doesn’t like them and keeps them “in a black body.”

[Foul skeptic]

taking away their tanks.

And in return, giving a bunch of mobile OTRKs, mobile anti-ship missiles and drones
Your owl is torn.

[Soldatov V.]

As I understand it, the main point is that mechanized combat assets will be in the same hands under the same command. There is no need to coordinate your actions with other branches of the military, wasting time.
And the mentality of the Airborne Forces is different from other troops. This is unconditional courage and self-sacrifice for the sake of victory. The same Marines.

[Arkadich]

Wagner's experience shows that it is necessary to have several such formations.

[Escariot]

Quote: Arkadich

Wagner's experience shows that it is necessary to have several such formations.

Wagner's experience shows that several such formations may well engage with each other.

[svp67]

At the very least, the reform of the Airborne Forces has begun... and thank God. Well, our Armed Forces do not need troops, neither the personnel nor the weapons of which we are not able to use for their intended purpose. We will not be able to build the required number of heavy VTA aircraft in a short time... Which means the BMD in the troops needs to be replaced with the usual infantry fighting vehicles or armored personnel carriers. But do not turn them into ordinary motorized riflemen. We now have an acute shortage of “light infantry” capable of operating in wooded or mountainous areas, organizing and conducting helicopter and boat landings on rivers, especially in their floodplains. So, the reform is overdue and must be carried out quickly, but very carefully. The main thing is to preserve the spirit, the preparation of "Uncle Vasya's troops"

[Soldatov V.]

I think a massive landing will go nowhere. For example, landing troops along the entire Suwałki corridor. Or the release of troops on their territory in order to help the border guards cover the border in an unfavorable direction. There are still enough aircraft to drop off a regiment or airborne division.

[George Sviridov]

Yes, if there are large landings, they will be on their own territory, for example in the Far East - there the airfield is remote and can be hit by the enemy, the railway network is also minimal, the Arctic zone is the same - in case of threats, the easiest way to deliver troops there is by dropping them together with technology.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Georgy Sviridov

in case of threats, the easiest way to deliver troops there is by dropping them together with equipment.

Yeah... throw a regiment with equipment and portable supplies into the forest or into the tundra. A couple of days to collect it, and then a couple of days to fight. And then - everything: gasoline - yok, ammunition - yok.
Oh yes, all this will have to be done under complete enemy air supremacy - since the airfields have been hit by the enemy.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: V.

Or the release of troops on their territory in order to help the border guards cover the border in an unfavorable direction.

If there are roads in this direction, then the troops will land by landing, after which they will advance in vehicles to the threatened direction. As it happened on 08.08.08/XNUMX/XNUMX.
If there are no roads in this direction, then the troops will land by landing, after which they will wait until the enemy indicates the actual direction of the main attack. The enemy will also not go through unequipped terrain.

Quote: V.

There are still enough aircraft to drop off a regiment or airborne division.

It was only in the USSR that there were enough aircraft to drop one airborne division with standard equipment. And then subject to the mobilization of the Civil Aviation.

[Essex62]

Hardly above the corridor. It will destroy air defense almost instantly. But you can’t push him. Unless all the Lyakhia and Tribaltia are glassed. But then he won’t be needed.

[Alekseev]

The spirit cannot be quenched, that's for sure!
And, quite rightly, the Airborne Forces - essentially airmobile light infantry with specific weapons - are also needed.
It's not all about the money, it's all about the troops , but in their quantity.
It is the airborne troops that should have relatively light weapons and number up to a dozen brigades.
Airborne assault divisions and marine divisions should have weapons not much weaker than those in the MSD, while it is the infantry battalions that should undergo combat training to operate as a landing force from helicopters.
How many such formations to have in addition to the “heavy” (it’s time to abandon the MSD and TD and make single combined arms formations, but with differences in theater of operations, mountain, arctic, etc.) divisions of the Ground Forces should be calculated by the General Staff. On task, as always.

[CTABEP]

Judging by the reforms of the Airborne Forces and the introduction of some “Reconnaissance and Assault” units, we at the General Staff are ready to do anything, just not to equip and train ordinary motorized riflemen to fight.

[Yuras_Belarus]

It seems to me that Russian generals want to make the Airborne Forces an analogue of the American Marine Corps, which is a separate branch of the Armed Forces with its own aviation, armored units, and so on. But it also looks like the Airborne Forces will be transformed from airborne paratroopers into “quick reaction forces.”

[George Sviridov]

They always have been.
With our huge country, it is impossible to maintain enough forces everywhere. And the Airborne Forces, first of all, is the ability to quickly transfer forces within the country, while the ground forces are loading into echelons, the Airborne Forces will already take the fight.

[Sergej1972]

The USMC is part of the Navy, but enjoys significant independence

[Amateur]

Judging by the reports on the progress of the Airborne Forces and Marines, they are used in battles as ordinary infantry.
But where did the “ordinary motorized infantry” itself go?

[would]

Nowhere, pulling his strap as before. You can go to Wikipedia and see who took part in the liberation of Mariupol, the vast majority are combined arms units.

[Vadim S]

The Airborne Forces have turned into something incomprehensible, it is no longer clear why they were airborne, where they airborne?! It's time to rename them "assault troops".

[Doccor18]

finds ways to further develop the Airborne Forces and increase their combat effectiveness... for this purpose it is planned to increase the number of tanks in the troops

Can someone explain why the Airborne Forces need tanks? They learned how to parachute them...? Or did the Airborne Forces have new tasks?

[Romario_Argo]

By the way, regarding equipment for landing, it is better to work on the promising coaxial Ka-65 Lamprey with additional. armor for marines
and for the Airborne Forces, the promising coaxial Ka-92 with a pusher propeller
Americans are conducting similar developments on coaxial technology with AVX pusher impellers and the SB-1 Defiant helicopter

[bayard]

Quote: Romario_Argo

By the way, regarding equipment for landing, it is better to work on the promising coaxial Ka-65

The main principles of selection: maximum reliability, maximum-optimal capacity, mass production, repairability and availability of spare parts on any theater, reasonable (not ceiling) price tag.
So, with all the wishes - the best and latest modifications of the Mi-8\17, Mi-35 (it also has a troop compartment) ... there is a PROBLEM with heavy transport vehicles, but when the production of the Mi-26M is revived, it will be possible to talk. There is no alternative to the Ka-52 fire support helicopters - although more expensive, they are head and shoulders above the Mi-28.
And all this coaxial exoticism ... must first appear at least in prototypes, so that their merits can be assessed. In the meantime - mass production, reliability, maximum weight and combat return.

[pettabyte]

We need something that the latest modification of the T-90 can carry.

[Alekseev]

Would you like to clarify what the Airborne Forces units are currently doing?
These are their “new tasks”.

[bayard]

Quote: Doccor18

Can someone explain why the Airborne Forces need tanks?

The Airborne Forces are now used as line infantry (due to the lack of infantry in the Small Army... while the Big Army is being created) and they need tanks like any infantry - for reinforcement in defense and as a tool for breaking through enemy defenses. And now they will make assault infantry from the Airborne Forces.

Quote: Doccor18

They learned how to parachute them...?

The Airborne Forces in the Russian Federation are the Rapid Reaction Forces under a VERY small Ground Army. Therefore, it is planned to use airborne forces to quickly strengthen threatened areas. Moreover, mainly the transfer of military equipment by landing method. And if so, then conventional MBTs can be transferred in this way. Even the Il-76MD\MD-90A is capable of transporting MBT with the side screens removed.

Quote: Doccor18

the Airborne Forces have new tasks?

It seems that it is from them that the “reconnaissance and assault brigades”, about which there has been so much controversy in recent days, will be formed/repurposed. So tanks come in handy for them more than ever. Moreover, such brigades need infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers no lower than the BMP-3M and BTR-3F class.

And it’s time to forget about parachute landings - we don’t have the necessary number and equipment of military air forces, and if we do, it won’t be very soon.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Doccor18

Can someone explain why the Airborne Forces need tanks? They learned how to parachute them...? Or did the Airborne Forces have new tasks?

No, the real tasks of the Airborne Forces remain the same as they have been for the last 70 years.
The problem is that the OShS and the equipment of the Airborne Forces absolutely do not correspond to these tasks and are designed for a certain hypothetical scenario that has never materialized in reality. More precisely, for the last 50 years this scenario has not even been theoretically possible.

Tanks in the Airborne Forces are a recognition of the fact that the Airborne Forces have finally come to terms with the fact that the parachute landings that look so beautiful in exercises will not happen in the war. And that they will have to work in current reality, and not in the highest heights of theoretical thought. That is, as always: strengthening the ground forces in threatened directions, joint actions with the ground forces, the main method of landing is landing.

And when solving these problems, the Airborne Forces and the army are constantly faced with the same problem: those who formally arrived “to strengthen” the Airborne Forces, in fact, themselves need to be strengthened. They have no heavy armor, no artillery, no air defense. Guess where they have to allocate all this from? That's right - the airborne forces that "reinforce" are in fact plundering the units they reinforce.

And then the circus with ponies begins. The Airborne Forces have no experience working with tanks and normal artillery (their limit is BMD and Nona). There is no coherence either. And, the cherry on the cake, what equipment and what crews do you think the infantry commander will give to his “uncle”? I immediately remember the reinforcement of the Vovans in the First Chechen War: one of the battalions received 3 infantry fighting vehicles from the army - one not moving, the second with an inoperative cannon, and with crews of greens and raiders.

An example of the Airborne Forces of a healthy person is Afghan. More precisely, the mutation of the 345th airborne regiment under the influence of external factors from the proud sons of the sky into a lightweight small and medium-sized infantry regiment with normal artillery, infantry fighting vehicles, armored personnel carriers and tanks.

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

I would like to remind you that in addition to the Nona, the Airborne Forces also have the D-30. And this is quite normal artillery. The 122-mm caliber is inferior to the 152-mm only in the absence of cluster munitions, and artillery attacks with it are even easier to carry out, and the ammunition is easier to load and handle in general.
And BMDs are only slightly inferior to BMPs in terms of armor and capacity. There are still not enough infantry fighting vehicles for everyone right now. This in Afghanistan could be provided with the desired equipment and transferred to infantry fighting vehicles; in the current conditions there is no surplus and there will not be any.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich

I would like to remind you that in addition to the Nona, the Airborne Forces also have the D-30.

6 or 8 pieces per division?

Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich

The 122-mm caliber is inferior to the 152-mm only in the absence of cluster munitions, and artillery attacks with it are even easier to carry out, and the ammunition is easier to load and handle in general.

The 122 mm caliber is inferior to the 152 mm in firing range and ammunition power. And the division’s artillery of 8 122 mm cannons is not artillery. In the SV, this caliber even left the regiments.

Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich

And BMDs are only slightly inferior to BMPs in terms of armor and capacity. There are still not enough infantry fighting vehicles for everyone right now.

What if we curtail the production of unique and unparalleled BMD and BTR-3D and unify the equipment?

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

If you listen to the artillerymen, for them the power of 152 mm ammunition causes more difficulties than advantages. 122mm shells are lighter, have a higher rate of fire and are often more effective.
The caliber is running out due to the inability to manufacture effective cluster munitions. But if you don’t use them, which is what is observed, then the 122 mm caliber is better.
There will be as many howitzers in the division as needed. And the debate about infantry fighting vehicles and infantry fighting vehicles can be waged endlessly.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich

The caliber is running out due to the inability to manufacture effective cluster munitions. But if you don’t use them, which is what is observed, then the 122 mm caliber is better.

What about his range?
Because the Airborne Forces are no longer a landing force, but an airmobile motorized infantry. And they will have to fight in the field, together with motorized riflemen, against full-fledged enemy formations. Which not only have 39-caliber, but also 47-52-caliber barrels are available in commercial quantities.
So it's either "port" or "salad".

Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich

And the debate about infantry fighting vehicles and infantry fighting vehicles can be waged endlessly.

Why lead them? The BMD has all its performance characteristics ruined to please the sacred cow of parachute landing. The priority is to fit into the mass that the landing platform lifts, and into the dimensions of the Il-76 cargo compartment, taking into account this platform. Anything that gets in the way, we cut it up and throw it away. Or we install an additional system, which also takes away the mass and volume of the case.
We throw out the requirement for mandatory parachute landing - the landing platform with its mass and height immediately flies away. Oh yes, the system for changing the clearance flies away too. And the only limitations for the MGC of air transported equipment are the aircraft’s carrying capacity and the sheer dimensions of the hatch and cargo compartment. And even a T-76 can be driven “cleanly” into the IL-72 - the Indians guarantee it.

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

The range of the D-20 and D-30 is comparable. The development of long-range guns in the 122-mm caliber was abandoned; the last such gun was the D-74. If there are no cluster munitions, then the 122 mm caliber is faster and more convenient.
And there is a practice of providing the necessary artillery if you have to fight alongside motorized rifles.
And now there is no need to distort and manipulate the landing again. In addition to landing, there is also air transportability. The IL-76 can transport three units of landing equipment, but three BMP-3s can no longer be transported. The D-30 howitzer can be transferred by helicopter, but the D-20 or Msta-B is no longer available.
Why the T-72 is mentioned is not at all clear. It is possible to use transport aviation to the limit of its capabilities, but not far and rarely.
And trying to save money on variable ground clearance generally looks ridiculous.
All your arguments are pure exaggeration and adjustment to a false theory about the weakness of airborne equipment.

[would]

All your arguments are pure exaggeration and adjustment to a false theory about the weakness of airborne equipment.

The BMP-3 carries 7 troops, the BMD-4M carries 5 people.

The armor of the BMP-3M with spaced-apart steel screens in the forehead holds 30mm; the armor of the BMD-4M is exclusively aluminum and bulletproof.

At the same time, for the BMP-3 there are kits to enhance the armor (both remote protection and screens), but for the BMD-4M it’s somehow not so much. I saw only one photo of a BMD-4 with mounted armor without indicating what it is and whether it entered service with the troops, but there is no doubt that with them the BMD ceases to be airborne.

At the same time, open sources say that the BMP-3 costs the budget 85.944 million rubles, and the BMD-4 102.703

And I can do this for so long. These are the “false theories about the weakness of airborne equipment” (c).

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich

The range of the D-20 and D-30 is comparable.

Let's compare it with D-1.
The Airborne Forces today are infantry. And their artillery must be compared with infantry. It is clear that the “Coalition” or “Msta-S” will not be suitable for the Airborne Forces due to the lack of a sufficient number of heavy VTA vehicles to transport them. But at least they need an analogue of “salad”. Otherwise, at the airborne front, they will either find themselves in the position of a whipping boy, or they will again have to plunder the infantry for full-fledged artillery.

Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich

And there is a practice of providing the necessary artillery if you have to fight alongside motorized rifles.

This practice was good in local conflicts when there was “free” artillery. And not now, when the D-1 has already been pulled out of warehouses.

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

I have already noted that new types of air transportable artillery are being created for the Airborne Forces: 82 mm Gorse, 120 mm Phlox and 152 mm Malva. This gap will be closed soon. At the moment, the Airborne Forces are better equipped than motorized rifles and were better equipped. If you don’t look closely at the thickness of the armor of the BMD and believe that they are greatly hampered by the parachutes behind them, but look at the full general equipment and weapons.

[would]

Everything was written correctly. I’m surprised that there are no indignant comments “AIRBOARD ELITE!!!11 YOU DON’T UNDERSTAND ANYTHING!111”.

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

You really don't understand much.
Distortions in prices for infantry fighting vehicles and infantry fighting vehicles arose due to the policy pursued by the then concern Tractor Plants, when the Volgograd site was destroyed and the most profitable production and equipment were concentrated in Kurgan.
But the Airborne Forces were better equipped earlier and are now better armed.
Because you need to look not at the parachutes behind your back, but at the total number of tracked vehicles. Where previously the Airborne Forces had BMDs and BTR-Ds, motorized rifles have BMPs and Zil-131s, I believe that since then the ratio has been approximately the same.

[would]

But the Airborne Forces were better equipped earlier and are now better armed.

You can't even laugh at this. You are completely unfamiliar with the weapons of the Airborne Forces and the staff of the units.

Where previously the Airborne Forces had BMD and BTR-D, now motorized infantry have BMP and Zil-131,

There the motorized riflemen have BMP-3 and BTR-82A. Moreover, if combined arms units have Smerch and Hurricane and much more, then the Airborne Forces do not have this. The reason is very banal - these weapons cannot be dropped by parachute.

Actually, this is precisely why some of the airborne units are officially rearmed and equipped to the level of motorized rifles, that is, turned into the same motorized rifle troops.

[TermNachTer]

The Airborne Forces can land by landing. Therefore, it is quite possible to transport MBTs and self-propelled guns "Gvozdika", which were specially designed to be airmobile.

[would]

The problem with the Airborne Forces is that they cannot yet accept reality and remain “somewhere in the middle” without a clear understanding of what they should be.

In short, it looks like this:

The Airborne Forces were initially designed for mass landings from aircraft. The entire structure and all the weapons were created under this. For example, BMD is worse and, most importantly, more expensive than BMP, all for the sake of airborne capability. But with the advent and spread of effective MANPADS, this became impossible, which is why the Airborne Forces began to be used as a combined arms unit, that is, motorized infantry leading combined arms combat. But the Airborne Forces, initially in their condition, cannot effectively conduct combined arms combat since they were created for a fundamentally different task.

As a result, one part of the Airborne Forces units are armed as infantry, for example, they receive tanks. And the second is still armed for mass landings from aircraft, and based on a number of statements, it still dreams of impossible landings.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: rait

The problem with the Airborne Forces is that they cannot yet accept reality and remain “somewhere in the middle” without a clear understanding of what they should be.

Worse. In the Airborne Forces the lower classes can't, but the upper classes don't want to.
That is, at the grassroots level it has long been clear that in the current reality, the Airborne Forces need to smoothly mutate into light motorized rifles. But at the top they continue to strictly follow Uncle Vasya's behests, denying that reality has changed significantly since those times. And all attempts to somehow bring the Airborne Forces into line with it are reacted exclusively with appeals to the heroic past and panicky statements about the impending liquidation of the Airborne Forces.
At the same time, no one is embarrassed even by the fact that in the case of the parachute landing so beloved by the generals, there will be at best a regiment of military personnel... or even less (don’t forget about the equipment).

[would]

Of course, I’m talking about the tops, the bottoms simply don’t decide anything.

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

You have some kind of parallel reality! How do they need to smoothly mutate into light motorized rifles? Should we take away their heavy small arms? Disarm and remove ATGMs, heavy machine guns, AGS and mortars? At the moment, the Airborne Forces are much more like heavily armed infantry and your intentions look strange.

[KostikTail]

There is an understanding - they (the leadership) want to continue to remain a separate branch of the military, although in fact they are simply duplicating the MP. For what? It's simple - titles, positions, budgets.

[KVU-NSVD]

We are slowly moving towards creating an analogue of the ILC. Personally, I’m against it, but only time will tell

[moreman78]

The Airborne Forces will be reinforced with additional tanks and their own helicopters

Or maybe then replace the BMD with normal ones, even the BMP-3?

[Romario_Argo]

It’s better not to replace the BMD with an infantry fighting vehicle in the Airborne Forces, but from the beginning you need to create a spinner carrier for the BMD-4M
as an option, rework the Mi-26 into a coaxial design and then, in theory, it will pull a load of 40 tons
but, this is all the time, years or even decades
therefore it’s easier - tanks for the Airborne Forces
It’s easier for the Marines; they have BDK, DKVP, boats, UDC, enlarged Grenas are being built
in the future, the Haska-10 hovercraft will grow to 90 tons (LCAC type 68 tons)

[bayard]

Quote: Romario_Argo

It’s better not to replace the BMD with an infantry fighting vehicle in the Airborne Forces, but from the beginning you need to create a spinner carrier for the BMD-4M

It's very difficult to understand your logic. If parachute landing is impossible, and one IL-76 can carry no more than 2 BMD-4s or (drum roll) two BMP-3\3Ms, then what the hell does it matter what the planes carry? While in a real battle the BMP-3 is MUCH more useful and provides higher protection.

Quote: Romario_Argo

you need to create a spinner carrier for the BMD-4M

Such a helicopter already exists - the Mi-26 with a payload capacity of 20 tons. BMP-3 weighs about 18 tons. , so everything is fine here too - the Mi-26 BMP-3 will handle it. So why equip the Airborne Forces with such a weakly armed combat vehicle, which is also seriously MORE EXPENSIVE??
It is nonsense ?
Or wrecking?

Quote: Romario_Argo

rework the Mi-26 into a coaxial design and then, in theory, it will pull a load of 40 tons

First of all, it won’t handle THAT much. and secondly... WHY? Not enough for transporting a tank, but a lot for a BMP-3M. And two infantry fighting vehicles with one helicopter... Do you even imagine that you are offering a helicopter with the lifting capacity of a heavy transport IL-76? Be careful with your fantasies.
Just take as a basis that the Airborne Forces are our Rapid Reaction Forces, capable of being transferred by VTA aircraft to any threatened remote theater of operations by landing (!) method. And in this way, both MBTs and classic self-propelled guns can be transferred. So why deliberately weaken our Guard without need or benefit? On the contrary, it should be strengthened, equipped and made heavier... and, of course, our VTA should be strengthened and developed.

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

I must note that the irrepressible critics of the Airborne Forces and their weapons do not disdain anything, even direct manipulation of facts.
About seriously more expensive about BMD, this is, to put it mildly, a stretch; before the destruction of the Volgograd site, the cost of production with BMP was approximately the same.
And I don’t even want to comment on the fact that the BMD-4M is poorly armed. The combat module on the BMP-3 and BMD-4 is the same!
And there is a very big difference for transport aviation, which cargo to lift, at the limit of its capabilities or with a reserve.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich

And there is a very big difference for transport aviation, which cargo to lift, at the limit of its capabilities or with a reserve.

But for the crews and troops, it means there is no difference - do they go into battle on an elite cardboard or on a BMP-3?
By the way, I don’t remember - is there a DS kit for the BMD-4M?

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

The heavier the equipment, the better protected it is. The lighter the equipment, the easier it is to transport. You can argue endlessly. Of course, the T-90 is better than the SPRUT-SDM, and the BMP-3 is protected better than the BMD-4. But their tasks are different. If there is an opportunity, they will transfer the paratroopers to heavier equipment in this conflict, if not, they will use standard equipment.
And the terminology of going into battle reads beautifully, but in reality the tasks of light equipment are transportation and fire support.

[bayard]

Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich

There is a very big difference for transport aviation, which cargo to lift, at the limit of its capabilities or with a reserve.

The weight of the BMP-3 is about 18 tons, even with additional mounted dynamic protection it will be no more than 20 - 21 tons. At the same time, the payload capacity of the Il-76MD-90A is 52 tons, and with insufficient fuel and for shorter distances - up to 60 tons. So There will definitely not be any overload. Moreover, three BMP-2 BMP-76s will still not fit into the IL-90MD-3A, but additional ammo, fuel, etc. will be a plus. or just two BMP-XNUMXs with troops and supplies.
The BMD-4 is, of course, well armed, very mobile and floats. But the BMP is not inferior in mobility and navigation. but it ensures the survival of the crew and troops on the battlefield, holds heavy fragments and large-caliber bullets, and the BMP-3M "Dranun or "Manul" with side screens from the Kurganets holds a 30 mm armor-piercing projectile both in the forehead and on the sides along the normal . This should be the level of protection for winged infantry. And the number of BMD-4s can be limited to the armament of a reconnaissance battalion as part of an airborne division, maybe when parachute landing comes in handy. But definitely not now. Now all airborne divisions need to be transferred to the BMP-3M and each Airborne divisions will be given a reinforced battalion of tanks, and self-propelled guns too - the adoption of self-propelled guns with a 152 mm gun based on the BMP-3 chassis is now being considered.

Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich

irrepressible critics of the Airborne Forces and their weapons do not disdain anything, even direct manipulation of facts.

And restless fans of the Airborne Forces are pushing into production weapons systems that are unsuitable for modern warfare. And this is sabotage. Because the production lines of the Kurganskmashzavod, instead of producing the much-needed highly protected BMP-3M, occupy part of their lines with the production of BMD-4, "Rakushka" and "Sprut-SDM".
For objective reasons, the Russian Airborne Forces will not be able to conduct large-scale landing operations by parachute in the foreseeable period - there are simply no military transport aircraft for this. And no one will risk the scarce transport planes for the sake of some kind of adventure. The Airborne Forces should become air-transportable Rapid Reaction Forces. Exclusively by landing method. And leave parachute landings only to reconnaissance units, and even then just in case. The Airborne Forces for the next 10 years will be elite infantry and assault (reconnaissance and assault) formations. Of course, highly mobile and air transportable. Incl. by helicopters.

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

There's no need to rig it again. The sabotage was the destruction of the Volgograd site, with the dragging of production of as many products as possible to Kurgan. Hence the high prices for equipment due to the lack of competition and free production capacity. And in the year and a half that the SVO continues, it was possible to build as many new workshops as needed to expand production.

[Romario_Argo]

this is not a fantasy
Americans are developing convertiplanes both for landing forces and for their Stryker armored personnel carriers
and also a massive helicopter landing that follows the terrain - more durable (Gostomel)
so we also need a carrier with a load of 40 tons
or a helicopter in a coaxial pattern - this is up to 2 BMD-4M
or a tiltrotor with 4 rotary rotors - up to 4 BMD-4M
or a tiltrotor with 4 coaxial propellers - almost a company of up to 8 BMD-4Ms
and to counter MANPADS in the terrain-following area, in addition to SAPL Lever and BKO Vitebsk, you can install KAZ Afganit mortars and even DZ Kaktus

[bayard]

Quote: Romario_Argo

a helicopter in a coaxial configuration is up to 2 BMD-4M
or a tiltrotor with 4 rotary rotors - up to 4 BMD-4M
or a tiltrotor with 4 coaxial propellers - almost a company of up to 8 BMD-4Ms

Ostap was carrying...
If it were not for the war, sorry - SVO, not for the knowledge of our feudal-capitalist realities and the abilities of effective management, one could fantasize about heavenly pretzels. But we live in the real world. And in the real world we have the Mi-8 helicopters, the flying Mi-35 infantry fighting vehicle, the shock splendor of the Ka-52M and the less successful Mi-28N, as well as the best in the world (to this day) Mi-26\26M.
The Mi-26 can easily take on board a BMP-3\3M or BTR-3F with landing troops. And he is also capable of flying low and bending around the terrain. But unlike Western tiltrotors with some fantastic payload capacity, our Mi-26 is quite real. And if a turboshaft engine for it based on the PD-8 soon appears, then these wonderful machines will again be mass-produced.
But the Mi-26 can take either one BMD-4M or one BMP-3M. And having such a choice, I cannot imagine a single commander who would choose the BMD-4M for his unit. Just for him (the commander) to then look into the eyes of his dead soldiers... Do you understand?
Any nonsense in the War costs soldiers' lives.
And sometimes even higher - defeats.
So I would not persist in such things, but would study the subject more carefully.

Quote: Romario_Argo

need a carrier with a load of 40 tons

Do you have any idea what you are writing about? Can you imagine the fuselage of the Il-76MD in the guise of a tiltrotor? Even with four lifting propulsion engines? And who is capable of creating this?
We still do not have engines for the small Ka-226 and Ansat, for the handsome Ka-62... and we still do not have an engine for an analogue of the An-2 and a light propeller-driven training aircraft!!
We do not have an engine for the Mi-38, which I remember in the form of models at the exhibition since the mid-80s!!!
Do you even imagine the level of degradation of our industry, industrial science and engineering personnel?
But there is a war going on. When weapons and equipment are needed in the maximum possible quantities with acceptable quality. This means that industry must produce what it is capable of producing MASSIVELY. And as for helicopter technology, I have already listed these machines for you: Mi-8\17, Mi-35, Mi-28 (simply because there is a line for their production), Ka-52M, and if engines appear and the stars align - Mi-26M.
As for helicopters for the Navy, it will be necessary to revive the production of the Ka-27, Ka-29 and Ka-31 in an updated form and with more powerful engines. Because the Navy also needs helicopters. And it’s good that, albeit in very limited quantities, production of the Ka-32 continued and the plant in Ulan-Ude survived.

Quote: Romario_Argo

this is not a fantasy

Yes this is projection.
And yes, a coaxial propeller does not create more thrust than a regular main rotor. It’s just that in the classical scheme, about 15% of the power goes through the power take-off shaft to the tail rotor. Well, the coaxial beam does not need a long tail beam. But the coaxial scheme is much more complex and expensive both in production and in maintenance. That is why the Americans resisted to the last and did not use it - it was too expensive and difficult.

[pettabyte]

Quote: Romario_Argo

create a spinner carrier for the BMD-4M

Better for T-80\T-90. (and attach the armored sled for landing to the tank)

[not main]

Quote: Romario_Argo

It’s better not to replace the BMD with an infantry fighting vehicle in the Airborne Forces, but from the beginning you need to create a spinner carrier for the BMD-4M
as an option, rework the Mi-26 into a coaxial design and then, in theory, it will pull a load of 40 tons
but, this is all the time, years or even decades

As I understand it, Roman is a pure humanitarian. Otherwise, the idea of ​​“reworking the Mi-26 into a coaxial design” would never have occurred to him in his life! For example, the Mi-4 and Mi-8 have the same design, but nothing in common (except for the layout), another example, the Yak-24, is essentially two propeller-engine groups from the Mi-4 in one fuselage! They released several dozen of them and quickly stopped. Because he had fewer advantages than disadvantages! One vibration... this was abnormal even for a helicopter pilot!

[George Sviridov]

I wrote about the need to add your own turntables to the Airborne Forces not so long ago, but I was really downvoted.
The only thing I thought was that they would be given all the Mi-24/35, although we’ll see, maybe that will be the case.
It’s just that it will almost never perform its transport functions in the Mi-24 VKS. If you really need to transport something, then there is the Mi-8.
But the transport capabilities of the Mi-24 can be used in the airborne forces and army special forces.
The transfer of turntables to the Airborne Forces is logical. Interdepartmental bureaucracy is reduced, and accordingly the efficiency of decision-making and execution increases.

[Fenix844]

As far as I know, Mi-24 crews really don’t like it when there is something (or someone) in the landing compartment. Because this reduces the maneuverability of the machine.

[TermNachTer]

This was an initially erroneous concept, which was abandoned on the Mi-28.

[vovochkarzhevsky]

Airborne Forces + helicopters = DShV
And nothing else. It should be understood that the purpose of airborne and airborne forces is fundamentally different. If the former operate from the operational level and above, then the latter operate exclusively at the tactical level, to put it simply, to break through the same defense, only from the rear.
Due to this, the tactics of these troops are very different.
The fact that after the collapse of the USSR the DShV was transferred to the Airborne Forces from the same opera, why the helicopters were transferred to the Air Force (VKS). There was no sign of any increase in combat effectiveness here; the generals divided what was left after “optimization” in order to somehow justify their ranks.
In this case, there is an attempt to somehow give meaning to the existence of the Airborne Forces. Landing operations at the level of the USSR with raids on the rear of the enemy of capitalist Russia cannot be pulled off. Well, as simple infantry, the Airborne Forces are weak, so we see intentions to reformat them into Airborne Forces.
The only question is, where will they get the helicopters from? I doubt very much that they will install new ones. Even very few engines are produced for multi-purpose and combat vehicles, and none are produced for heavy vehicles at all.
This means they will take you away from the VKS, in fact, rearranging the beds with a natural result.

[Glory1974]

The experience of forming the organizational structure of troops has shown that individual units within divisions and brigades are of little functionality. There are a lot of examples, starting with machine-transport stations at collective farms in the 1950s, and ending with modern days. For example, in the internal troops, in the early 2000s, engineer and sapper companies were formed under operational brigades for operations in Chechnya. We suffered with them for 2 years.
Firstly, there is a lack of equipment, secondly, a lack of trained personnel, and thirdly, the staff itself is underdeveloped and simply lacks people and equipment. The brigade is going on a business trip; its company is staffed from other brigades. They transfer equipment and people. As a result, everyone was brought into one regiment. Wherever the reinforcement needs to be sent, they send it there. It is possible to maneuver with people and equipment, because there is simply more of it, there is a reserve.
The same goes for tank battalions. One division operates in the forest and does not need tanks. The other is in the fields, she doesn’t have enough tanks. We will have to transfer from one division to another. The problems are the same. There are not enough people, equipment, it is impossible to quickly replace someone or something, there are difficulties with supply and logistics.
Therefore, it is necessary to immediately form a tank regiment subordinate to the commander-in-chief of the Airborne Forces.
The situation is the same with helicopters. In the USSR, separate squadrons did not form divisions.
The Russian Guard has taken into account the experience of the past. The artillery was collected into a separate artillery regiment, special forces groups were withdrawn from the formations and combined into special forces detachments. In the Ministry of Defense, as usual, no one studies history, no one draws conclusions, it’s good if they learn from their mistakes.

[vovochkarzhevsky]

The same goes for tank battalions. One division operates in the forest and does not need tanks. The other is in the fields, she doesn’t have enough tanks. We will have to transfer from one division to another. The problems are the same. There are not enough people, equipment, it is impossible to quickly replace someone or something, there are difficulties with supply and logistics.

TB were part of the SMEs. The MSD included a TP.

The situation is the same with helicopters. In the USSR, separate squadrons did not form divisions.

Brad, I served in the 232nd OVP; it was assigned to the 490th OVP only for peacetime. In the case of a database, the regiment again switched to the OVE system.

[Glory1974]

I served in the 232 OVP; it was assigned to the 490 OVP only for peacetime. In the case of a database, the regiment again switched to the OVE system.

This is what I am writing about. There must be a regiment. In war, when necessary, people and equipment are allocated from a regiment where needed. But the option of assigning a squadron to a division on a regular basis did not work. There are many problems.

TB were part of the SMEs. The MSD included a TP.

We're talking about the Airborne Forces. There they play a supporting role.

[vovochkarzhevsky]

This is what I am writing about. There must be a regiment. In war, when necessary, people and equipment are allocated from a regiment where needed. But the option of assigning a squadron to a division on a regular basis did not work. There are many problems.

Yes, everything was fine. We just needed positions.

[pettabyte]

Quote: glory1974

There are a lot of examples, starting with machine-transport stations at collective farms in the 1950s, and ending with modern days.

But MTS were quite a good thing.

[Glory1974]

But MTS were quite a good thing

They were a good thing as long as one MTS served 3-4 collective farms.
In winter, equipment is idle, people still have to pay salaries. In the summer, everyone needs equipment and a lot of it, from the MTS it is allocated one by one to different collective farms.
When they got rich, MTS was included in each collective farm. It’s like their own equipment, use it whenever you want. But if earlier, in winter, costs were shared by everyone, now each collective farm paid for idle equipment. Costs increased, but incomes ideally remained the same. In the summer, when work is at its peak, in the event of a breakdown, the equipment was sent for repair, and there was nowhere else to get it. As a result, many collective farms lost profitability.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: pettabyte

But MTS were quite a good thing.

They were a good thing when they were a centralized specialized system, untethered from collective farms, from which these collective farms rented equipment with personnel. Centralized personnel training, supply of equipment, supplies and repairs. And not like later, when all this fell on the shoulders of collective farms, which did not understand this and financed all this based on the capabilities of a particular collective farm.

By the way, that’s why it’s very funny to read arguments about the presence on collective farms before the war there were masses of trained tractor drivers.

[pettabyte]

Quote: glory1974

They were a good thing as long as one MTS served 3-4 collective farms.

Quote: Alexey RA

Centralized personnel training, supply of equipment, supplies and repairs.

Yes, that's exactly what I'm talking about.
A kind of, if you exaggerate, “a horde of tractor drivers that came running and completely plowed/cleaned everything up.”
Then, no matter what you call it, it’s just a “garage on a collective farm.”

[Alexey RA]

Quote: pettabyte

A kind of, if you exaggerate, “a horde of tractor drivers that came running and completely plowed/cleaned everything up.”
Then, no matter what you call it, it’s just a “garage on a collective farm.”

I remember Pavlov’s speech at the meeting following the results of the SFV, when he demanded that the tanks distributed battalion-by-battalion to rifle divisions be taken away from the infantry, because the infantry did not know how to use, supply and maintain them.

PAULOV. Unfortunate fate befell us in the Red Army - and during any war befall - our division tanks. You will excuse my harshness, but I must say bluntly: all that was stated that tanks were necessary in order to teach interaction, today it turned out to be a bluff, no interaction was taught. More than 7 thousand tanks are scattered across divisions and they did not play any role. They were helpless. Battalions of the rifle division, twin T-37 tanks with T-26 - Kutzai organization, low-power T-37 tanks are not able to walk on Malomalsky mud. These battalions, part of the infantry divisions, had no effect. And let them say, let me correct, if I incorrectly say that they were most often turned to the guard of the headquarters of regiments and divisions.
VOTE. Correctly.
PAULOV. But this amounts to about 7 thousand tanks.

[Non-fighter]

Paratroopers need their own helicopters, I agree. But tanks? What do we want to get as an output, what kind of connection is it and for solving what problems?

[Diverter]

I once commented that the Airborne Forces needed to be reorganized.
In each district it is necessary to have 1 division of three regiments (in the Eastern Military District there are two divisions and in the north one) Total 6 divisions and 1 brigade (45th).
Where one regiment is airborne, the second is assault, the third is mountain assault.
Plus the division has a reconnaissance battalion and a special forces company.
Each assault regiment must have a helicopter regiment attached to it.
One squadron is on MI-35, the other two are on MI-8. (unification of engines and other systems and assemblies). Parachute regiments should not have their own aviation. If it is necessary to drop troops, the BTA will provide equipment.
Each airborne regiment must have tanks.
During assault operations, they support stormtroopers. During landings, they make a breakthrough to the landing (for example, their own airborne tanks had to break through to Gostomel.

[TermNachTer]

All our helicopters fly on the same engines, with the exception of the Mi 6/26.

[Glory1974]

the division has a reconnaissance battalion and a special forces company.

Regular reconnaissance battalions are unable to cope with their functions. It needs to be increased. Maybe up to a regiment, where it has drones, electronic warfare, and electronic warfare. Or it can be divided into an aero and technical reconnaissance battalion, and a traditional battalion.

[Moonlight]

I’m trying to imagine what it will look like: a T-72 battalion is rolling across the steppe, and a certain number of naked infantry “companies” of 80 people each on toy BMDs or even on “Rakushki” hurries behind it - and if you’re very lucky, then some... some kind of self-propelled artillery division, obtained by hook or by crook (something about the tanks, the pipes have been rattling for years, but about the rest - not a sound).
If you really need to give someone colonel's shoulder straps, then you can do it in another way, without creating chimeras. Otherwise, some product of educational inclusion may actually decide that he has a real mechanized connection at hand.

[Alexey RA]

Quote from moonlight

I’m trying to imagine what it will look like: a T-72 battalion is rolling across the steppe, and a certain number of naked infantry “companies” of 80 people each on toy BMDs or even on “Shells” hurries behind it.

On the contrary: tanks should support naked infantry companies of the Airborne Forces, deprived of heavy equipment. Your own tanks, with whom interaction has been worked out.
Anyway, for the last 70 years our airborne forces have been elite infantry.

Quote from moonlight

and if you’re very lucky, then some self-propelled artillery division obtained by hook or by crook

This is the next stage - the introduction of normal artillery and air defense into the airborne forces.
In general, after 35 years, the Afghan experience has finally reached decision makers.

Quote from moonlight

Otherwise, some product of educational inclusion may actually decide that he has a real mechanized connection at hand.

So they can decide now. It’s written as a division, which means we set tasks like a mechanized infantry division.

[Moonlight]

Quote: Alexey RA

On the contrary: tanks should support naked infantry companies of the Airborne Forces, deprived of heavy equipment. Your own tanks, with whom interaction has been worked out.

To begin with, it would be logical to equip these bare companies with at least mortars and heavy machine guns, and fatten the dystrophic strengths of the units to the level of real (“light” does not mean “funny”) infantry, designed to defeat the enemy on the battlefield.

[Alexey RA]

Quote from moonlight

To begin with, it would be logical to equip these naked companies with at least mortars and heavy machine guns, and fatten the dystrophic staff of the units to the level of a real

A squad of 10 people in the Airborne Forces? Group and heavy? This is trampling on the glorious traditions of the past! Get it urgently flamethrower with sacred promethium firewood and kerosene - we have a heretic here!

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

Let me remind you again that the Airborne Forces have fire support platoons and, thanks to the spacious BTR-RD and BTR-MDM, they are well armed. Due to the greater flexibility of the structure, in general, the Airborne Forces are better armed with heavy small arms, such as ATGMs, AGS, machine guns and 82 mm mortars. And with the ability to transport ammunition and equip it with drones, things are going better in the landing force, again thanks to the presence of tracked armored personnel carriers of high capacity and structural flexibility.
And in the same motorized rifle units there is still no clear understanding of why they need the BT-3F (naval) tracked transporter or the BMPT tank support combat vehicle. They want the answers to these questions to lie on the surface. The Airborne Forces and the Marine Corps understood everything long ago.

[Grim Reaper]

Anyway, for the last 70 years our airborne forces have been elite infantry.
+ + + + +
Alas
Until the year it's 93.

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

Does the 152-mm Malva, designed specifically for the Airborne Forces, fall within your understanding of normal artillery?

[Alexey RA]

Quote: Sergey Alexandrovich

Does the 152-mm Malva, designed specifically for the Airborne Forces, fall within your understanding of normal artillery?

So I wrote directly - the Airborne Forces need “salad”. We have only one such self-propelled gun - "Malva".

[George Sviridov]

Where can I see that mallow was made for the Airborne Forces? Because it's quite strange. As far as I know, mallows should first of all go to artillery regiments and brigades of army and corps reinforcement forces.

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

https://topcor.ru/35285-solncepek-t-72b3-i-malva-prevraschajut-vdv-v-vojska-bystrogo-reagirovanija.html

[George Sviridov]

Because wheeled vehicles on the battlefield do not perform very well. But wheeled artillery, which can quickly move and enhance fire capabilities in those sectors of the front where it is most needed, is very good, and it is precisely as mobile forces that mallows will be more effective than bridges and hyacinths.

[Sergey Aleksandrovich]

Malva will go into the landing force; motorized riflemen have Msta-S and Akatsiya. The advantages of a wheeled 152 mm howitzer are not obvious to them.

[TermNachTer]

The SVO showed that both “strikers” and “marders” and “deliriums” burn well))) there is no absolutely indestructible armored vehicle. In general, it doesn’t happen in nature.

[Mikhail3]

I fully support this. The only thing that needs to be done is to work with the concept of “landing”. Because throwing tanks out of the sky these days, to put it mildly, is not the smartest idea. Yes, and they need to leave parachute training (very useful from the point of view of the growth of combat skill and moral-volitional strength), but tanks and other equipment should be supplied to them in a normal, ground-based version. This will be ten times more effective and useful.

[cat Rusich]

Quote: Mikhail3

. The only thing that needs to be done is to work with the concept of “landing”. Because throwing tanks out of the sky these days, to put it mildly, is not the smartest idea. Yes, and they need to leave parachute training (very useful from the point of view of the growth of combat skill and moral-volitional strength).

RAP turns into “bayonet fighting” - uplifting exercises, but not applicable in real combat...
I understand that everyone needs to pass the traffic rules paratroopers, but there may be a reasonable need to reduce the RAP to the simple ability to fold a parachute and jump with a parachute several times (2-3 times).
Spend the rest of your time studying land methods of preparing for combat.

[bone1]

I wonder what kind of airborne forces it will be with tanks?

[TermNachTer]

Absolutely logical and correct. At the mattresses, the 82nd Airborne Division and the 101st Airborne Division have regular battalions of helicopters, transport and fire support. Why not introduce a mixed helicopter regiment into the division. The question is, where can we get so many additional helicopters and pilots?

[Victorovich]

The mattresses have a tank division with a regiment of attack helicopters!!!
and their interaction has been worked out.

[TermNachTer]

Maybe a regiment, the terms are not important. In general, mattress covers have very unique terms. The Patriot air defense systems have been organized into battalions. The question is - where to get so many helicopters and pilots for them?

[George Sviridov]

Reassign from VKS forces. Fundamentally, it won’t change much, but the chain of command will be reduced. Because the battalion commander/regiment commander will be able to directly call the helicopters where and when they are needed.

[tchoni]

It’s high time for the Airborne Forces to be reorganized into normal assault units.. This is clear even from Afghanistan.. With heavy infantry fighting vehicles (capable of actually moving across the BATTLE FIELD and holding a mine explosion (I hope no one has any more questions about the viability of the mine threat?), which of RPGs (at least) or even from ATGMs will arrive... With tanks integrated into the units as a means of fire support... With attached engineering units and so on, so on, so on... And their combat training is top notch... And technique... Let's just say... "Slightly cardboard."

[erased]

What the hell are the Airborne Forces and Marines doing on the front end? Why is so much money and effort poured into training personnel and creating airborne equipment? So that the landing forces are stupidly thrown into battle like infantry? What's the point of saturating the landing forces with tanks? Then it’s easy to reorganize the airborne divisions into infantry divisions and equip them with normal equipment according to the states of motorized rifle formations.
The fact of the presence of specially trained formations in forward positions indicates the inability of the ground forces to solve their problems. Well, about the genius of the military leadership, throwing troops intended for other purposes into battle.
But they still want to increase them quantitatively. Hey, common sense!

[tchoni]

Like which one? They work as well-trained and motivated infantry))) as always for the last 40 years]]]

[Victorovich]

This is the right question!!!!!
What are the Airborne Forces doing in the Northern Military District??? Where did they land??? Gostomel - and that's it... but how they parachuted - and just from helicopters... so in the program "I'm Watching the Soviet Union" every Sunday they showed how ordinary motorized riflemen jumped out of helicopters and they weren't airborne forces at all.
And the Marines are the same question.
Why don’t units and divisions of the Strategic Missile Forces participate in the Northern Military District???

[Alexey RA]

Quote from Victor

Why don’t units and divisions of the Strategic Missile Forces participate in the Northern Military District???

Participating. Carrying out combat duty in places of permanent deployment and in positional areas.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: erased

What the hell are the Airborne Forces and Marines doing on the front end? Why is so much money and effort poured into training personnel and creating airborne equipment? So that the landing forces are stupidly thrown into battle like infantry?

Welcome to the real world. In which the Airborne Forces have been used as infantry for forty years. And sometimes they even change their status to infantry.

Quote: erased

The fact of the presence of specially trained formations in forward positions indicates the inability of the ground forces to solve their problems. Well, about the genius of the military leadership, throwing troops intended for other purposes into battle.

And about the genius of the leadership of the Airborne Forces, which for half a century has managed to build its own branch of troops for war in some parallel reality.
While in our reality, the use of the Airborne Forces as a reinforcement of the ground forces began under dear Leonid Ilyich.

Quote: erased

But they still want to increase them quantitatively.

Yeah... and without increasing the number of BTA. Lovely, lovely...

[MaKeNa]

Let's be honest, the Airborne Forces are slowly turning into ordinary infantry, but to be frank, everyone is afraid of what. Well, this is already a fact!!! The tasks that the Airborne Forces were facing can no longer be completed! The SVO showed this. Well, don’t throw away our division, don’t throw it away. And the tanks and artillery are a motorized rifle division with parachute training! And I’m generally silent about the enemy’s rear, we don’t work there in any way, our raid groups don’t make any noise there, alas. This is the reality.

[George Sviridov]

Who told you that groups in the rear don't work?
A friend of mine recently spent 18 days behind the front line, and he made a lot of shorter sorties for a week.

[MaKeNa]

Let's be honest, the Airborne Forces are slowly turning into ordinary infantry, but to be frank, everyone is afraid of what. Well, this is already a fact!!! The tasks that the Airborne Forces were facing can no longer be completed! The SVO showed this. Well, don’t throw away our division, don’t throw it away. And the tanks and artillery are a motorized rifle division with parachute training! And I’m generally silent about the enemy’s rear, we don’t work there in any way, our raid groups don’t make any noise there, alas. This is the reality.

[vvn_vl]

I’m very happy for the airborne forces, but who will explain how the airborne forces can reach the release point in modern conditions? Or, as they write: “…. The Ministry of Defense suppressed air defense?!

[Chief Officer Lom]

In the past, the Airborne Forces have repeatedly demonstrated the need for the simultaneous availability and use of both specialized airborne equipment and “conventional” tanks

Can you tell me where the Airborne Forces at least once demonstrated the need for specialized airborne equipment, besides exercises? Maybe the equipment was landed in Gostomel?
Elite units are needed, but their weapons must correspond to reality. Cavalry units exist in the USA, but they haven’t had horses for a long time....

[bug120560]

I read and think - what a wonderful, great Russian language. Only in it there is a saying: “make a fool pray to God, he will break his forehead.”
Instead of changing, based on the experience of the North Military District, the combat training program for conscript soldiers so that the army can fight, the “great reformers” are in a hurry to “break their foreheads”, essentially “cancelling” Margelov’s life’s work, turning the Airborne Forces into ordinary ground forces.

[George Sviridov]

It has long been proposed to supply units of the Airborne Forces, Marine Corps and Special Forces of the GRU with our helicopters, and to transfer the Mi-24/35 to them as an attack component, and leave the Mi-28m and Ka-52 in the army aviation. (At the same time, it is natural to leave the Ka family as the ship’s turntables).
This will rationally reduce logistics costs.