Military Review

Vladimir Shamanov reaffirmed the need to adopt the BMD-4M

65

In the course of summing up the sudden verification of the combat readiness of one of the air assault regiments of the 76 Guards air assault division, Commander of the Airborne Forces Colonel-General Vladimir Shamanov expressed dissatisfaction with the results of practical shooting.


According to the Directorate of the Press Service and Information of the Defense Ministry of the Russian Federation, the reasons for the low shooting results, according to the commander of the Airborne Forces, are not so much the weak training of personnel as design features and the “age” of military equipment, shortcomings in its maintenance and modernization.

“This once again confirms the correctness of the path we have chosen to upgrade the obsolete fleet of combat vehicles and adopt the fourth-generation assault vehicle of the fourth generation (BMD-4M) Kurganmashzavod,” V. Shamanov said.

“In the meantime, we are waiting for new equipment to maintain an adequate level of combat readiness, we must and we will radically change the situation as a whole in the troops,” continued the commander of the airborne troops, stressing that with proper maintenance and timely modernization, the firing of armed BMD standards and indicators.

According to the decision of the Commander of the Airborne Forces, already in May of this year, at the Struga Krasny proving ground in the Pskov Region, an expanded instructor-methodical gathering will be held, inviting not only the commanders of the airborne units, but also air assault military units of military districts, special forces and marines, armed with airborne combat vehicles (BMD).

“In May, we plan to attract specialists from the Main Automobile and Armored Directorate, weapons and firing departments of the Ryazan Airborne Command School to our camps, in order to correct the situation, taking into account the experience of the last sudden inspections,” said V. Shamanov.

A sudden check of the combat readiness and combat capability of military units of the Pskov air assault compound began on the initiative of the commander of the airborne forces, Colonel-General Vladimir Shamanov 16 April.

In total, around 500 military personnel, 29 military vehicles, more than 30 units of special vehicles were involved in practical actions.
Originator:
http://armstrade.org/
65 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Hikar
    Hikar April 22 2013 11: 10
    -3
    BMD in the Marine Corps .. this is something new
    1. avt
      avt April 22 2013 11: 47
      +5
      Quote: Hnikar
      BMD in the Marine Corps .. this is something new

      request It is long overdue that marines need to have a car with a universal delivery method.
      1. patline
        patline April 22 2013 14: 06
        0
        Need more new technology. Enough to use, albeit reliable, but old machines.
    2. self-propelled
      self-propelled April 22 2013 14: 42
      +8
      Quote: Hnikar
      BMD in the Marine Corps .. this is something new

      What surprised you? ability of marines to airborne landing?
      September 2012 Pacific Fleet marines are preparing for airborne landing. base "Nikolaevka". Primorye.

      I think it’s not worth talking about the need for fire support of the landing
      1. Alexander D.
        Alexander D. April 22 2013 23: 03
        -2
        According to the logic of the commander of the Airborne Forces, it turns out that it is necessary to supply the Airborne Forces with Bison and BDK.
  2. tronin.maxim
    tronin.maxim April 22 2013 11: 12
    -4
    The problem is still the same, but where are the solutions?
  3. apro
    apro April 22 2013 11: 15
    -9
    And my question is why the heck are these bmd in general. I have never done any military operations with landing bm in real life, but the money technique is still worth the idea of ​​creating a single BMP for small and medium-sized air forces and I think it is preferable.
    1. tronin.maxim
      tronin.maxim April 22 2013 11: 21
      +2
      Quote: apro
      And my question is why the heck are these bmd in general, since no military operations have ever been carried out with BM landing?

      Will be, and very soon! Revolution here and there, in order to defend ourselves against foreign democracy we need a STRONG, MOBILE, POWERFUL ARMY!
    2. redwolf_13
      redwolf_13 April 22 2013 12: 22
      +8
      BMD is still airmobile. This is a quick reaction weapon. Aircraft would be small and insufficient to quickly transfer at least a battalion of tanks with reinforcement to a theater of operations. And the Airborne Forces are exactly what you need to quickly capture and hold the bridgehead until the approach of the main heavy forces. Yes, they have bulletproof armor, but they have an indisputable advantage: good caliber speed and the ability to transport personnel
      1. John
        John April 22 2013 13: 00
        -8
        Has this "unparalleled" tactic been used at least once in modern history? No, NEVER, there are only amazing theories. How many wars have passed in 50 years? Dohrena. And the Airborne Forces were never used.
        1. tronin.maxim
          tronin.maxim April 22 2013 13: 21
          +1
          Quote: John
          Has this "unparalleled" tactic been used at least once in modern history? No, NEVER, there are only amazing theories. How many wars have passed in 50 years? Dohrena. And the Airborne Forces were never used.

          Well, if so, then our enemies were lucky!
        2. Zopuhhh
          Zopuhhh April 22 2013 13: 40
          +2
          Do not specify what technique was used to capture Amin’s palace?
          1. avt
            avt April 22 2013 13: 41
            +2
            Quote: Zopuhhh
            Do not specify what technique was used to capture Amin’s palace?

            Which was at hand, Shilki for example.
        3. old rocket man
          old rocket man April 22 2013 14: 12
          +1
          Quote: John
          Has this "unparalleled" tactic been used at least once in modern history? No, NEVER, there are only amazing theories. How many wars have passed in 50 years? Dohrena. And the Airborne Forces were never used.

          Nobody except us has such a technique. Maybe the United States would have applied it, but they don’t have what to use, and ours? Can you name at least one war where this was necessary?
          In Czechoslovakia, they were ready for this, but managed to capture the airport
          1. John
            John April 22 2013 14: 14
            -3
            That's what I'm talking about. For 50 years there was a lot of wars and NOWHERE the Airborne Forces were not used for their intended purpose, this is already the most direct allusion to the amazingness of these "unparalleled" troops.
            1. self-propelled
              self-propelled April 22 2013 15: 12
              +3

              for some reason, NATO forces, supported by tanks and combat helicopters, did not dare to seize the Slatina airfield, where there were a little more than 200 Russian paratroopers and a dozen armored personnel carriers ... you see the circular muscle contracted belay and a little later, the American gunners had the opportunity to compete with the airborne gunners. "gunners" of the most belligerent country were convinced of the capabilities of Russian paratroopers ...
              1. John
                John April 22 2013 15: 16
                -3
                At least once the intended airborne used? Should I ask again?
                1. self-propelled
                  self-propelled April 22 2013 15: 22
                  +2
                  to your great joy, Russia does not solve foreign policy problems by force (unlike the "world policemen" poking their noses around the world). and God forbid that it was so in the future. otherwise you can find out what it means to use the airborne forces for their intended purpose ...
                  1. John
                    John April 22 2013 15: 31
                    -2
                    Enough excuses. And so it is obvious to everyone that the Airborne Forces have no tasks.
                  2. John
                    John April 22 2013 15: 41
                    -2
                    All with you, in short.
                    1. self-propelled
                      self-propelled April 22 2013 15: 47
                      0
                      Quote: John
                      All with you, in short.

                      but you shouldn't be rude. and I did not switch to "you" with you. be kind, respect other members of this resource. if the opinion of opponents differs from yours, this is not a reason to be rude.
                      with respect hi
                2. self-propelled
                  self-propelled April 22 2013 15: 39
                  +6
                  Quote: John
                  At least once the intended airborne used?

                  Yes, Russia also has nuclear weapons, which never been used by appointment. do you also see the need for nuclear forces?
                  1. avt
                    avt April 22 2013 15: 44
                    +3
                    Quote: self-propelled
                    yes, Russia also has nuclear weapons that have never been used

                    fool laughing Why did you say that ?! laughing Right now they will tell you that so it is obvious that Russian nuclear weapons have no tasks. laughing
                    1. self-propelled
                      self-propelled April 22 2013 15: 53
                      +2
                      Quote: avt
                      They’ll tell you right now that it’s obvious that Russian nuclear weapons have no tasks

                      smile for sure. further more - there are no tasks for the entire Russian army (because, unlike the American army, it does not rattle arms around the world). and therefore the army is not necessary laughing
                3. Grishka100watt
                  Grishka100watt April 22 2013 15: 49
                  +1
                  Airborne solve problems by the fact that they are. This is a deterrent weapon to some extent.

                  For example, police officers have pistols, but the vast majority did not use them (I'm not talking about passing standards).

                  But no one will say that he DOESN'T NEED them.
              2. Atrix
                Atrix April 23 2013 00: 09
                -1
                Quote: self-propelled
                NATO forces, supported by tanks and combat helicopters, did not dare to seize the Slatina airfield

                They did not dare simply for one reason that no one wants to fight with Russia and start World War 3, and not because of the 200 "terminator" paratroopers
        4. Ak 12
          Ak 12 April 22 2013 14: 18
          +3
          Quote: John
          Has this "unparalleled" tactic been used at least once in modern history? No, NEVER, there are only amazing theories. How many wars have passed in 50 years? Dohrena. And the Airborne Forces were never used.

          but in Kosovo what do you think was applied?
          1. Atrix
            Atrix April 23 2013 14: 07
            0
            Quote: Ak 12
            Quote: John
            Has this "unparalleled" tactic been used at least once in modern history? No, NEVER, there are only amazing theories. How many wars have passed in 50 years? Dohrena. And the Airborne Forces were never used.

            but in Kosovo what do you think was applied?

            There were no parachutes in Kosovo
            On the night of 11 on 12 on June 1999, an advanced airborne squad in armored personnel carriers and vehicles advanced towards the border of Bosnia and Yugoslavia. A column of Russian airborne forces easily crossed the border. Up to this point, the NATO command did not have information about the beginning of the march of the Russian paratroopers on Pristina.

            So at least learn the story, and then write. Simple infantry and marines could also cope with these tasks.
    3. LaGlobal
      LaGlobal April 22 2013 17: 29
      0
      SMEs and Airborne Forces - DIFFERENT DEPARTMENTS WITH DIFFERENT TASKS!
      1. self-propelled
        self-propelled April 22 2013 18: 31
        0
        Quote: LaGlobal
        SMEs and Airborne Forces - DIFFERENT DEPARTMENTS WITH DIFFERENT TASKS!

        SMEs - as I understand it, the Marine Corps? if so, then she has one agency with the Airborne Forces - the Ministry of Defense (Ministry of Defense). and about the tasks - could you enlighten.
    4. Explore
      Explore April 22 2013 21: 16
      +2
      Quote: apro
      And my question is why the heck are these bmd in general. I have never done any military operations with landing bm in real life, but the money technique is still worth the idea of ​​creating a single BMP for small and medium-sized air forces and I think it is preferable.


      This is the basic question of how we want to see the airborne.
      1. If the basis is paratrooper units with classical airborne landing, then BMD is absolutely necessary. Moreover, indeed, booking a future car will not be the main parameter, since there will be no task of breaking through a previously prepared defense. The main thing is mobility and firepower. Since the landing is carried out to the rear of the enemy, or to its least fortified flank, after which it is necessary to occupy the previously agreed area before the approach of the main forces, or strike from the rear to support the main forces of the breakthrough (motorized infantry) and divert attention to yourself.
      2. Like Airmobile Forces (or Rapid Reaction Forces) - here you will most likely need light wheeled vehicles (the Americans use Humvi for this). Troops land by plane at the airport, after which they defend / advance to the specified area. BMD is no longer needed since the need for landing is no longer needed.
      3. As an elite infantry. The names in this role were our Airborne Forces and were used in most conflicts. That only is the replacement of BMDshek with BMP-1D machines in Afghanistan. In this case, it is better to have a single BMP for the infantry and "paratroopers", although the need for airborne units that lose the ability to land is not clear.

      My opinion.
      Airborne Forces SHOULD NOT to be just an elite infantry. It is better to make the infantry itself elite and prepared (while the level of training of the infantry units is noticeably inferior to the landing).
      Airborne Forces SHOULD NOT true just by airmobile forces. The fact is that it is much more difficult to land on an enemy airfield than to throw an assault force several kilometers away. Moreover, there are not always suitable airfields in the combat zone. To land the landing troops in their rear, so that they could reach the front line in armored vehicles? This is no longer a "landing" but an ordinary reserve / reinforcement force.
      PS Although there is a rational grain in this idea and a number of Airborne Forces units were going to be transplanted into cars to be involved in humanitarian and peacekeeping missions. At the moment, the special forces of the GRU have been transplanted onto the armored vehicles "Tiger" and "Lynx" (they used to have armored personnel carriers and BMPs).
      3. Airborne MANDATED to be able to land, including with armored vehicles. Although this does not mean that they will not be able to land at the airport as in paragraph 2. Everything will depend on the specific tactical task.
      And to the question of the necessity of the RAP: It is better to have the opportunity, but not use, than not use, since we do not have the opportunity ....
      1. Day 11
        Day 11 April 22 2013 21: 47
        0
        As for the reservation, you certainly got excited. You definitely need a strong reservation. Now even the most worn out gang has RPG-7. Aluminum armor, somehow, is not comme il faut
  4. Apollo
    Apollo April 22 2013 11: 21
    +8
    Airborne Commander Vladimir Shamanov tested BMD-4M

  5. Nayhas
    Nayhas April 22 2013 11: 30
    17 th
    Oh, these generals, still go and draw arrows to Europe ... They all dream of landing an airborne division behind enemy lines ...
    1. fzr1000
      fzr1000 April 22 2013 11: 37
      +8
      War is not only in Europe. You can land in the same Afghanistan, in Syria and in a bunch of places that we don’t even suspect today.
    2. 123dv
      123dv April 22 2013 14: 10
      +1
      Quote: Nayhas
      behind enemy lines ...

      Yes, we’ve been behind enemy lines for many years, so the joke doesn’t count! am
    3. old rocket man
      old rocket man April 22 2013 14: 14
      +6
      Quote: Nayhas
      Oh, these generals, still go and draw arrows to Europe ... They all dream of landing an airborne division behind enemy lines ...

      They don’t dream but plan. To plan an army operation, not two fingers on the asphalt, it takes time, and not a little.
      In general, then I didn’t see big pacifists than the military (combatants) hi
      1. Aleks tv
        Aleks tv April 22 2013 15: 12
        +5
        Quote: Old Rocketman
        I didn’t see big pacifists than the military (combatants)


        To the very point.
      2. Nayhas
        Nayhas April 22 2013 20: 52
        -1
        You can plan at least a moon landing, a matter of implementation. How many have written about these machines that in modern warfare when even police forces can be saturated with heavy weapons (RPGs, machine guns) there is no sense in aluminum armor. Even if part of the landing means breaks into the right square and makes an unhindered landing, it will be impossible to supply them later on, and without the replenishment of ammunition and fuel for the same BMD, the landed assault force will not last long.
  6. Ppsh
    Ppsh April 22 2013 11: 37
    10
    And my question is why the heck are these bmd. After all, no military operations with BM landing in real life were conducted


    And the submarines are fucking for us - they never shot at the enemy ...
    1. smart ass
      smart ass April 22 2013 12: 00
      +7
      Aha and poplars are expensive, maybe we’ll also cut it ... And immediately we’ll hang a star-striped flag
    2. apro
      apro April 22 2013 12: 06
      -4
      Do not confuse the pre-processing tool and the final solution. With that anti-tank weapon that can be used by all kinds of freedom fighters, cans with light bulletproof armor can not resist and the landing method is not always possible. in a landing way, even with the current air force, you can transfer full tanks and other infantry vehicles.
      1. SerAll
        SerAll April 22 2013 12: 17
        +6
        You are wrong here! the main thing for the Airborne Forces is mobility ... overweight is the time! time to prepare and deploy + time to throw ... The main thing here is not the protection of the crew (it is VERY necessary!) but firepower and offensive potential! maneuverability! This is not a positional battle ... Here the main pressure, courage, skill and reaction rate to the situation ... For all this, the tanks will not work ...
  7. VadimSt
    VadimSt April 22 2013 11: 57
    +1
    Quote: Hnikar
    BMD in the Marine Corps .. this is something new

    In principle, there is already a marine infantry fighting vehicle - BMP-3F, which was created on the basis of the BMP-3, but did not go into the series.
    The Rosoboronpostavki website (http: //xn--80aabf4bpfabablgelir.xn--p1ai/) has information that research will begin this year on the topic Platform - BMP (creating a promising platform for the naval infantry units).
  8. John
    John April 22 2013 12: 32
    12 th
    Guys, I'll upset you, but the Airborne Forces are not needed for an objective reason - not even the minimal survival of both delivery vehicles and already landed paratroopers is ensured. They recognized this even in the USSR. There will be mincemeat. We need to move on to a more progressive landing method. And, not least, the Airborne Forces have never been used for their intended purpose in their history.
    1. redwolf_13
      redwolf_13 April 22 2013 12: 48
      +8
      C'mon, why don't your striped guys disband the 82nd Airborne Division and the 101st Airborne (Air Assault) Division. They also seem to be unnecessary. and something Israel is not going to disperse its 35th Airborne Brigade about the Germans and I don’t want to talk about the French. So you did not upset us. But the airborne forces were used and very well open the story and see the use of the airborne forces over the past 80 years. Some of the largest operations on the island of Crete, the landing of the Allied landing, the landing and seizure of airfields and command posts in Czechoslovakia, the release of Israeli airborne forces hostages at the African airport .... and much much more
      1. John
        John April 22 2013 12: 55
        -8
        Well, you have compared - in fact, elite special forces, which, yes, it was never sent "from heaven to slaughter", but in the USSR and Russia it is essentially a separate branch of the military with its own equipment, which, again, has never been used for half a century ...

        And do not draw analogies with WWII - there was another air defense and losses were not taken into account.
        1. redwolf_13
          redwolf_13 April 22 2013 13: 09
          +3
          Well, it didn’t apply. You are sure to hint again Czechoslovakia. Landing at the central airfield of Czechoslovakia 1 hour before the introduction of troops. The capture of his retention, the organization of further air traffic of their transport aircraft. And in parallel, air defense control points were captured. This is not an example of the use of troops. I don’t understand one thing. Do you think that the Airborne Forces should be used only by parachute method and you do not consider these forces as airmobile?
          1. John
            John April 22 2013 13: 20
            -6
            No, of course not. In wartime, never. Thus, we can say that the exercises are "combat use". He misses an important point - there was no air defense, and there was no resistance either. In the event of a war with even the most dry bananosteen, one Zushka and more than one hundred coffins will go home.

            And where am I leading this: we need airmobile troops. Their main difference from the "snebanauber" in normal technique. The same Kurgan, cut for one skating rink, or the purchased "Strykers" will pass for normal equipment, and not this sodomy with aluminum and exits through the roof.
            1. redwolf_13
              redwolf_13 April 22 2013 13: 28
              +5
              And who will deploy Zushka or something else. The preparation of the airhead is saying something. RDGs are sent forward that inspect the landing area to neutralize the air defense forces and indicate the landing points, if possible, foci of possible enemy resistance are highlighted. And your striker is the same aluminum sadamia and even as healthy as a coffin, probably made for the convenience of an ATGM so that he does not strain his eyes in search of an enemy on the battlefield.
              1. John
                John April 22 2013 13: 37
                -4
                Do you yourself believe in this? What, then, is the whole point of jumping from the sky, if at the bottom everything is cleared to zero? Any ZUShka or Shilka can be hidden even in the barn. Even the United States in the Desert and Iraq 2003 Bur did not manage to shoot all the air defense.

                And why do you call a striker aluminum? There is steel, a ramp, wheels, multifunctionality (carry at least loads, at least the wounded, at least put a mortar, at least a babahalka) and there is a BMD aluminum coffin, inside which soldiers do not ride at all.
        2. SASCHAmIXEEW
          SASCHAmIXEEW April 22 2013 13: 33
          +3
          And we have the Airborne Forces and Special Forces count the same thing and fight to the last, keep this in mind ...
        3. lesnik.
          lesnik. April 22 2013 13: 47
          0
          in fact, an elite special forces, which, yes, so never "from heaven to slaughter" was sent

          Oh well, what about the Operation Market Garden, in which the Germans left little from the elite.
          1. John
            John April 22 2013 13: 49
            -3
            And then, in general, WWII? War to say the least has changed over 60 years.
        4. lesnik.
          lesnik. April 22 2013 13: 56
          +1
          Quote: John
          Well, you compared - in fact, an elite special forces, which, yes, so never "from the sky to the slaughter" was sent

          Oh well, what about the Operation Market Garden, in which the Germans left little from the elite.
      2. ultra
        ultra April 22 2013 14: 01
        +1
        Quote: redwolf_13
        Come on, why don't your striped guys disband the 82nd Airborne Division and the 101st Airborne (Air Assault) Division.
        DON'T - with their help, "democracy" is spread throughout the world! hi
    2. VadimSt
      VadimSt April 22 2013 13: 19
      +2
      Your vaunted warriors should even be afraid of the construction battalion, because they are used to fighting a obviously weak enemy!
      1. VadimSt
        VadimSt April 22 2013 13: 53
        +6
        And this is for you for a snack from Tim Hake - the US special forces general!
        1. ansons
          ansons April 22 2013 20: 05
          0
          Well, on this topic and the presenters spoke out)))
    3. SASCHAmIXEEW
      SASCHAmIXEEW April 22 2013 13: 29
      +1
      This is not used in your AI, but we have used it successfully ...
    4. ultra
      ultra April 22 2013 13: 59
      +4
      Quote: John
      Guys, I'll upset you, but the Airborne Forces are not needed for an objective reason
      If we start from your flag, then we do not need not only the Airborne Forces, but also the Army, the Navy and the Air Force! Forward under the "warm" wing of a striped mattress! am
  9. Aleks tv
    Aleks tv April 22 2013 13: 08
    19
    How much can you pour from empty to empty?
    It doesn’t matter what, if only it would be fashionable to comment on the need for BMD?

    And then just say “BMD-4m” or “Mig-31”, right away screams from all sides: we do not need them!
    And not related to the Airborne Forces and Aviation with the smartest view, talk about the lack of utility of this equipment in the troops...

    I am a tanker. I am familiar with many landing troops, and I had to serve with them. The absolute majority declares directly: BMD-4m, Octopus, Nona and Shell in the Airborne Forces NEEDED !!! And it is desirable - on one, own unified "base"
    And it doesn’t matter that there is little experience of mass airborne landing. The main thing is that there would be such an opportunity. (And then something dofiga about the uselessness of unique, unparalleled, technology, talking, and I want to blur out about the "machinations".)
    The tasks of the Airborne Forces may be different: white, blue, red. BT should be able to “jump, fly, pull up and swim”. This is firepower, and ammunition, and grubs, and tents on tracks. You can't carry everything on your shoulders. The Airborne Forces do not "should", but it SOLVES ANY combat mission. You yourself implicitly hope that they will always come to the rescue in any situation.

    Just do not rub me smart civilian noodles on the ears about the fact that it is weak from mines and RPGs. There is no universal technique. Each combat unit has its own place and mission, who is familiar with the letters, can read it in the Bus and Airborne Forces.
    During ground operations, the Airborne Forces give armor up to tanks. Additional body kits are also very necessary, otherwise they’ve always been doing home-made ... So it should be smart, and there was a place to be (unfortunately, not everywhere) in the second Czech Republic.
    Sometimes it is necessary to read the charters, even if only for the clean and jerk, to everyone: from the ordinary soldier to the NHS. Very entertaining books.

    Some nicknames flashed like magpies on all topics with cleverest thoughts: from a spaceship to toilet bowls, well, experts are direct in all areas of life.
    It seems like an army forum and not gatherings in the spa.
    I didn’t want to offend anyone with my comment, and I am not addressing anyone personally. But sometimes it breaks through when their own fantasy thoughts are passed off as clever army thoughts.
    Aleks
    With respect to the army team.
    1. John
      John April 22 2013 13: 22
      -7
      Following your logic, you can keep cavalry. Well, what, it can also come in handy someday, and there was an experience of application.
      1. Aleks tv
        Aleks tv April 22 2013 13: 33
        +4
        John, no need to build a mine in a bad game, absurdly dragging innocent horses into this topic.

        There is a desire to reduce their airmobile troops - reduce. You do not agree with the concept of using the Russian Airborne Forces - well, you do not agree.
        The flag is in your hands.

        I would be more wary if you agreed. wink
        I do not see the point of discussing further with you. Good luck.
        1. old rocket man
          old rocket man April 22 2013 14: 28
          +2
          Quote: Aleks tv
          John, no need to build a mine in a bad game, absurdly dragging innocent horses into this topic.

          There is a desire to reduce their airmobile troops - reduce. You do not agree with the concept of using the Russian Airborne Forces - well, you do not agree.
          The flag is in your hands.

          I would be more wary if you agreed. wink
          I do not see the point of discussing further with you. Good luck.


          It’s time, Colonel, to you generals, I fully support both of your comments, and about the absurdity of the cavalry, I’ll say that it wouldn’t hurt in Afghanistan. Horses in the mountains could help a lot. drinks
          1. Aleks tv
            Aleks tv April 22 2013 18: 28
            0
            Quote: Old Rocketman
            It’s time, Colonel, to you generals,

            Igor, so I have real epaulettes and mine, but for agreeing with my comments - thanks, I appreciate.
            drinks
            Quote: Old Rocketman
            Horses in the mountains could help a lot.

            Yes. Pack animals in the mountains - this is our EVERYTHING ...
            I had to somehow sweat in Jantugan in preparation and ride through the mountains of the Caucasus. Packages on passes and glaciers have no price. And they drag the load and often feel where to go.
            Well, at least it was just training with us.
            wink
      2. avt
        avt April 22 2013 13: 34
        +4
        Quote: John
        Following your logic, you can keep cavalry. Well, what, it can also come in handy someday, and there was an experience of application.

        Just now I came across a picture of how your donkeys are loaded, applied, so to speak, to mountain conditions. So maybe you will leave our landing party alone, and immediately complain to the Pentagon in Congress? ,, or the purchased "Strikers" will completely pass for normal equipment, "------ God forbid! Your promoted ancient Swiss Piranha, especially with old 105mm tank gun, you'd better keep it for yourself. Well, or what Poles vtyuhayte, in general, those who do not mind at all. We are better than Kurganets on the 82nd wait. laughing
        1. John
          John April 22 2013 13: 40
          -2
          So cavalry is in Russia. In the Caucasus in mountain brigades. There are really no donkeys.
          1. old rocket man
            old rocket man April 22 2013 14: 30
            +9
            Quote: John
            So cavalry is in Russia. In the Caucasus in mountain brigades. There are really no donkeys.

            That's right, donkeys on the site and under your flag are enough laughing
      3. self-propelled
        self-propelled April 22 2013 15: 32
        +2
        Quote: John
        Following your logic, you can keep the cavalry ...

        following logic, it is necessary to fight by skill, not numbers. and it is not necessary to fall asleep unwanted "tomogavkami" much mind.
    2. TURAR
      TURAR April 22 2013 13: 24
      +6
      If, in the opinion of certain individuals living here, our technique would not be crushed anywhere, then it is "..avno" not tested, then in my opinion this is a plus, because all good and high quality to any dermis of the eye is a callus. Since there is peace in Russia, in comparison with the rest, it is thanks to its best friends ;-) The Army and the Navy, and as you know, the Army and the Navy are not just one tank in the field, in my opinion, this is the science of living peacefully in peace.
    3. SASCHAmIXEEW
      SASCHAmIXEEW April 22 2013 13: 37
      +2
      One decent answer for everyone .. ++++++++
    4. vilenich
      vilenich April 22 2013 14: 04
      +4
      Alexey, I agree with your opinion!
      It is not necessary to destroy the Airborne Forces with a great mind, one solution and all ... but it will be very difficult to re-create it, and in the current conditions, it is almost impossible.
      There are enough tasks for the airborne forces, it would be someone to set.
      And what they write is cannon fodder, it is so natural if you do not plan combat use properly, comprehensive support and organize interaction, it will be so. But in modern conditions, many tasks that can be solved by units and formations of the airborne forces are not within the strength of units and formations of the Ground Forces, or will lead to huge losses of personnel and time.
      The rearmament of the Airborne Forces is long overdue and the position of the leadership with delaying the adoption of the BMD-4 was not entirely clear.
  10. lesnik.
    lesnik. April 22 2013 13: 50
    0
    Quote: John
    Well, you compared - in fact, an elite special forces, which, yes, so never "from the sky to the slaughter" was sent

    Oh well, what about the Operation Market Garden, in which the Germans left little from the elite.
  11. Day 11
    Day 11 April 22 2013 13: 51
    -8
    Yes, shit, this nedotank. Only in vain will we ruin the boys. Aluminum armor-pah. We must do something heavier and, accordingly, develop new parachute systems
    1. John
      John April 22 2013 13: 58
      -4
      BMD-4M is the absolute mass limit. Shamanov asked for heavier armor - they offered extra. Hang the hinged kit after landing, but this is just no comment. Need landing, like normal people.
  12. Corsair
    Corsair April 22 2013 13: 54
    +3
    According to the Directorate of the Press Service and Information of the Defense Ministry of the Russian Federation, the reasons for the low shooting results, according to the commander of the Airborne Forces, are not so much the weak training of personnel as design features and the “age” of military equipment, shortcomings in its maintenance and modernization.
    I wonder SOMETHING the fighters "shot" there? Is it really that bad? what
  13. UFO
    UFO April 22 2013 13: 59
    +2
    The argument is about nothing.
    Quote: John
    John


    Quote: redwolf_13

    redwolf_13
    (

    In fact - "airmobile", in modern conditions, the name is more correct in essence, but this does not mean that it is necessary to change the name. In the current conditions (reforming-disbandment) of the RF Armed Forces, taking into account the length of the territory of Russia, it is advisable to use the Airborne Forces, not for throwing behind enemy lines, with overcoming its air defense, but for urgently strengthening the grouping of its troops operating on terrain where there are no equipped airfields, therefore the method of parachute landing will be quite in demand. Only the motto: "From heaven to earth and into battle!" will change to "From the sky - on the march and into battle!", that's all. soldier hi
    1. John
      John April 22 2013 14: 02
      -6
      Yes, it makes no difference to me what they are called - you just need to refuse to throw out the aluminum coffins with Melon from the planes. And now only the motto "From heaven to earth and to slaughter!"
      1. UFO
        UFO April 22 2013 14: 29
        0
        In the West, aluminum armor is also used well. Do you propose leaving our airborne forces without equipment at all? fool
        1. John
          John April 22 2013 14: 35
          -1
          I suggest a normal technique, and not this haven.
          1. UFO
            UFO April 22 2013 14: 40
            0
            Quote: John
            I suggest a normal technique, and not this haven.


            What exactly ?
            1. John
              John April 22 2013 14: 44
              0
              Yes, even a Kurgan or Boomerang, if you consider Stryker nipatriatic. Landing, naturally.
              1. UFO
                UFO April 22 2013 14: 58
                0
                Have you seen "Kurganets" or "Boomerang"? Are they already being released, or have I overslept something? In the meantime, BMD has no alternative.
        2. Day 11
          Day 11 April 22 2013 14: 36
          -2
          Read carefully, I suggested doing something more serious. And as for the West and aluminum armor, can I get a reference? As far as I know, they tried, but they realized the futility of this
          1. John
            John April 22 2013 14: 41
            0
            No, Bradley used luminium, but it’s in the 80s. Then they realized that this was insanity.
          2. UFO
            UFO April 22 2013 15: 18
            0
            Read on Wikipedia.
          3. dmitreach
            dmitreach April 22 2013 22: 51
            0
            aluminum armor can a reference? As far as I know, they had attempts, but they realized the futility of this


            enlighten.
    2. cyclist
      cyclist April 22 2013 16: 21
      0
      here’s just the argument here, and the Airborne Forces should be correctly used, as it was correctly written above, to begin with the full or partial suppression of the air defense lines in the selected areas using the same cruise missiles, unmanned aerial vehicles, reconnaissance and special forces of the Airborne Forces, then creating the bridgehead for the same special forces the transfer of the main forces of the Airborne Forces to the rear of the enemy through gaps in the air defense, here it is necessary to comprehensively approach using many military branches
  14. Andrew 121
    Andrew 121 April 22 2013 14: 00
    +1
    The words of a Russian warrior, or maybe the future Minister of Defense. Well, who and Shamanov has combat experience and says the thing.
  15. Roll
    Roll April 22 2013 14: 22
    -3
    laughing Now the fashion for armored cars has gone, why the hell are these infantry fighting vehicles or armored personnel carriers if the infantry is traveling on the armor, but otherwise, it’s not comfortable inside, and in armored cars everything is like people with a air conditioner, and they don’t fall from the armor and are not afraid of bullets. And tanks on wheels are still better than armored personnel carriers or infantry fighting vehicles. All combat tasks are solved. The time of fronts and trenches is over, now only mobile groups are at war. We need to move faster to armored vehicles even to a tiger, even to a wolf, or armored Kamaz. And, as for BMD 4, they need a limited number to solve specific problems, for real collisions it is better to do more non non.
    1. John
      John April 22 2013 14: 24
      -2
      The problem is that Lynx does not drop off the plane, and they are not needed with such tactics, and Typhoons are not the same in size.
  16. Vtel
    Vtel April 22 2013 15: 38
    +2
    Vladimir Shamanov reaffirmed the need to adopt the BMD-4M

    It seems that the commander of the Airborne Forces, Colonel-General Vladimir Shamanov, is "sensitive" about this, otherwise he would not say so. All the same, not an armchair general - he fought.
    1. cyclist
      cyclist April 22 2013 16: 09
      0
      and I would say no hilo fought
  17. Navy7981
    Navy7981 April 22 2013 16: 47
    0
    Guys, explain the opening (I don’t know what to call) in the rear of the BMD? Is it connected with the landing?
    1. redwolf_13
      redwolf_13 April 22 2013 16: 59
      +1
      This is a landing hatch
  18. Navy7981
    Navy7981 April 22 2013 17: 05
    +1
    The fact that there is a hatch, I know why it is not made in the same plane with the body?
    1. Day 11
      Day 11 April 22 2013 17: 13
      +1
      Design feature
  19. Navy7981
    Navy7981 April 22 2013 17: 38
    +1
    Thanks to colleagues (for brevity smile ) I read something, I sort of understood why. The peculiarity of the placement and dimensions of the internal combustion engine set precisely this form of the stern for the speed (landing and disembarkation) of the landing.
  20. pupkin70
    pupkin70 April 22 2013 19: 47
    +1
    The hatch in the rear is the entrance to the airborne squad, there is not enough space but enough. And the landing and disembarkation standards were met.
  21. roial
    roial April 23 2013 21: 47
    0
    I can’t understand how you will replenish the ammunition of this shaitan-arba ???
    FIVE types of ammunition will need to be brought up where YOU will take them behind enemy lines ????