Military Review

Is the "old" well forgotten to become the "new"? Part-1

60
Prologue


All over the world we have only two faithful ally - our army and navy. All the rest at the first opportunity will turn on us. Our country, of course, needs a strong and well-organized army, standing at the height of the modern development of military affairs, but not for aggressive purposes, but solely to safeguard the integrity and state honor of Russia.
Alexander III


Is the "old" well forgotten to become the "new"? Part-1


Introduction

The unrestrained powerful wave of criticism, not just sweeping, but covering the domestic armored vehicles with their heads, forces the design engineers of the industry to hide their heads in the sand before the public and lie about the nature of their activities in a decent company. Moreover, when the glory of foreign samples is washed away the remnants of pride and absorbs young minds full of promising ideas.

Dozens of Internet portals wash their bones for days on end: some defend, others criticize, others observe, fourth laugh at already old-age BMPs, armored personnel carriers, BMDs and tanks. The tone of the conversation, with rare exceptions, smoothly flows from the scientific to the elevated. The “commentators” shirts burst at the seams in an effort to defend their point of view. Even war veterans are divided into those who curse the designers of tanks, armored personnel carriers, infantry fighting vehicles and infantry fighting vehicles for the "coffins" they created, the "mass graves of infantry", and those who gratefully kissed the armor of the above armored vehicles.

However, in the heat of the emotions you cannot find the truth, therefore the author, having his own experience of “live” communication with Russian armored vehicles, decided to dig in the library and draw some appropriate conclusions.

There are a great many literatures on this subject. You can even find, if you are not too lazy, a scientific and technical rationale for the excessive mobility of T-80 type tanks made by defenders of a competing type T-72 (T-90), namely, UVZ officers. Excessive speed, according to which, could lead to serious consequences in the event of a tank hitting at full speed, say a stump or a tree, and, therefore, there was no need for a tank to have such high speed characteristics. Laughing enough, the author shed a tear from the unconsciousness of some representatives of his "tribe" of engineers.

Having rejected pseudoscientific articles full of emotions, but deprived of meaning and sense, the author dived into the “fundamental” works in order to understand the subject of the conversation: what is BTR, BMP, BMD, tank in general? Why are they all in their diversity and splendor needed? Is it true that the armor protection of domestic armored personnel carriers is insufficient in the conditions of modern requirements for armored vehicles? What are its main disadvantages, and are there any solutions? “Who is to blame for this?”, That is, what is the reason for the inconsistency of the domestic armored personnel carrier with modern requirements. “What to do?”, That is, if there is a way to catch up and overtake the adversaries?

Now, deeper into the topic, focusing on the questions posed, first things first, openly and impartially.

Part 1
According to the letter of the law ...


The questions are truly difficult, they will not be answered on the fly. In any case, any sphere has its own foundations and its own base, therefore, the initial introduction to the answers should start from the beginning. With apparent tediousness, the concepts below will be further claimed and will help to easily navigate the controversial points.

Term - this word or phrase, which is the name of a concept of some field of science, technology, art, and the like. The terms serve as specializing, restrictive designations characteristic of a particular sphere of objects, phenomena, their properties and relations. Unlike words of general vocabulary, which are often ambiguous and carry emotional coloring, terms within the scope of application are unambiguous and lack expression.

Definition - a logical procedure for giving a strictly fixed meaning to the terms. Displays the essential features, properties and characteristics of the object in order to form differences from other objects. That is, the definition is the “mother” of the term.

Why such a formality? Very simple. When the authors or commentators of the articles say the word “tank” or “mobility,” it seems that they are talking about quite understandable things. But has anyone wondered what a “tank” is? What is the difference between “mobility” and “transportability”? Unfortunately, for all its seeming simplicity, not all professionals will be able to explain what a “tank” is from a military point of view. They will even fight for who will give the definition of the term. Therefore, when it comes to the BMP, BMD, and BTR, they often forget that these are completely different cars and hide behind the same “modern requirements” taken from the ceiling. At first glance, everything is obvious: BMD - for the landing, BMP - for the infantry, what is there to understand? However, these are terms that have been defined, describing their differences, purpose, properties, and so on.

In order not to be unfounded and to confirm the validity of their judgments, in the future to avoid mistakes and false judgments, I will give several official definitions, as well as the thoughts of leading industry experts. So that the authors of the works do not hurt me, and the picky reader could get to know the subject in more depth, the author will cite the list of sources at the end of the article. So, first take a closer look at armored vehicles.

BTR - armored personnel carrier (armored transporter); armored combat vehicle designed to deliver personnel of motorized rifle subunits to the place of the combat mission. In exceptional cases, in the absence of anti-tank weapons, the BTR can support infantry with machine-gun fire.

Motorized rifle units in the offensive, depending on the degree of enemy repression, can act on armored personnel carriers or on foot. On the APC, they act when the enemy’s defenses, especially his anti-tank weapons, are reliably suppressed (nuclear weapons), as well as during the pursuit of retreating enemy groups.

Generally speaking, the BTR is not a means of struggle, but first of all a means of delivery, a vehicle, and no more. Armament is attached to it mostly for defense against enemy manpower. Thus, in fact, the BTR is a small-capacity truck with lightly armored sides and a roof (instead of a canvas awning) and a relatively hermetic body with equipment for protection against weapons of mass destruction. In other words, you do not want to go on an armored troop-carrier - get into the back of KAMAZ, ZIL or the Urals, which are also the army vehicles for delivering personnel to the place of accomplishment of the assigned combat mission.

Figure 1 - BTR-60


It is obvious that the transportation of personnel in the armored personnel carrier in a combat situation significantly increases the survivability of the infantry in comparison with trucks, especially in the case of the use of weapons of mass destruction by the enemy. However, in exceptional cases, BTR can also be used as a means of control. A similar trick performed by military trucks would never have occurred to anyone.

Conclusion: BTR is the best land vehicle for motorized rifle units.
The closest class armored vehicles are BMP and BMD.

BMP - Infantry fighting vehicle; armored combat vehicle designed to deliver personnel of motorized rifle subunits to the place of accomplishment of a combat mission, increasing its mobility, armament and security on the battlefield under the conditions of use of nuclear weapons and joint operations with tanks in battle (according to maintenance and IE on BMP-1 1972 year such a task was not assigned to the car). In this case, BMPs are assigned tasks such as the destruction of enemy personnel, the defeat of lightly armored vehicles, the fight against low-flying air targets and, if necessary, with enemy tanks. In addition, the units on the BMP are used to perform the final actions in battle - they destroy the remnants of the enemy troops and seize the territory. The combination of the actions of tanks and infantry fighting vehicles significantly expands the combat capabilities of the combined-arms formations.

Figure 2 - BMP-1 Column on the march


That is, the BMP, sorry for the expression, it is "nedotank-bust." The BMP will go into the fray before (instead of) the BTR, but only behind the tanks (more on this later). That is why BMPs, as a rule, have a tracked course in order to be mobility on a par with tanks. The BMP is designed for attacking actions and is maximally protected in the frontal projection where the MTO is located, which serves as additional protection. The freedom of action of the BMP is given only in the rear of the enemy, where there are no minefields and no anti-tank weapons deployed. The objectives for the BMP are secondary for the purpose of the tank, which, above all, fighting with the enemy tanks. The need to fight tanks at the BMP may arise if the tank wave "chokes."

Conclusion: The BMP is a ground-based type of transport and a means of struggle for motorized infantry, designed to counter its own kind (enemy armored vehicles of a similar class) so that tanks do not get distracted by combat in them.

Figure 3 - BMP-1 exercises support tanks


BMD - Airborne combat vehicle; armored vehicle of the airborne troops, intended for the movement of personnel and combat; combat armored tracked amphibious assault vehicle, parachuted, parachute jet or landing method. The BMD boosts the maneuverability, firepower and security of the airborne units from the fire of conventional weapons, allows them to fight without dismounting the paratroopers, ensuring close interaction with other combat vehicles of the airborne forces. The actions of dismounted parachute units BMD support fire their guns and machine guns.

Figure 4 - BMD-1 enters Kosovo


That is, the BMD is nothing more than the "workhorse" of the paratroopers, an analogue of the army UAZ or the same trucks. Why create a specialized hybrid BTR and BMP?

Classically, the actions of the Airborne Forces involve the landing from the air in the enemy's rear or in geographically remote areas, the seizure and retention of a bridgehead until the main forces arrive. In the rear of the enemy, paratroopers need high mobility and sufficiently powerful support tools, including armored vehicles. Since the enemy’s armored vehicles were considered the most dangerous for the landing after landing, it needed to have more powerful weapons than the small and light tanks of that time.

Figure 5 - Two BMD-2 are preparing for loading on the Mi-26


On the other hand, back in the 1960-x airborne forces have become a permanent element of the operational construction of front-line associations. The depth of landing increased, the requirements for the speed of disembarkation and the duration of independent actions increased. In conditions when the enemy had tank, mechanized and airborne units, various reconnaissance means and accurate missile and artillery weapons, equipping the landing with armored transport and combat vehicles, providing protection against small arms and the ability to fight with various armored means of the enemy, seemed a natural solution. also have good mobility on rough terrain.

The task, the solution of which was to be ensured by the airborne assault vehicle, was formulated by the commander of the Airborne Forces Hero of the Soviet Union, Colonel General (later Army General) VF Margelov: “To fulfill our role in a modern operation, our units and units must be highly maneuverable, covered with armor, had sufficient fire efficiency, well-managed, able to parachute at any time of the day and quickly move to active hostilities after landing. "

When creating and choosing airborne vehicles, the capabilities of military transport aircraft were decisive aviation and landing systems. This determined the requirements for weight, dimensions, fastening, speed of loading on the plane, as well as unloading or landing. The BMP-1 adopted by the Soviet Army did not fit into these requirements. Firstly, its combat weight of 13 tons allowed the transport by An-12 plane (the main military transport aircraft of that time) of only one BMP (with a limited number of aircraft carrying airborne assault forces, this did not allow the transfer of a sufficient number of military vehicles with crews ) Secondly, at that time there were no landing systems suitable for BMP-1.

Figure 6 - Trophy BMD-1


Thus, for the BMD operating in the rear of the enemy, there is nothing for mine defense. In other words, BMD is, exaggeratedly speaking, the domestic Hummer. Yes, it is longer in length by 800 mm, in width by 530 mm and 170 in height (on the roof of the tower); the total mass of the Hummer 4700 kg, BMD - 7200 kg. But add to Hammer armor, a gun with a tower and put it on the tracks, teach not to fall apart after landing from the air and you will understand why BMD is respected in NATO. Also, speaking of conducting combat using BMD, it is necessary to note its modifications such as 2C9 "Nona-S" and 2C25 "Sprut-SD". Two of these monsters can fight any enemy armored vehicles that they will deploy to destroy the landing force.

Figure 7 a) - SAU 2C9 "Nona-S"


Figure 7 b) - SAU 2C9 "Nona-S"


Figure 8 - SAU 2C25 "Sprut-SD"


Figure 9 - BMD-4


Thus, the difference between the three types of machines lies in the tasks that were assigned to them. BTR was mainly developed as an infantry vehicle, while the BMP and BMD were additionally assigned the task of supporting infantry with guns and machine guns in the offensive and defense.

Although many armored personnel carriers are equipped with sufficiently powerful large-caliber machine guns, the armament of these machines, as a rule, is not stabilized and has simplified sights, which limits its use mainly for self-defense purposes. To perform serious fire missions on the basis of the BTR, BMP and BMD, specialized armored vehicles were created (s): SAU, MLRS, SMK, ATGM, ZSU and so on.

The BMP and BMD differ from the BTR with higher protection and firepower. The armored personnel carrier, having a wheel course, considerably surpasses them in mobility under the conditions of a developed road infrastructure in order to transport infantry to the English Channel faster via motorways of the incinerated Europe.

All machines have anti-bullet armor, and its higher protective qualities are achieved by greater angles of inclination of the armor plates. Obviously, during the Cold War years, a bet was placed on light armored vehicles. Due to the geographical distance from each other, potential opponents relied on the landing. If the United States put on the Marine Corps, then in the USSR it was relied on the Airborne Forces. As a result, both in the one and in the other country, the obligatory requirement for the armored personnel carrier was its ability to overcome water obstacles, which it was easiest to provide with anti-bullet reservation. In fairness it should be noted that the opponents remained the same, their weapons of mass destruction did not evaporate anywhere, the continents did not get any closer, and teleporters were not invented.

Trying to keep up with their colleagues in NATO and the ATS, the Allied countries were guided when developing their armored vehicles on samples of "older brothers." It was only thanks to their own combat experience of these countries and the experience of local conflicts that new models of armored vehicles began to appear, such as heavy armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles that meet the “modern requirements” imposed on armored vehicles. But about them a little later.

Now it is worthwhile to briefly characterize the reference type of armored vehicles in terms of protection and power of weapons - MBT or simply “tank”.

Tank - mobile high-defensive melee fire weapon with powerful armament, realizing the principle “see - shoot”, being under the influence of almost all fire and other means of destruction available to the enemy. Designed to destroy tanks and other armored vehicles, anti-tank weapons, artillery, manpower and other targets in various climatic and weather conditions at any time of the day.

The tank is a means of fighting the enemy, which plays the dominant role of the first echelon of combat order in the offensive, making up the main strike force of the ground forces. At the same time, he shoots direct fire, that is, his element is open space. In the case of hostilities in the forest and in the populated area, tanks are poorly protected (meaning defense of the sides, stern and roof from special anti-tank weapons), since for these purposes the main means of combat is the motorized rifle platoon. In any case, the best means of fighting a tank is another tank.

Figure 10 - 279 Object


Generally speaking, a tank is a powerful specialized type of armored vehicle capable of effectively performing virtually any assigned combat mission, the most sophisticated ground weapon in terms of security and power of weapons. Otherwise, no one would ever develop, let alone buy the whole wide range of aviation, artillery and engineering ammunition for fighting tanks. Indeed, for example, people are afraid and do not like mosquitoes terribly, but mosquito complexes are far from being realized. Another thing is the tank, frightening and demoralizing the enemy before the clash.

Figure 11 - MBT T-84 "Hold"


At this nomenclature of special armored vehicles does not end there. Here are the most relevant and interesting representatives of a separate class of engineering equipment for this article.

MTU - tank bridge laying; armored engineering vehicle on the basis of a tank chassis, which is intended for transportation, as well as installation and removal through the built-in mechanisms of the bridge structure in a combat situation in order to ensure the advancement of tanks and other combat vehicles. All working operations are performed by the machine remotely, without the need to leave the crew.

For example, MTU-90. It leads one aluminum single-span (assault) bridge with a tonnage of 50 tons over obstacles up to 24 meters wide.

Figure 12 - MTU-90


BREM - Armored repair and recovery vehicle; tracked or wheeled vehicle of high cross, designed to evacuate damaged equipment from the battlefield, including from the enemy's fire, its repair and maintenance in the field, as well as for clearing debris, earth-moving, lifting and other work.

Figure 13 - BREM-1


Figure 14 - BREM-1M sets the track mine sweep on the BMR-3М


Figure 15 - BREM-80U


BMR - combat vehicle clearance; a special engineering vehicle designed to accompany military convoys and ensure their movement through mined areas, clearance of roads, column paths and making passages in mine-blast obstacles. The design of the armor felling, the internal layout of units, elements and control systems ensure the protection of the crew and the calculation, units and assemblies of the machine from the effects of anti-tank mine explosions under the chassis and bottom and from rifle-and-machine-gun fire;

In the fighting compartment of the vehicle, 3-4 places are provided for attached sappers. Anti-mine protection is made in the form of multi-layer structural barriers of special steel with filling, which are located inside and outside the bottom of the entire area of ​​the habitable compartment, frame and struts between the sides, bottom and roof of the cabin.

Figure 16 - BIS-3M


MTU, BREM and WRI, as a rule, are fundamentally different in the generations used by the type of chassis, the corresponding chassis of the MBT, BMP, BTR in order to unify the fleet of vehicles. Obviously, this technique should be in the first echelon with tanks.

MT-LB fell out of this review, which also deserves attention as an example of army armored vehicles, but rather within a whole separate article. It is worth noting another interesting product, which gives the carrier increased security and about which unfairly forgotten - KMT.

KMT - trackline mine trawl; it is intended for reconnaissance and overcoming of mine-explosive obstacles and is an individual hook-on means of protecting all modern types of tanks and infantry fighting vehicles and their modifications. By type is divided into boikovy, katkovy, knife and combined. Provides reliable trawling of anti-tracked and anti-bottom mines with a probability greater than 90% in various ground conditions and in snow. Provided for use with EMT electromagnetic prefix for mines trawling with proximity magnetic fuses and with additional sections from pin anti-bottom mines.

Figure 17 - KMT-10 Knife Track Barrier for BMP


Thus, we have a fleet of specialized armored vehicles for various purposes, capable of performing a wide range of combat missions, the combined use of which makes it possible to operate effectively in an all-arms battle, including in overcoming engineering obstacles and water obstacles.
Stop! And what is a general combat battle?

The battle - the main active form of actions of military units (subunits, units, formations) on a tactical scale, organized armed clashes, limited on the ground and in time. It is a set of strikes, fire and maneuver of troops coordinated by target, place and time. Can be defensive or offensive. Types of combat: general military; air; anti-air; nautical.

General combat - a battle involving subunits, units and formations of various types of troops of the Ground Forces and other types of Armed Forces, whose efforts are united by a single plan and plan and agreed upon by purpose, time and place. Can be offensive and defensive. Combined combat is usually part of the operation (battle) and only occasionally carried out to achieve a private goal outside it.

Figure 18 - All-Arms Fight, Exercise


The main factors determining the development of the battle are changes in weapons and equipment and army personnel. In addition, the nature of operations and the war as a whole, the requirements of operational art and tactical strategy, also influence the development of combat; organizational structure of the troops; the enemy - his weapons and equipment, the organization of troops, methods of action; the level of development of military theory, the degree of military and political training of troops, military traditions and national characteristics of the army.

Thus, when it comes to the fact that a combat vehicle must perform certain tasks in a combined arms battle, it means that it must either meet the requirements of all possible types of combat, its goals, time and place, or these requirements are formed under its characteristics .

Battle order - building (location) of a compound, unit, subunit with their reinforcement means for conducting combat. Must meet the plan and meet the goals of the upcoming battle, to ensure its successful conduct with the use of all types of weapons and the decisive defeat of the enemy to the full depth of the combat mission. It is closely interconnected with the combat missions assigned to the troops and the conditions of the situation. It includes the first echelon, the second echelon or (and) the general reserve: a missile unit, an artillery unit, an air defense unit and various purpose reserves, for example, RCBZ units, anti-tank and engineering units, special detachments, airborne assault forces (assault landing units).

Figure 19 - Motorized rifle unit on the march, exercises


In the attack at the forefront of the first echelon of combat order, tanks operate. Behind them, motorized rifle units (that is, BMP and BTR).

Offensive battle - a breakthrough of the enemy’s defense (defender), which is characterized by a strong blow to the entire depth of the enemy’s battle formation, a continuous fire attack of all its elements, a wide maneuver by the troops, and a constant build-up of combat efforts.

Meeting engagement - a type of offensive combat in which both sides seek to accomplish the task set by an offensive. The troops in a head-on battle have the goal of defeating the advancing enemy in a short time, seizing the initiative and creating favorable conditions for further actions.

Defensive fight - a battle, the main task of which is to repel the attack (strike) of the superior enemy forces, to inflict significant losses on it with available forces and means and to retain a certain point or area of ​​the terrain by taking defensive positions by the defending troops.

Full-scale fighting - military operations carried out by the armed forces of two or more parties (states).

Military operation - a form of military operations by armed forces, a set of coordinated and interrelated on purpose, tasks, location, time of battles, battles, strikes and maneuvers of diverse troops, which are conducted simultaneously and sequentially in accordance with a single concept and plan for solving problems in a particular theater of operations in a set period of time.

Operations differ in the number of troops participating in them (depending on the scale of the operation, they are strategic, front-line, army, as well as composition (combined-arms, all-fleet, joint); spatial scale, duration, and offensive operations - by depth and rate of advance.

Special operation - limited in scale, time, admission of secrecy, the number of units involved for the execution and the means of their reinforcement military offensive operation, characterized by a set of specific features of an individual character with clearly defined goals and objectives.

Ambush - an advance and carefully camouflaged location of the military or partisan units on the most likely paths of the enemy’s movement in order to defeat him with a sudden blow.

Figure 20 - Ambush on a column of Georgian troops during the Five Day War


This means that an ambush is an offensive special operation, the beginning of which the enemy becomes aware of immediately at the moment of his attack, and in fact at the moment of starting the first loss (damage). We conclude that it is impossible to avoid ambush, and that in any case there will be losses (in manpower or machinery). If the ambush was known in advance, or the enemy's plan was cracked up to attack, there will be either defensive or counter-fight.

What awaits armored vehicles when used as intended is now clear. How and for what purposes it should also be clear. The only question is: "Where?"

Fighting on a flat terrain - characterized by small relative elevations and a relatively small steepness of slopes with high maneuverability (if the terrain is not swamped and not crossed), low protection (meaning from OMP), good conditions for orientation, observation and firing, hampered by disguise. Plain terrain is usually more favorable for the organization and conduct of an offensive and less favorable for defense.

Figure 21 - Offensive on flat terrain, exercises


Fighting in a wooded area - characterized by obstructed maneuverability, good security, poor conditions for orientation, observation and firing, but good masking.

Fighting in settlements - have good permeability, high-protected, the sufficient conditions for orientation, observation and firing, a good disguise.

Fighting in the highlands - characterized by a large number of formidable natural barriers, the limited number of roads, peculiar weather conditions. Successful operations in the mountains require special training of personnel. When building a combat order of motorized rifle and tank units, special importance is attached to ensuring their tactical independence. Battalions and companies are amplified more than the usual amount of artillery, zenith and engineering tools. Motorized rifle units are attached to tanks, tank units - motorized rifle units. Artillery is distributed between the companies.

Figure 22 - Column of Soviet troops in the mountains of Afghanistan


Having dealt with the types of armored vehicles and its tasks, the theaters of hostilities turn to means of dealing with armored vehicles, because in order to deal with the degree of protection that meets the "modern requirements", you need to know the typical modern threats.

The most common means of dealing with armored vehicles is RPG. RPG - Hand-held anti-tank grenade launcher; designed for firing active-reactive grenades to fight tanks, self-propelled artillery installations and other enemy armored vehicles, can be used to destroy enemy manpower in shelters, as well as to combat low-flying air targets.


Figure 23 - Fighter with RPG-7 in ambush


To begin with, that the RPG still "anti-tank" and is designed to break through the thick armor of a tank. The fact that the BMP, BMD, and BTR make their way through them is not surprising - tanks also have hard times.
However, in fairness it should be noted that the task of the grenade thrower is also not easy. It is a dangerous anti-tank tool and is subject to priority destruction. The aim of the grenade launcher is to hit from the first shot, as those animated targets that were fired from an RPG are usually very sad, take it too critically and not friendly, as a serious insult, a threat to health, and at the same time extremely vindictive and prone to instantaneous manifestation of excessive aggressiveness and cruelty in their response actions.


Figure 24 - Shooting from LNG-9 in Lebanon from the roof of a house


RPG armor penetration from 150 to 750 mm homogeneous steel (the values ​​in the sources do not match). The effective (not to be confused with the sighting) range of various RPG samples from 100 to 300 m. In disposables - no more than 100 m. And this is for fixed targets in the absence of wind by experienced test arrows at the range.

Conclusion: the fight against tanks using RPGs is more of a partisan character (ambush), since any armed lightly armored target has a significant priority in effective firing range. Since during the preparation of the ambush the enemy knows the approximate composition of the column and the characteristics of the armored vehicles entering it, the RPG calculations are placed on the most advantageous positions for themselves - from the side projections of targets whose area is larger and where the booking is weaker. In the case of a successful hit, the probability of causing losses to the enemy is very high.
As a private, more expensive and developed version of the RPG, you can consider the ATGM. The firing range of the ATGM at the expense of the SLA is much higher, armor penetration is also higher, but the weight and size characteristics are naturally worse than that of the RPG. The cost of one modern RPG shot on average from 2000 US dollars. The cost of one similar ATGM is at least an order of magnitude higher. For comparison - the cost of the BTR-80 (although now buy) - from 100 000 US dollars (and with mileage from conservation - half the amount).

With all that, (according to reviews of colleagues who have been carrying out practical and training shots from RPGs and ATGMs at test sites of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation for years), not all cases of reliable operation are observed. After each firing Battalion landfill "smooth out" sappers and always with a "catch".

PTM - anti-tank mines; designed for mining areas in order to destroy tanks and other armored vehicles. Anti-tank mines are triggered when tanks, self-propelled guns, armored personnel carriers, other combat vehicles or vehicles are exposed to them and disable them.


Figure 25 - Wrecked Trophy Mine Warehouse in Afghanistan


Anti-tank mines are classified:
- by type of action on: protivogusenichnye, protivodnischevye, protivobortovye, protivokryshevye;
- by type of warhead: high-explosive and cumulative;
- by type of fuse on: contact and non-contact;
- production by type into: industrially manufactured and homemade (VCA - IEDs) or handicraft production.
Anti-tracked mines explode when hitting them with a track (wheel) and ensure the destruction of tracks (wheels) and running gear elements. Counter-bottom mines can be undermined anywhere on the bottom of a tank or other mobile equipment and provide penetration of the bottom, defeat of the crew, damage to components and assemblies of the target or destruction of the undercarriage elements. Anti-aircraft (anti-slip) mines explode when tanks and other mobile equipment enter the area of ​​the mine’s detonation and ensure penetration of the onboard armor (roof), destruction of the crew, damage to components and aggregates of the target.

It should be noted that MMT again "anti" and are designed to fight tanks with enhanced protection. In order to protect the BTR, BMP, BMD from the action of mines, it is necessary accordingly not only to increase the thickness of the tracks, the bottom, sides and roof, but also the rigidity of the whole hull.
Currently, the most popular remote-controlled mines. Their use allows you to get rid of some of the shortcomings of RPGs. In the case of a successful ambush attack, it is easy to build on success; otherwise, it’s easy to hide completely unnoticed.

A very important element of the mine is the type of explosives in the warhead. So, the combat units of the VCA are often made from industrial "semi-finished products" - TNT briquettes, PVV briquettes, and so on. Industry seeks to squeeze the maximum out of a mine, for which high explosives and alloys based on them are used.

Incendiary mixtures - cheap in the production of special sticky high-temperature incendiary compositions, easily prepared in both industrial and artisanal conditions. Effectively used by partisans in the fight against armored vehicles. The presence of termites poses a serious threat to any armored vehicles. Application limited to urban conditions due to the requirement of finding close to the target (the throw distance not exceeding 30 m).

Incendiary mixtures can flow into the deflectors of the air intakes of engines and life support systems, disabling the power plant and strangling the crew, leading to the fire of MTO; reduce the visibility of tank optical devices to zero; melt outdoor equipment; burn through armor.

From the point of view of the author, the most curious means was and is a small arms (more later). DShK, NSV or Cord, (CPV) - machine gun with tape feed chambered for 12,7 × 108 mm (14,5 × 114 mm); designed to combat lightly armed targets, fire weapons and manpower of the enemy, located behind light shelters at distances up to 1500 - 2000 m and defeat air targets at inclined distances to 1500 m. The penetration capability of an armor-piercing bullet when firing CPV - 30- 35 mm / 500 m / 0o RHA steel armor according to the NATO standard); NSV (BS bullets with a tungsten core) - 20 mm steel from a distance 750 m.


Figure 26 - Installing CPV on a homemade machine


The presence of powerful armor-piercing bullets speaks for itself about the high goal set for this type of weapon - the fight against light armored vehicles.

Thus, we are now reliably aware of the assignment of armored vehicles, how they should be exploited, what tanks were invented to combat armored vehicles, and that most of these funds are directed primarily to combat tanks.
Author:
Articles from this series:
Is the old well forgotten to become the new? (part-1)
Is the old well forgotten to become the new? (part-2) At the call of honor and duty
Is the old well forgotten to become the new? Part-3. Native questions or some analytics
60 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. vorobey
    vorobey April 10 2013 08: 55
    54
    As 25 years ago he returned to the first course of a tank school for a lecture on tactics.
    to the author plus. just did not hear anything new.
    And I repeat to all those who fail. the most protected infantryman on the battlefield is a soldier who falls and hides behind a pebble. But armored vehicles are needed to fight. And they are inevitable losses. iron burns the same way that American that Israeli that German.
    1. mejik
      mejik April 10 2013 09: 38
      17
      and what was new to sound? Likbez he is an educational program. Not for literate, but for the very opposite.
      But where is the literature promised at the end of the article?
      1. vorobey
        vorobey April 10 2013 09: 55
        15
        Quote: mejik
        But where is the literature promised at the end of the article?


        this is just a prologue. We look forward to continuing. By the way, if the author brings the concepts of Western and ours schools, and also further compares the tactics of actions, then the analysis will be more interesting.

        The other day, they argued with a German partner about tanks. Also, the tanker turned out to be. Leopard 1A3. As a result, they overtook the Americans. and so he said this: the army of the Bundeswehr is now planning to leave about 300 tanks. To the question why so few. the German replied. why do we have Americans.
        1. klimpopov
          klimpopov April 10 2013 10: 15
          10
          Here I also shy away from the forums. And bourgeois as well. So there the situation with the attitude to their armored vehicles is the same as ours. And Abram Hayat no less than our Hayat for example T-90 and BMP. And there is very little thoughtful. Although my knowledge of English is not super (there is a good translator).
          1. vorobey
            vorobey April 10 2013 10: 22
            10
            I welcome Klim. It is not a matter of wines or not. Without faith in your weapon, there is no victory.
            Rommel at one time called the Italians the bravest soldiers. They had the most backward equipment, the most lousy equipment and supplies, but they bravely entered the battle every time with Tommy.
            1. klimpopov
              klimpopov April 10 2013 11: 31
              15
              Well, I just wanted to tell you that this is not only our tendency.
              For example, I consider our armored vehicles the most beautiful and reliable. Whatever it is.
              I repeat, everyone is burning - some are slightly better, others are slightly worse ..
              The tower from him meters on 30 flew away ....
            2. klimpopov
              klimpopov April 10 2013 11: 33
              12
              Here is another good photo. Clear.
              1. OTAKE
                OTAKE April 11 2013 07: 02
                -2
                The flag is on a typewriter, Iraqi lol
                1. klimpopov
                  klimpopov April 12 2013 17: 25
                  0
                  So what? And whose machine is it made?
          2. kaprall
            kaprall April 10 2013 14: 05
            +9
            And who habits our tanks? MO with Taburetkin ??? Well, and what to expect from them was something. The problem is organization and interaction, and for this, exercises and as much as possible are needed, plus the generals should form on the basis of participation in hostilities, and not constantly serving in the Arbat Military District
          3. Nick
            Nick April 10 2013 21: 00
            +1
            Quote: klimpopov
            Here I also shy away from the forums. And bourgeois as well. So there the situation with the attitude to their armored vehicles is the same as ours.

            No wonder. It is impossible to create the perfect technique for all operating conditions and for all types of military operations ...
            1. klimpopov
              klimpopov April 12 2013 17: 26
              +2
              But in my opinion, many do not understand this.
        2. Andrey57
          Andrey57 April 10 2013 21: 55
          14
          At the end of winter, he read the post of Amer’s tanker, he described the actions of the crew during the battles in Iraq, so he did not blame our T-72, but very respectfully spoke of our dynamic defense, our rangefinders, which, according to him, were much better than on Abramsah, in addition, he said that the automatic loader on our tanks is a very big advantage, he described in detail what kind of monkey to be. in order to load the Abrams cannon on the go and not be crippled, at the same time, he said that it was the loaders who had a lot of injuries and injuries. So the homegrown carers of our technology can safely shut up. hi
          1. OTAKE
            OTAKE April 11 2013 07: 05
            -4
            Quote: Andrey57
            At the end of winter, he read the post of Amer’s tanker, he described the actions of the crew during the battles in Iraq, so he did not blame our T-72, but very respectfully spoke of our dynamic defense, our rangefinders, which, according to him, were much better than on Abramsah, in addition, he said that the automatic loader on our tanks is a very big advantage, he described in detail what kind of monkey to be. in order to load the Abrams cannon on the go and not be crippled, at the same time, he said that it was the loaders who had a lot of injuries and injuries. So the homegrown carers of our technology can safely shut up. hi

            Oh, okay, right, respectful? Can I have a proof? maybe you reviewed it on "Shock Force"? The automatic loader according to the scheme used in our tanks does more harm than good. First, the crew literally sits on a barrel of gunpowder. And although the charges, even when exposed to them from below with a cumulative jet, will not give a one-time explosion, their burning out will make the crew "nervous". And this is only half the trouble. The transporter contains only 22 shots out of 42. Where are the rest? That's right, in the stowage inside the tower hull (as Wikipedia says). True, she is silent that these stowages are located right in the additional right and rear storage tank. As you know, ammunition rarely explodes, basically it just starts to burn out. The burnt charges heat up the tanks (in which there is rarely a lot of fuel, because most often tanks enter the battle from the march) and the mixture inside them explodes. By the way, not a single case of the destruction of Abrams associated with the detonation of ammunition was recorded. This is due to the fact that the shots are isolated there. With the overpressure created by the burning of the shells, the ejection panels are "thrown" and the shells simply burn upward. The fact that the projectiles are in the stack while standing, the pressure access to the projectile capsule is difficult to detonate. But the automatic turret is a very convenient thing. The sight is a little inconvenient, but the control is very simple, it can even shoot from it (if, of course, it can turn on the electric drive).
    2. Alekseev
      Alekseev April 10 2013 13: 22
      21
      This is for you, brother, article truths.
      And on the forum there are many young "lovers" and, even, idiots, model constructors of all kinds, who represent the BTT as something like a tank from the series "Iron Kaput" laughing
      They are hotly discussing what will happen if the "Lynx" armored car runs into a PT mine? what
      Or how to escape in a BTR-80 from a cumulative grenade? Or why do we need a light BTT. After all, you can hide from the adversaries in a 65-ton heavy armored personnel carrier? Or not ... lol
      Illusions must be avoided.
      And this article is useful.
      1. nycsson
        nycsson April 13 2013 22: 15
        +1
        Something is wrong with the site! I can only enter articles on running pictures! On the main page, where I don’t click, the game of tanks pops up !!! I go to anyone in PM, where I do not click, again the game of tanks! request I add a comment, it automatically throws me to the title of the article! request
  2. avt
    avt April 10 2013 09: 15
    11
    Quote: vorobey
    As 25 years ago he returned to the first course of a tank school for a lecture on tactics.
    to the author plus. just did not hear anything new.

    Yes, nothing new, but before discussing how good wills it is, it is advisable for many to read this. Well, then actually ask yourself why this or that sample is needed and whether it is needed at all. And not to grab another garage miracle from Discovery. Article + We look forward to continuing.
  3. Canep
    Canep April 10 2013 09: 36
    10
    Journalists and reporters writing about the hostilities need to read this article, otherwise it’s such nonsense they write ... Likbez, so to speak.
    1. datur
      datur April 10 2013 18: 02
      +4
      [quote = Canep] Journalists and reporters writing about the hostilities need to read this article, otherwise it’s such nonsense they write ... Likbez so to speak. so they don’t need them at all, they’re the most, most important specialists in everything, yes even worse than the military and designers !!! wassat laughing
  4. stas52
    stas52 April 10 2013 09: 38
    14
    They will soon appear and begin to minus the article. I already somehow tried to explain to people about the APC that this is primarily a TRANSPORTER.
    Also now, there are likely to be references to riding on the armor due to poor protection, I already said that, but I repeat: armor riding began in Afghanistan, the reason is not bad protection, but elementary heat. I was not interested as it is now, but there were no kondeas before, therefore, it was like death in an iron box, and even next to the engine at ambient temperature under 50.
  5. Deniska
    Deniska April 10 2013 09: 41
    0
    Everything is good in its own way. But the trend leads to unification. It is necessary to combine as many different species as possible and preferably on a common platform.
    1. Nick
      Nick April 10 2013 21: 10
      +1
      Quote: Deniska
      But the trend leads to unification. It is necessary to combine as many different species as possible and preferably on a common platform.

      Unification options are also limited. It is impossible to create a single platform for both floating BMD and MBT ...
      1. Deniska
        Deniska April 11 2013 17: 14
        +1
        This is of course true, but these same BMDs can be made in various equipment (depending on the tasks or the area of ​​action) on a common platform
  6. urganov
    urganov April 10 2013 09: 44
    +2
    Yes, "the water in the sky is dark." "author, write ische".
  7. Parabelum
    Parabelum April 10 2013 10: 04
    +9
    I understand this is an educational program, which the author has filed quite widely and extensively. A very pedantic approach, I look forward to continuing.
  8. JonnyT
    JonnyT April 10 2013 10: 06
    +7
    A good article, a detailed presentation of the material (in pictures)))). Remember Newton’s second law, there is a reaction to every action. Which would not be a super secure technique, there will always be a super defeat!
  9. Nayhas
    Nayhas April 10 2013 10: 22
    +4
    The author is certainly a fine fellow, he painted everything correctly, but somehow he did not indicate that all of the above refers to the theory of a big war, the probability of which practically tends to zero. All these opuses about the dash to the English Channel through Europe, incinerated by the atom, look beautiful and epic, but no more. In reality, however, many years of anti-guerrilla and mine action warfare from Afghanistan to Georgia, where armored vehicles intended for the "big war" have shown their weak consistency. No airborne assault, forcing water obstacles, tank attacks, etc. Yes, BMD and its large family would have shown themselves perfectly behind enemy lines by capturing an airfield somewhere in West Germany, but on the streets of Grozny or in the mountains of Afghanistan and the Caucasus, it has no advantages over the usual MT-LB, on the contrary, it turned out that aluminum armor was on fire like a torch ... Yes, in a frontal attack, the landing in the BMP is covered by both armor and the engine, but when attacking from the flank from the greenery, the landing force inside has little chance of surviving ... Yes, Soviet technology was not bad for a big war, but IT DIDN'T HAPPEN, for other operations, this technique was poorly adapted and at the cost of this many soldiers' lives ... If it came to the Americans quickly, then we are intoxicatedly dancing on the rake, which we first stepped on in 1979.
    1. vorobey
      vorobey April 10 2013 10: 37
      +9
      Quote: Nayhas
      that all of the above applies to the theory of the great war, the probability of which practically tends to zero.


      quite a bold statement.

      Quote: Nayhas
      In reality, however, many years of anti-guerrilla and mine action from Afghanistan to Georgia, where the armored vehicles intended for the "big war" have shown their weak consistency. No airborne assault, forcing water obstacles, tank attacks, etc.


      moot point. the author did not focus attention in the article that the battle in the city is the most difficult type of military operations. And if you focus directly on Grozny, then compare the tactics of action in the first and second campaigns and the number of losses. even the defeated columns are the result of the incompetence of command and direct betrayal.

      An ideal machine does not exist in principle, but it is unfair to talk about what is available badly.
      1. Nayhas
        Nayhas April 10 2013 11: 25
        0
        "a pretty bold statement." - well, if not a resident of Korea, of course ...
        The author of his article says that the recent dispute over domestic armored vehicles is empty, they say for the purposes that it was created it was quite consistent. But damn it so what? If you have a shovel, and you need to dig up the earth, then you probably need to change it to a bayonet? And not groaning and sweating, breaking one shovel shovel after another to dig up the earth. If we have been having a flaming Caucasus for many years and a mine war is not uncommon, then HERE ARE BMD-4 and SPRUT US? Where are our generals going to land on condition that the BTA is reduced?
        "The ideal machine does not exist in principle, but it is unfair to talk about what is available." - each vehicle has a purpose, the purpose of the BMD to act behind enemy lines against the local police armed only with small arms, in no other conditions it should not act! BMP-1/2/3 are not designed to fight partisans using mines and anti-tank grenade launchers, which means that they cannot be used in such conditions. For this, MRAP and heavy armored personnel carriers / infantry fighting vehicles have already been invented, providing both mine protection and protection from RPGs, everything else to discuss?
        1. vorobey
          vorobey April 10 2013 11: 45
          10
          Quote: Nayhas
          For this, MRAP and heavy armored personnel carriers / BMPs have already been invented that provide both mine protection and RPG protection, everything else to discuss?


          What is Mrap - the same armored personnel carrier with improved mine protection and compensating chairs. It is not intended for anything else.

          What is a heavy armored personnel carrier - the same tank only without a tower. What's new?

          Quote: Nayhas
          each machine has a mission, a BMD mission to act behind enemy lines against the local police armed only with small arms, it should not act under any other conditions! BMP-1/2/3 are not designed to combat partisans using mines and anti-tank grenade launchers, which means they cannot be used in such conditions.


          Teach you at the academy.

          And at the dawn of my service in the exercises with three tanks and BMP2, I ambushed into battle with a tank company of a conditional antagonist. So the BMP2 maneuver and fire allowed me not only to withdraw all the vehicles from under the fire, but also mixed the enemy’s order from the flank and caught up with us along the way. the main thing is to skillfully use and set the task correctly for the crew. Although BMP 2 is not intended for this.


          I wrote earlier about this

          Quote: Nayhas
          If we have been having a flaming Caucasus for many years and a mine war is not uncommon, then HERE ARE BMD-4 and SPRUT US?


          and we have there that octopus and BMD 4 are wound in the mountains?
          You don’t know the mountain specifics. On foot, on foot.

          and by the way the simplest. let's not mix explosives and combined arms in a bunch. we separate the grain from the chaff.
          1. Nayhas
            Nayhas April 10 2013 13: 40
            0
            Let's start with the fact that all the disputes in the network at the expense of our technology are mainly on the security of both the landing party and the crew. And if in a global war of the 2MB type the requirements related to MRAP are not required for the BTR-80, then for Iraq, Afghanistan, the Caucasus, MRAP is needed.
            "What is a heavy armored personnel carrier - the same tank only without a turret. What's new?" - no, this is not a tank without a turret, the layout is different, the presence of landing hatches, ramps, the armor is not distributed across zones, but is the same everywhere, capable of withstanding a shot from modern RPGs.
            "You should teach at the academy." - thanks of course, but this is from a series of stories "Captain Evidence"
            "The main thing is to skillfully use and set the task correctly to the crew. Although the BMP 2 is not intended for this." - The example of the use of BMP you described refers to the classic military operations, but damn the militants have no tanks. The fact that you were able to use the BMP outside the box is commendable, but I doubt that you will have to use such an experience when.
            "and we have there that octopuses and BMD 4 dangle in the mountains" - BMD-1 and 2 rode, and went to Grozny, does the fact of using BMD / armored personnel carriers in street battles seem logical to you?
            "You don't know the specifics of the mountains. On foot, on foot." - to the landing site only by cars, providing units with fuel, ammunition, food only by cars. Perhaps you traveled everywhere on foot, but we preferred to get to the place by transport and then on foot, because time is precious, it gets dark early in the mountains ...
            "Let's not mix explosives and combined arms units in a heap. Separate the wheat from the chaff." - Duc for the explosives no one creates special equipment, and "combined arms formations" are constantly being attracted for police operations ...
            1. klimpopov
              klimpopov April 10 2013 16: 14
              +2
              Sorry to interfere. But in the first Chechen one, the militants had both infantry fighting vehicles and tanks (there were definitely T-72). Just a remark. I do not get involved in a dispute because I am not competent.
              1. Nayhas
                Nayhas April 10 2013 17: 20
                +1
                The use of armored vehicles by militants was at the beginning of the first war, was focal in nature and almost all was destroyed by aircraft, or abandoned. Only one successful case of using a tank is known, but this is not characteristic. The enemy’s lack of aviation makes his armored vehicles vulnerable.
                1. max702
                  max702 April 10 2013 18: 49
                  +2
                  HERE! Dear you, you answered an exciting question with absolute superiority in the air; it is easier, more reliable and safer to destroy armored vehicles by AVIATION !! and not butt off your armored vehicles for it’s too wide ... And we are all abrams .. leopard .. t80-90 all this is garbage, AVIATION and not any nails !!!
                  1. Kars
                    Kars April 10 2013 19: 02
                    +2
                    Quote: max702
                    VIACTION and not what nails !!!

                    are you going to repeat the First World War? How many corpses for each firing point do you allocate? Or do you think there will be enough for ALL URs?
                    1. max702
                      max702 April 10 2013 19: 31
                      +2
                      Well .. I'm talking about absolute superiority fellow Yes, and I meant to butt with the armored vehicles of the enemy.
            2. stas52
              stas52 April 11 2013 07: 04
              0
              Quote: Nayhas
              "What is a heavy armored personnel carrier - the same tank only without a turret. What's new?" - no, this is not a tank without a turret, the layout is different, the presence of landing hatches, ramps, the armor is not distributed across zones, but is the same everywhere, capable of withstanding a shot from modern RPGs.

              Understand the RPG was created to destroy tanks, name at least one tank capable of withstanding a shot from an RPG, and if the armored personnel carrier is able to withstand it, I'm afraid because of its weight it will not be able to move.
        2. Massik
          Massik April 10 2013 23: 45
          0
          You’re a strange person, then let us immediately dissolve the MOs to the extremes and leave only the MVD VV anyway, will there still be no big war ??? Conventional weapons must also develop; no need to blame their steps.
          FOR HORSE US BMD-4 and SPRUT
          Where did you see the "Octopus" in the Caucasus ??? This quote just infuriates me. In Israel, they use heavy BMP, so what ??? Now their fighters tear them with land mines of 300-500 kg from which no tank armor and not even any pillbox will save. The cost of such a number of explosives is not small, but a heavy BMP is much more expensive than usual
  10. ed65b
    ed65b April 10 2013 12: 26
    +3
    To the author +. trouble in the stupid use of technology. Especially in urban battles and mountain wars. But there wouldn’t be armor on the blocks, life would be sadder.
  11. sergant89
    sergant89 April 10 2013 12: 28
    +7
    the article is definitely +, it would be obligatory for various "professional" journalists and generals to read it, I was pleased with the photo of the 5-day war.
    1. mark021105
      mark021105 April 10 2013 16: 04
      +1
      Especially to JOURNALISTS and other LIBERASTS !!!
  12. Valter
    Valter April 10 2013 13: 40
    +2
    I didn’t understand (and don’t understand) why the designers were hawking: what requirements do the MILITS themselves put forward, such armored vehicles, tanks, they do: if the life of the crew (landing party) is put at the forefront, please, everything will be done for this, if it is a question of shooting ammunition, after which the car will be considered dead, they will do so. For example, the Arena KAZ was installed on the T-80 (Object 219M) tank, the military said - expensive, you need cheaper, and cheaper, respectively, less protected.
  13. Chicot 1
    Chicot 1 April 10 2013 14: 02
    +5
    Weighted and good dry material, without all sorts of emotions and distortions. Necessary and useful.
    And I would like to add that armored vehicles, like other types of weapons, have their own advantages and disadvantages, and just like any other type of weapon, armored vehicles must be used. And those who directly manage it, and those who, according to their position, plan operations using armored vehicles ...
    Respect to the author, we look forward to continuing ... smile

    And by tradition, I will allow myself to throw off the wallpaper with art in the subject ... T-64 and BMP-2 ... smile
    1. sniper
      sniper April 10 2013 16: 22
      +6
      Quote: Chicot 1
      Weighted and good dry material, without all sorts of emotions and distortions. Necessary and useful.

      The article is a definite plus! I just want to add folk wisdom from Kozma Prutkov: "... What one person has done, another can always break ..."
      Well, there is no indestructible equipment, even if you put armor a meter thick ... It’s another matter that for different tasks you need different cars, and here you can’t do with one platform. And about the fact that armored vehicles are forced to perform tasks for which it is not designed, this is not a question of the quality of the equipment, but of those who use it that way. If new threats have appeared, then new types of equipment should be developed accordingly to eliminate these threats, but there must be an order from people who understand what they want to receive and how they will use it ... Well, something like that, in my opinion. ..
  14. Rider
    Rider April 10 2013 16: 44
    +4
    The aim of the grenade launcher must be hit from the first shot, since those animate targets that were shot from RPGs, as a rule, are very upset, perceive this as unnecessarily critical and not friendly, as a serious insult, a threat to health, and at the same time they are extremely vindictive and prone to instant excessive aggressiveness and cruelty in their response.

    wink
  15. jjj
    jjj April 10 2013 16: 45
    +9
    Only our tanks can make marches to places of hostilities on their own. And only our tanks, being put on railway platforms, in their dimensions fit into all the tunnels of Europe
  16. Odysseus
    Odysseus April 10 2013 17: 56
    0
    Dear tankers / motorized riflemen, correct me if I am mistaken, but in my opinion the BRM / BRDM somehow fell out of the article?
  17. Mohomax
    Mohomax April 10 2013 17: 56
    0
    Thank you author for useful information, plus you and waiting for the continuation
  18. ajden
    ajden April 10 2013 17: 58
    0
    Our technique is good, reliable and (relatively) simple!
    And they create it according to the technical task. So do not let them blame.
  19. silver_roman
    silver_roman April 10 2013 18: 23
    +2
    The aim of the grenade launcher must be hit from the first shot, since those animate targets that were shot from RPGs, as a rule, are very upset, perceive this as unnecessarily critical and not friendly, as a serious insult, a threat to health, and at the same time they are extremely vindictive and prone to instant excessive aggressiveness and cruelty in their response.


    The offer smiled. Neighing for fame drinks
    For the material is huge +.
  20. Terrible ensign
    Terrible ensign April 10 2013 19: 04
    +2
    The article is a definite plus! Indeed, I immediately recall the first course of higher education and, if memory serves, the second lecture on tactics. The material is served balanced, rationally and with a slight ironic twist that only helps assimilation. Thanks to the author.
    Similar lecture essays on basic, fundamental topics related to tactics, the organizational structure of troops, the main types and types of weapons and equipment are very useful, especially for those forum participants who have not yet served or have not bothered to serve in due time. Even NVP is not in the school curriculum. And knowledge of this order for men is still very important ...
    I keep the article in my favorites. I look forward to continuing.
  21. tank64rus
    tank64rus April 10 2013 20: 33
    +1
    The article is definitely a plus. As soon as the army in the 90s began to be used for internal showdowns, the shortcomings of armored vehicles were immediately revealed. In fact, the fight against reconnaissance and sabotage formations is the task of the rear guard troops, which, in a large-scale war, are converted into internal troops. to have the appropriate equipment and training of personnel. After the defeat of military science, Mr. Serdyukov and Co. still cannot return at least some of the military scientists who were discharged from the army. And without real justification of the types of future wars, it is impossible to determine the tasks and T.T.Kh. new models of military and military equipment. Unfortunately, the geopolitical position of Russia provides for both local wars and a large-scale war. Accordingly, weapons and military equipment should be developed accordingly, otherwise we would like to transfer the airborne forces to the Iveco police car, and the main thing for armored vehicles was mine protection. that the armored vehicles of army units and subunits are intended for combat, and not for police operations. The author correctly raised this problem. We look forward to continuing.
    1. Svyatoslav72
      Svyatoslav72 April 11 2013 06: 40
      -1
      I do not agree! If the Army is not able to adequately respond in local internal conflicts, it will also act mediocre and inhibited (or rather, inaction) in a global clash. Nobody has yet canceled protection and security, the rear of communications and personnel. A good example: two Caucasian failed scam with consequences in the development of ethnic independent parasitic Khanates, the expansion of crime and the common Caucasian Terrorist Activities.
      VVs are considered to be internal in fact, but they will conduct DBs with ethnic mobile combat detachments armed "from the latest fashion designers", since no one has yet stopped the destruction of the Russian Federation, including by military methods. The army wants to withdraw itself ?!
  22. Spike
    Spike April 10 2013 21: 23
    0
    The article is super explanatory for "dummies". good
  23. Corsair
    Corsair April 10 2013 22: 48
    0
    Quote: JonnyT
    A good article, a detailed presentation of the material (in pictures)))).
    Figure 6 - Trophy BMD-1 Where, when, at whom?
  24. Corsair
    Corsair April 10 2013 22: 49
    +1
    Quote: JonnyT
    A good article, a detailed presentation of the material (in pictures)))).
    ***Figure 6 - Trophy BMD-1*** Where, When, at Whom? (Iraq, Afghanistan ??)
  25. Director
    Director April 10 2013 22: 53
    +1
    Well, at the end, at least someone opened their eyes a lot on what a tank is and why it really is needed. The author to swing and toss up. good YOUTH drinks laughing
  26. crambol
    crambol April 10 2013 22: 54
    +1
    I read the article and was sad because of my ignorance in this matter. I had to read it selectively for the second time. Brightened up. Maybe after the (third) third reading I will become a major specialist!
    Big Grand Merci Author!
  27. d_t_p
    d_t_p April 10 2013 23: 50
    +1
    very interesting, I personally for Russia and its equipment
  28. igorspb
    igorspb April 10 2013 23: 57
    +1
    The author is well done - intelligibly and specifically. We look forward to continuing. I immediately remembered the first course of the school)))). We are waiting for the continuation. We will argue in the last part)
  29. Svyatoslav72
    Svyatoslav72 April 11 2013 06: 20
    -1
    You can rejoice for the Military, they were compelled by memories from the past. However! the term is not a decree to the term; there is such a volatile phenomenon as: TIME; EVOLUTION; UNIVERSALIZATION; COMBINATION. They just affect changes in weapons and equipment, which is reflected in tactics and strategy. Uncles! Grandfathers! can you still give out stone axes and tell from the battle technique of Neanderthals?
    What is hidden behind this article ?! Elementary manipulation in order to pass off old products as new, convincing that it will still show itself if used correctly, away from battle and the enemy. By such simple juggling, both the Army and the Government and the Peoples migrated from the Global Historical Significance to the category of Statistical Necessary Illusion on Paper. The armies are not capable of fighting with us, the governments are unable to rule, and the peoples of our country do not develop and do not self-preserve in order to have a future and live in the present.
    PS I would like to remind you of such a very applicable-adequate expression that affects History so far, and has cost many people their lives: - "Ah! The British do not clean guns with bricks." (Who will be interested, I will explain intelligibly. But they will understand me those who have received sobering from illusions of reality on the verge of complete failure.) "Do you want Peace? Prepare for War."
  30. Svyatoslav72
    Svyatoslav72 April 11 2013 06: 23
    0
    Unfortunately, my extensive koment self-destructed, so I will answer simply without explanation. Brad and Propaganda.
  31. PistonizaToR
    PistonizaToR April 11 2013 07: 09
    0
    Quote: JonnyT
    A good article, a detailed presentation of the material (in pictures)))). Remember Newton’s second law, there is a reaction to every action. Which would not be a super secure technique, there will always be a super defeat!

    Newton’s second law states that the force applied to the body is equal to the product of the body mass and the acceleration given to it, and you announced the third law .... ashamed, repent, hey-hi, no offense. Article plus ...
  32. Chaplain
    Chaplain April 11 2013 19: 41
    +1
    For a long time there were no truly effective articles. The author needs to give a cash prize, with an explanation: For the fight against illiteracy and chronic stupidity!
    I look forward to new, interesting, analytical and explanatory publications. hi
  33. newcomer
    newcomer April 13 2013 08: 32
    +2
    what the fuck? wherever you press everything "world of tanks" opens.
  34. zinander
    zinander April 13 2013 11: 53
    +1
    what's with the site? really some tanks around
  35. _palych_
    _palych_ April 13 2013 16: 07
    +2
    same crap, it seems hacked
  36. sq
    sq April 14 2013 12: 45
    +1
    The essence of the article is simple - each work needs its own tool. There is no universal tool and cannot be. And you need to be able to use a specialized tool. The army is not just separate tanks, infantry fighting vehicles, armored personnel carriers, cars, planes, soldiers, headquarters, supplies, scientists, and so on. The army is a single organism, where each part is vital.
  37. Dmitry Desnyansky
    Dmitry Desnyansky April 14 2013 22: 45
    +1
    Enough to break spears. I think no one who breaks will go to the Ferrari through the swamp, and no one will be in a jeep chasing a Ferrari, although there are enough fools in our land.
  38. Strategy
    Strategy April 16 2013 20: 54
    +1
    The article is good. The author immediately shielded himself from stupid disputes by defining the basic terms. They are recorded in the relevant dictionaries or special literature. However ... The term can describe the existing technology, and maybe the most general "TTZ" to certain types of military equipment. From the point of view of the established terms, there are no questions to the samples of the listed armored vehicles. But from the point of view of the military experience of recent years and the forecast of the nature of future wars, these terms should be clarified or even changed. Having defined the tasks for each type of AME and predicting the possible conditions for their implementation, we can formulate new definitions. Then the shortcomings will become visible and the requirements will emerge. At the forum, in principle, it sounded. It remains only to formulate new terms smile