Military Review

After modernization, the Octopus-SD will become the world's best machine in its class

91
After modernization, the Octopus-SD will become the world's best machine in its class

The self-propelled anti-tank gun 2C25 "Sprut-SD", which is in service with the Russian airborne troops, has established itself well during operation. However, since the process of creating this machine was delayed, then according to some characteristics (in particular, according to the capabilities of the fire control system), the machine no longer fully meets modern requirements.



In addition, the promising BMP-4M is currently unified with the land-based BMP-3. Therefore, there is an urgent need to modernize and the Sprut.

According to the corporate newspaper "Tractor Plants", at present, the Volgograd machine-building company "VgTZ" is carrying out development work to develop a modernized version of the 125-mm self-propelled antitank gun 2-25 "Sprut-SD".


Modernization is the installation of modern thermal sights for the commander of the machine and the gunner operator. These devices will allow at least three times to increase the range of target destruction at night.


In addition, an engine, transmission, as well as suspension and running gear assemblies from the BMP-3 are installed on the self-propelled anti-tank gun, which will increase the reliability of the equipment during operation, the Tractor Plants newspaper reported.
Originator:
http://www.vestnik-rm.ru/
91 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. svp67
    svp67 April 29 2013 12: 40
    +3
    In addition, a self-propelled anti-tank gun is equipped with an engine, transmission, as well as suspension and chassis units from the BMP-3, which will increase the reliability of the special product during operation
    And also not only reduce costs in the production and repair, but also facilitate the supply and training of specialists. Well, it’s reasonable ... And what the thermal imagers install is +++
    1. Dart weyder
      Dart weyder April 29 2013 12: 55
      +2
      I agree, though thermal imagers need to be installed for a long time, it should be the norm, otherwise they call it a modern army, but nothing is in it .... Chechen companies alone were worth what - the militants had better communications and had navigation and nightlights .. .. and something the warrior had everything at the level, then there would be no such problems ....
  2. Lopatov
    Lopatov April 29 2013 12: 54
    +2
    The thing is small: come up with why this car is needed.
    1. svp67
      svp67 April 29 2013 13: 21
      +7
      Quote: Spade
      The thing is small: come up with why this car is needed.
      The landing party, by and large, is armed with small arms, so the machine is not superfluous for them ...
    2. Z.A.M.
      Z.A.M. April 29 2013 13: 24
      +2
      Lopatov
      Quote: Spade
      why is this car needed

      They removed the question, as they say, from the language.
      Specialists, ay, explain in what conditions this should be used. Especially in the Airborne Forces? Why is the VDV such a HUGE? To destroy the tanks? Yes, now such miracles about RPGs tell, wow. Note carried by one person.
      For the "Kursk" battle? So, there won't be any more like that ...
      Specialists, explain.
      1. leon-iv
        leon-iv April 29 2013 13: 35
        10
        125mm OFS why they are needed I think questions do not arise.
        125KS In the weakened ison and on board take any tanks
        125 OBPS take 90% of the tanks in the world
        + It’s not for linear combat, but for support and ambushes there, it will be quite good when suo is finished.
        1. Lopatov
          Lopatov April 29 2013 16: 50
          +1
          Kornet ATGM missiles can replace all three projectiles with increased efficiency
          1. PLO
            PLO April 29 2013 17: 12
            +1
            Kornet ATGM missiles can replace all three projectiles with increased efficiency

            then why do you think tanks?
            The octopus was going to be put in the motorized rifle brigades instead of Rapier, but due to the general expectation of new platforms, everything stalled

            But to argue about why guns if there is a tank, or vice versa, can be a long time.
            all our tanks use Reflex anti-tank systems without problems. so it’s possible to refuse ATGM in general)
            1. Lopatov
              Lopatov April 29 2013 17: 30
              +1
              Quote: olp
              then why do you think tanks?

              Is the Octopus a tank? It is a self-propelled anti-tank gun that performs the same tasks as an ATGM.

              Quote: olp
              The octopus was going to be put in the motorized rifle brigades instead of Rapier, but due to the general expectation of new platforms, everything stalled

              Definitely a stupid decision. It’s good that they refused.

              Quote: olp
              But to argue about why guns if there is a PTRK, or vice versa, it can take a long time. All our tanks use ATRA Reflex without problems. so it’s possible to refuse ATGM in general)

              "Reflex"? The armor penetration is worse, there is no high-explosive and "volumetric" warhead. And most importantly, there are no prospects for a qualitative improvement due to size restrictions. Yeah, they will.
              1. PLO
                PLO April 29 2013 17: 53
                +1
                Is the Octopus a tank? It is a self-propelled anti-tank gun that performs the same tasks as an ATGM.

                if every Italian has the audacity to call his Centaurs wheeled tanks, then yes Octopus is definitely a tank
                and how to call it SPTP or light / medium tank is the tenth thing, the main tasks of MBT are not set for him

                Definitely a stupid decision. It’s good that they refused.

                But can you justify the statement somehow?


                "Reflex"? The armor penetration is worse, there is no high-explosive and "volumetric" warhead. And most importantly, there are no prospects for a qualitative improvement due to size restrictions. Yeah, they will.

                worse and not enough different things, the 125mm CS Reflex copes with the tasks of defeating MBT, in for everything else there are shells
                1. Lopatov
                  Lopatov April 29 2013 18: 26
                  0
                  Quote: olp
                  if every Italian has the audacity to call his Centaurs wheeled tanks, then yes Octopus is definitely a tank

                  We are not "Italians" and therefore we will call a spade a spade

                  Quote: olp
                  But can you justify the statement somehow?

                  The tactics of using an anti-tank reserve itself require anti-tank systems.

                  Quote: olp
                  worse and not enough different things, the 125mm CS Reflex copes with the tasks of defeating MBT, in for everything else there are shells

                  Where the tank will stupidly break the house, the ATGM will be enough for one "volume" inserted into the window. I saw how a "stormman" at a distance of one and a half kopecks hit a high-explosive rocket in a basement window about 30 by 30 in size.
                  1. leon-iv
                    leon-iv April 29 2013 18: 35
                    +1
                    We are not "Italians" and therefore we will call a spade a spade

                    Well, this all does not cancel early that it is a light tank
                    The tactics of using an anti-tank reserve itself require anti-tank systems

                    Mil man, just imagine the landing is coming, see the point is strengthened, how will you suppress anti-tank systems? There you need mortars / howitzers / tank guns. And if in the Octopus the frankly miserable OMS will be replaced with the possibility of using the Internet and TIUS will enter, then it will be very good.
                    1. cyclist
                      cyclist April 29 2013 18: 42
                      +1
                      sometimes it seems to me that an abundance of armored vehicles was created in order to confuse the enemy on the battlefield, especially if he had not seen this technique before bully
                    2. Lopatov
                      Lopatov April 29 2013 19: 17
                      +2
                      Quote: leon-iv
                      Well, this all does not cancel early that it is a light tank

                      Okay, this is a light tank. What is his role on the battlefield?

                      Quote: leon-iv
                      Mil man, just imagine the landing is coming, see the point is strengthened, how will you suppress anti-tank systems?

                      It is to them. Very effective. Most importantly, the ATGM installation is in Each branch. You can from the car, you can take out.

                      Quote: leon-iv
                      And if in the Octopus the frankly miserable MSA is replaced with the possibility of using the Internet and TIUS is activated, then it will be very good.

                      And cost like a full tank. The game is not worth the candle.
                  2. PLO
                    PLO April 29 2013 18: 40
                    0
                    The tactics of using an anti-tank reserve itself require anti-tank systems.

                    Octopus has anti-tank systems. where is the contradiction?

                    Where the tank will stupidly break the house, the ATGM will be enough for one "volume" inserted into the window. I saw how a "stormman" at a distance of one and a half kopecks hit a high-explosive rocket in a basement window about 30 by 30 in size.

                    and what did you mean by that?
                    Reflex has options for both thermobaric and high explosive warheads.
                    and even if you just don’t like tank ATGMs ... you can put ATGMs on any cart, but on the contrary, a tank gun
                    1. Lopatov
                      Lopatov April 29 2013 19: 24
                      0
                      Quote: olp
                      Octopus has anti-tank systems. where is the contradiction?

                      In cost. A little expensive car for 3.5 shots.

                      Quote: olp
                      Reflex has options for both thermobaric and high explosive warheads.

                      I am happy for them. By this, the designers directly declare the inefficiency of the tank gun when working on point targets.

                      Quote: olp
                      and even if you just don't like tank ATGMs.

                      I don't like ersatz tanks. For a normal "Reflex" very good ammunition.

                      Quote: olp
                      on any cart you can put ATGMs

                      And take off too. To shoot with a takeaway. But the tank gun, no.
                      1. PLO
                        PLO April 29 2013 19: 43
                        +1
                        In cost. A little expensive car for 3.5 shots.

                        what really will be a little expensive is a stupid attempt to replace OFS with ATGMs

                        I am happy for them. By this, the designers directly declare the inefficiency of the tank gun when working on point targets.

                        I'm afraid logic disagrees with you


                        I don't like ersatz tanks. For a normal "Reflex" very good ammunition.

                        you contradict yourself, to call the Octopus an ersatz tank, you must first recognize that it is a tank (and not just by name, namely by PROPOSED TASKS)
                        Octopus’s tasks are primarily the tasks of an anti-tank gun, not MBT.
                        as I said logic here and it doesn't smell


                        And take off too. To shoot with a takeaway. But the tank gun, no.

                        this is precisely the main advantage of the Octopus. I'm glad you finally understood.
                      2. Lopatov
                        Lopatov April 29 2013 20: 15
                        +1
                        Quote: olp
                        what really will be a little expensive is a stupid attempt to replace OFS with ATGMs

                        Do you know what an antitank reserve of a regiment (brigade, division) is, what are its functions, what is its place in various types of combat? If not, then this is a dispute about a spherical horse in a vacuum.

                        Quote: olp
                        I'm afraid logic disagrees with you

                        ? In fact, the logic is that tank ATGMs are designed to destroy point targets from the first shot at long ranges. And their appearance in the BK of a modern tank clearly indicates that a modern tank gun with conventional ammunition cannot fulfill this task.

                        Quote: olp
                        Octopus’s tasks are primarily the tasks of an anti-tank gun, not MBT.

                        And here the installation of anti-tank systems clearly has an advantage.

                        Quote: olp
                        this is precisely the main advantage of the Octopus. I'm glad you finally understood.

                        The advantage of less versatility, more vulnerability and more visibility? Original.
                      3. PLO
                        PLO April 29 2013 21: 10
                        0
                        Do you know what an antitank reserve of a regiment (brigade, division) is, what are its functions, what is its place in various types of combat? If not, then this is a dispute about a spherical horse in a vacuum.

                        Well what are you .. I did not serve. but I’m an Internet expert and I’m a fast learner. for example, I know that when someone says that he knows because he knows, he knows nothing. and such a thing as subjective opinion is universal.


                        In fact, the logic is that tank ATGMs are designed to destroy point targets from the first shot at long ranges. And their appearance in the BK of a modern tank clearly indicates that a modern tank gun with conventional ammunition cannot fulfill this task.

                        sophistry
                        ATGMs appeared on the T-55 and T-64 in the 70s.
                        Reflex range 5km, direct shot range ~ 2km
                        shells and ATGMs complement each other, not exclude

                        And here the installation of anti-tank systems clearly has an advantage.

                        for the tasks of the anti-tank gun, oddly enough, it is the anti-tank gun, rather than the anti-tank gun, but if the anti-tank gun is also the anti-tank gun, the conclusion is clear


                        The advantage of less versatility, more vulnerability and more visibility? Original.

                        here I am surprised how much less universal ATGM is better than a more effective anti-tank launcher
                      4. Lopatov
                        Lopatov April 29 2013 22: 17
                        +2
                        Quote: olp
                        Well what are you .. I did not serve. but I’m an Internet expert and I’m a fast learner. for example, I know that when someone says that he knows because he knows, he knows nothing. and such a thing as subjective opinion is universal.

                        That is, what is the anti-tank reserve you do not know? Yes or no? Are you aware that anti-tankers in the vast majority of cases fight without infantry?

                        Quote: olp
                        sophistry

                        Okay. Why, then, did ATGM appear in the tank ammunition, if this is not connected with the shortcomings of traditional tank ammunition?
                        Suggest your version of this rather expensive solution.

                        Quote: olp
                        for tasks of an anti-tank gun, oddly enough, an anti-tank gun rather than a tank can be much more effective

                        That is, do you consider it unjustified to replace not only the USSR, but also the entire world of anti-tank guns with anti-tank guns in anti-tank units? A far reaching statement. Take the trouble to prove.
                        Let me remind you that the "Brass knuckles" have been in service since 1980, but at the same time the replacement of the MT-12 with the ATGM was and is being carried out at full speed.

                        Quote: olp
                        here I am surprised how much less universal ATGM is better than a more effective anti-tank launcher

                        Actually, it was about removal. Do you even know what is at stake, or do you need to clarify? Well, about the versatility of the anti-tank gun, take the trouble to prove it.
                      5. PLO
                        PLO April 29 2013 22: 52
                        0
                        That is, what is the anti-tank reserve you do not know? Yes or no? Are you aware that anti-tankers in the vast majority of cases fight without infantry?

                        I didn’t study at military academies, but I read books. so I dare to assume that I have an idea about it.
                        But only when the last time the anti-tankers fought also without infantry?


                        Okay. Why, then, did ATGM appear in the tank ammunition, if this is not connected with the shortcomings of traditional tank ammunition?
                        Suggest your version of this rather expensive solution.

                        I knowingly brought you the year of the appearance of ATGMs and their range
                        in the 70s, at a distance of 2-3 km (not to mention 4-5 km), at that level of development of the LMS, there was no need to talk from the first shot at a moving tank even at a speed of 20-30 km / h. from this point of view, ATGMs gave a huge advantage due to the fact that they are managed.
                        Now it’s a slightly different time, there appeared a computerized OMS, target tracking machines, etc.

                        Let me remind you that the "Brass knuckles" have been in service since 1980, but at the same time the replacement of the MT-12 with the ATGM was and is being carried out at full speed.

                        bring at least one motorized rifle brigade where now there is no anti-tank artillery division?

                        Actually, it was about removal. Do you even know what is at stake, or do you need to clarify? Well, about the versatility of the anti-tank gun, take the trouble to prove it.

                        I know. but you really bother to clarify. preferably with quotes, otherwise I’m afraid to sit in a puddle again.


                        Well, about the versatility of the anti-tank gun, take the trouble to prove it.

                        ok, I repeat again.
                        Octopus fires both shells and ATGMs, ATGMs only ATGMs.
                        in my opinion everything is obviouswhat
                      6. Lopatov
                        Lopatov April 29 2013 23: 39
                        +1
                        Quote: olp
                        But only when the last time the anti-tankers fought also without infantry?

                        We are in the Great Patriotic War. In the world, in the Middle East. But there were never any military landings with parachute landing of equipment.

                        Quote: olp
                        Now it’s a slightly different time, there appeared a computerized OMS, target tracking machines, etc.

                        But at the same time, the ATGM remains in ammunition. Moreover, the "emerging computerized control systems" allow firing guided missiles. In your opinion, is this just a cut of budget funds? This opportunity does not appear for free.

                        Quote: olp
                        bring at least one motorized rifle brigade where now there is no anti-tank artillery division?

                        Bring at least one motorized rifle brigade in which the Rapier was not replaced by the Shturm-s, if possible. Not a single ATGM battery was cut, only anti-tank artillery pieces were cut.

                        Quote: olp
                        I know. but you really bother to clarify. preferably with quotes, otherwise I’m afraid to sit in a puddle again.

                        You are absolutely unaware. Quotes? About what? About the fact that the same "Robot" can remove the control device, attach it to a tripod and use it as a portable ATGM? What can be done with the BMP-2, Konkurs? The same thing can be done with promising complexes with "Cornet" as art. parts?

                        Quote: olp
                        ok, I’ll repeat it again. Octopus fires both shells and ATGMs, ATGMs only ATGMs. in my opinion, everything is obvious

                        A machine with an opener on the butt can open cans.
                        What does this "shooting with shells and ATGM" give if you are faced with the task of hitting armored objects at the maximum possible range, with the first shot? Hope you know SuperSprut has bulletproof booking?
                      7. PLO
                        PLO April 30 2013 00: 11
                        0
                        We are in the Great Patriotic War. In the world, in the Middle East. But there were never any military landings with parachute landing of equipment.

                        so you yourself know everything. why this performance was needed with anti-tank reserves, I absolutely do not understand. if military science had remained the same, no one would have carried out controversial military reforms now.

                        there’s a separate discussion about the Airborne Forces and now I don’t want to talk about it. our dispute began with the need to replace Rapier with Octopus in the ground forces


                        But at the same time, the ATGM remains in ammunition. Moreover, the "emerging computerized control systems" allow firing guided missiles. In your opinion, is this just a cut of budget funds? This opportunity does not appear for free.

                        you lied saying that ATGMs appeared in the ammunition modern tanks(to which I personally include at least T-90A, respectively, all Western MBT trash) because artillery shells can not cope with their tasks

                        in fact, now all types of shells and rounds are still relevant, only effective areas of application have increased

                        Bring at least one motorized rifle brigade in which the Rapier was not replaced by the Shturm-s, if possible. Not a single ATGM battery was cut, only anti-tank artillery pieces were cut.

                        you are as usual in your style. I didn’t say anything like that to bring something
                        and rapiers have long lost their relevance like any towed artillery (especially anti-tank artillery), therefore it was ruthlessly cut, but not completely removed, because as I wrote above, the idea was to replace it with SPTP over time

                        You are absolutely unaware. Quotes? About what? About the fact that the same "Robot" can remove the control device, attach it to a tripod and use it as a portable ATGM? What can be done with the BMP-2, Konkurs? The same thing can be done with promising complexes with "Cornet" as art. parts?

                        again frankly distort
                        I brought you a photo of the BMP-2M with the attached Kornet TPK, which can be removed and used without problems from the portable complex

                        accordingly, nothing prevents to attach them to any SPTP with the same result.
                        so you sat down again in a puddle (

                        What does this "shooting with shells and ATGM" give if you are faced with the task of hitting armored objects at the maximum possible range, with the first shot?

                        you yourself set this task and with some kind of frenzy you are trying to fine-tune all your reasoning for it.
                        you yourself rubbed at me about various types of warheads (thermobaric and high-explosive) at the cornet, and talked about how the assault masterfully drove the rocket out the window, so you understand that. if there is the above task, the octopus uses ptrk, if the lines are protected, KAZ uses BPS, if you need to gouge the fortifications, then it uses HE shells or missiles, if you just need to process enemy manpower, there is nothing better than OFS.
                        in fact, she has a huge range of tasks.
                      8. Lopatov
                        Lopatov April 30 2013 00: 40
                        +1
                        Quote: olp
                        so you yourself know everything. why this performance was needed with anti-tank reserves, I absolutely do not understand. if military science had remained the same, no one would have carried out controversial military reforms now.

                        Nothing has changed. The functions of the anti-tank reserve remain the same. Military science can refuse it only in case of a fundamental decision not to prepare its army for normal hostilities with a normally armed enemy.

                        Quote: olp
                        you lied saying that ATGMs appeared in the ammunition of modern tanks (to which I personally include at least T-90A, respectively, all western MBT trash) because artillery shells can’t cope with their tasks

                        Are you trying to get away from the question "why ATGMs are still included in the BC of tanks", or it seemed to me?

                        Quote: olp
                        I brought you a photo of the BMP-2M with the attached Kornet TPK, which can be removed and used without problems from the portable complex

                        And I had to understand that photography means the possibility of removal? But sorry, this is not so. If the system is integrated in the LMS, then no removal. And by the way, anti-tank systems have been used as additional anti-tank weapons for a very long time. And here we are not talking about linear infantry units

                        Quote: olp
                        you yourself set this task and with some kind of frenzy you are trying to fine-tune all your reasoning for it.

                        No, my friend, this is the real task of the anti-tank units. For example, the elongated mine clearance charge in Chechnya was very effectively used to storm settlements. However, even the most gifted do not call this one of his main tasks.

                        The same is true for anti-tankers: they can be used to directly support infantry only when the enemy has nothing but small arms and grenade launchers.
                      9. PLO
                        PLO April 30 2013 01: 03
                        0
                        Are you trying to get away from the question "why ATGMs are still included in the BC of tanks", or it seemed to me?

                        I look at you a lot of things it seems. get baptized more often. already answered above

                        in fact, now all types of shells and rounds are still relevant, only effective areas of application have increased



                        And I had to understand that photography means the possibility of removal? But sorry, this is not so. If the system is integrated in the LMS, then no removal

                        do you really know how to read? Where did I say that?
                        I said that you can remove the Cornet TPK and put it on a portable PU.
                        if you assumed that Sturm, Cornet-S, or Chrysanthemums could be removed, then you were usually mistaken

                        And here we are not talking about linear infantry units

                        I don’t know what you are talking about, but I'm talking about Octopus-SD and its capabilities.


                        The same is true for anti-tankers: they can be used to directly support infantry only when the enemy has nothing but small arms and grenade launchers.

                        you again came up with mythical offensive tasks about supporting infantry with the help of anti-tank missile systems and anti-tank systems

                        anti-tank units are deployed in tank hazardous areas to support the defense of existing forces, or for independent actions, i.e. the enemy doesn’t give a damn who will ultimately meet him with specially sharpened ATGMs or universal anti-aircraft systems, but the Octopuses will be much more effective in this situation
                      10. Lopatov
                        Lopatov April 30 2013 03: 02
                        0
                        Quote: olp
                        I look at you a lot of things it seems. get baptized more often. already answered above

                        You did not answer. There was some water about "changing effective zones" - but this is not the answer. I argue that only ATGM can perform the task of hitting targets long range from the first shot. And because they remain in the ammunition tank. You are trying to challenge it. There are no arguments yet.


                        Quote: olp
                        do you really know how to read? Where did I say that?

                        Again 25. I pointed out that you did not understand what was going on when I started talking about the removal. You tried to dispute this by posting an image of the upgraded BMP-2. I wrote that such an argument is not very.

                        Quote: olp
                        I don’t know what you are talking about, but I'm talking about Octopus-SD and its capabilities.

                        Which are not and will not be in service with the linear infantry units. But the BMP stood, and will stand. And they will always have their anti-tank weapons.

                        Quote: olp
                        anti-tank units are advancing to tank hazardous areas to support the defense of existing forces

                        This phrase of yours again brings us back to the anti-tank reserve and its functions. In the vast majority of cases, the function of the anti-tank reserve is not "support in the defense of existing forces" - a reinforced battalion already has anti-tank weapons above the roof.
                        They must occupy the line of deployment where this infantry simply does not exist. That is, none. Absolutely. And to detain the advancing enemy, while the infantry units will occupy the line of defense behind the anti-tank men. Stalling for time and "knocking out the tanks" (s)

                        These are the real tasks of the anti-tank reserve. Not "mythical"
                      11. PLO
                        PLO April 30 2013 18: 05
                        0
                        You did not answer. There was some water about "changing effective zones" - but this is not the answer. I argue that only ATGMs can perform the task of hitting targets at long range from the first shot, and therefore they remain in the tank's ammunition. You are trying to challenge this. There are no arguments yet.

                        You don’t even seem to know what you're talking about, jumping from one topic to another
                        You initially stated that ATGMs appeared in the tank ammunition due to the fact that the OBPS / KS could not ensure the defeat of targets from the first shot at long range.
                        for BPS, the maximum effective range is not more than 2.5 km, to which I replied that in the 70s they really didn’t provide such at their maximum ranges, but nowadays, thanks to modern SLAs, the probability of hitting the target with BPS at its maximum range has become high enough to compare in effectiveness with ATGM.
                        but also the ATGM has a much greater range, Svir in the 70s 4km, now Reflex-M at 5.5km,
                        ATGMs significantly increase the capabilities of tanks, but absolutely do not replace conventional shells. at a distance of 1 km, for example, no one will spend.


                        Again 25. I pointed out that you did not understand what was going on when I started talking about the removal. You tried to dispute this by posting an image of the upgraded BMP-2. I wrote that such an argument is not very.

                        Well what are you, I’ll tell you a secret that you don’t seem to understand what this is about.
                        what kind of removal are we talking about let's say on Sturm or Chrysanthemum?

                        Which are not and will not be in service with the linear infantry units. But the BMP stood, and will stand. And they will always have their anti-tank weapons.

                        you seem to be talking on their own, but in a couple of years we’ll see about what and where it will stand. all these muddies with the purchase of Ketnavrov and stuff were not just, a wheeled Octopus is rumored to exist

                        This phrase of yours again brings us back to the anti-tank reserve and its functions. In the vast majority of cases, the function of the anti-tank reserve is not "support in the defense of existing forces" - a reinforced battalion already has anti-tank weapons above the roof.
                        They must occupy the line of deployment where this infantry simply does not exist. That is, none. Absolutely. And to detain the advancing enemy, while the infantry units will occupy the line of defense behind the anti-tank men. Stalling for time and "knocking out the tanks" (s)

                        say nonsense again, a reserve for that and a reserve to plug holes in the defense with it. reinforced battalions, as I understand it, you have immortals and therefore can’t lose personnel and equipment.
                        and if there is at least some force in the way of the enemy, no one will specifically advance forward so that they heroically fight alone, and not support each other.
  • cyclist
    cyclist April 29 2013 18: 08
    0
    and how much does the Kornet ATGM cost in comparison with three shells ?! laughing
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov April 29 2013 18: 27
      0
      Are you sure three are enough?
      1. cyclist
        cyclist April 29 2013 18: 33
        0
        just about, and you say ATGM !, tank guns deserve attention, due to their low cost and good efficiency !!
        1. Lopatov
          Lopatov April 29 2013 19: 25
          +2
          Tank guns deserve attention on tanks. Because complemented by appropriate protection
          1. PLO
            PLO April 29 2013 19: 52
            +1
            Tank guns deserve attention on tanks. Because complemented by appropriate protection

            stupid and short-sighted statement
            all anti-tank systems and tank guns operate within line of sight and the protection of various self-propelled anti-tank systems can not be compared with a tank

            not to mention the fact that the KAZ, actively developed and adopted for service, can make the anti-tank systems extremely ineffective, while very few people can object to OBPS
            1. Lopatov
              Lopatov April 29 2013 20: 22
              +1
              Quote: olp
              all anti-tank systems and tank guns operate within line of sight and the protection of various self-propelled anti-tank systems can not be compared with a tank

              Finally you understand it. The tasks are the same, the possibilities are the same, the protection is the same. Now answer the question, which is better, two self-propelled anti-tank systems or one "Sprut" for the same price?

              Quote: olp
              not to mention the fact that the KAZ, actively developed and adopted for service, can make the anti-tank systems extremely ineffective, while very few people can object to OBPS

              Modern KAZ are able to shoot down "crowbars" But the missiles flying at a speed of almost twice as many, no.
              1. PLO
                PLO April 29 2013 21: 22
                +2
                Finally you understand it. The tasks are the same, the possibilities are the same, the protection is the same. Now answer the question, which is better, two self-propelled anti-tank systems or one "Sprut" for the same price?

                do not compare incomparable
                the capabilities of anti-tank systems / anti-tank systems theoretically cannot be the same as simple anti-tank systems, Octopus is much more versatile.
                and I’ll answer your question as soon as you quote the price of the Octopus and for example Chrysanthemums

                Modern KAZ are able to shoot down "crowbars" But the missiles flying at a speed of almost twice as many, no.

                please do not say more such nonsense
                the initial BPS speed is at least 1700 m / s, the Reflex / Cornet speed does not exceed 300 m / s (i.e. subsonic)
              2. Lopatov
                Lopatov April 29 2013 22: 40
                0
                Quote: olp
                the capabilities of anti-tank systems / anti-tank systems theoretically cannot be the same as simple anti-tank systems, Octopus is much more versatile.

                Where is it "more versatile"? If you screw a can opener onto the butt of a Kalashnikov assault rifle, will it be "more versatile"? Again we return to the fact that you do not know how anti-tank units are used.

                Quote: olp
                and I’ll answer your question as soon as you quote the price of the Octopus and for example Chrysanthemums

                Nice method. I hope you checked beforehand that the prices for "Octopus" are not publicly available?
                "Sprut-SD" is definitely more expensive than BMD-3M. And she, in turn, now stands like the T-90 of early releases. Light armor is an expensive pleasure, my friend.

                Quote: olp
                please do not say any more such nonsense; the initial BPS speed is at least 1700 m / s, the Reflex / Cornet speed does not exceed 300 m / s (i.e. subsonic)

                And the speed of CKEM exceeds 2,5 thousand m / s. And work on it is still underway.

                By the way, you may not know, but "Sturm" has a supersonic rocket. Like "Chrysanthemum"
              3. PLO
                PLO April 29 2013 23: 04
                0
                Where is it "more versatile"?

                The above has already answered.

                "Sprut-SD" is definitely more expensive than BMD-3M. And she, in turn, now stands like the T-90 of early releases. Light armor is an expensive pleasure, my friend.

                yeah .. and Chrysanthemums are not "light armor" and are therefore cheap?

                By the way, you may not know, but "Sturm" has a supersonic rocket. Like "Chrysanthemum"

                ah .. you got me sad


                And the speed of CKEM exceeds 2,5 thousand m / s. And work on it is still underway.

                and where does the bourgeois SKEM wait and wait, not to mention the fact that this is an ordinary uncontrolled blank which should be brought up and brought up due to problems with the minimum firing range and problems with aiming at medium and long ranges at a huge price.
                you would remember about tank electromagnetic guns. also a very promising area request
              4. Lopatov
                Lopatov April 29 2013 23: 57
                0
                Quote: olp
                yeah .. and Chrysanthemums are not "light armor" and are therefore cheap?

                When "Sprut" learns to hit two targets at the same time, then we will compare its cost with the "Chrysanthemum" By the way, it is based on the BMP-3 and therefore cheaper.

                Quote: olp
                and where does the bourgeois SKEM wait and wait, not to mention the fact that this is an ordinary uncontrolled blank which should be brought up and brought up due to problems with the minimum firing range and problems with aiming at medium and long ranges at a huge price.

                The minimum range, like that of "Shturm", is 400 meters. The missile is guided. The "advanced" version can be guided by external target designation and hit targets out of line of sight.

                Quote: olp
                you would remember about tank electromagnetic guns. also a very promising area

                Serial machine. Rocket speed 1650 m / s
              5. PLO
                PLO April 30 2013 00: 26
                0
                When "Octopus" learns to hit two targets at the same time, then compare its cost with "Chrysanthemum"

                there is nothing complicated, you hang up ATGMs like BMP-2M take care, increase the channel and voila

                By the way, it is based on the BMP-3 and therefore cheaper.

                BMD-4М also based on the BMP-3, but for some reason more expensive bully nipanyatna (

                Serial machine. Rocket speed 1650 m / s

                I doubt that the serial one, and even where at the end of this crowbar is the seeker I am afraid to imagine, but the accuracy of firing without the seeker, from the TPK is probably very "impressive", especially if you are sure that the ATGM should shoot outside the range of the target hitting the weapon ... at least 3-4 km
              6. Lopatov
                Lopatov April 30 2013 00: 51
                0
                Quote: olp
                there is nothing complicated, you hang up ATGMs like BMP-2M take care, increase the channel and voila

                "Chrysanthemum" has one operator.

                Quote: olp
                BMD-4M is also based on the BMP-3, but for some reason it is more expensive than it is (

                The armor is very expensive.

                Quote: olp
                I doubt that the serial one, and even where at the end of this crowbar is the seeker I am afraid to imagine, but the accuracy of firing without the seeker, from the TPK is probably very "impressive", especially if you are sure that the ATGM should shoot outside the range of the target hitting the weapon ... at least 3-4 km

                Do you know that not a single Russian anti-tank missile has a seeker? Well, they’re not yet able to create a third-generation ATGM
              7. PLO
                PLO April 30 2013 01: 19
                0
                "Chrysanthemum" has one operator.

                this is its minus
                the commander in the tank also doesn’t kick, but helps to detect targets on time

                The armor is very expensive.

                ? do not understand


                Do you know that not a single Russian anti-tank missile has a seeker? Well, they’re not yet able to create a third-generation ATGM

                and in our apartment there is gas ..
                only you are wrong as usual.
                Whirlwind and Hermes confirmation of this
              8. Lopatov
                Lopatov April 30 2013 02: 29
                0
                Quote: olp
                in this, her miniskomandir in the tank also doesn’t kick, but helps to detect targets on time

                You see, what is the ficus-picus, "Chrysanthemum" does not need to ride in an attack, it has other tasks. What they themselves do not discover, the platoon commander or the battery commander will indicate from their KShM. Having very good reconnaissance equipment and determining the coordinates of targets, and capable of transmitting target designation not only to subordinates, but also to normal artillery.

                Quote: olp
                ? do not understand

                And you did not know why all Soviet-Russian BMDs are much more expensive than their counterparts in the infantry? Because light armor is expensive.


                Quote: olp
                and in our apartment there is gas .. but you are wrong as usual. Whirlwind and Hermes confirm this

                Well, maybe Hermes. And "Whirlwind" is controlled in the same way as "Cornet". And the GOS does not.

                But in fact, it was about an American missile, and if the vast majority of our ATGM GOS do not, then why can not an American missile do without it?
              9. PLO
                PLO April 30 2013 20: 39
                0
                You see, what is the ficus-picus, "Chrysanthemum" does not need to ride in an attack, it has other tasks. What they themselves do not discover, the platoon commander or the battery commander will indicate from their KShM. Having very good reconnaissance equipment and determining the coordinates of targets, and capable of transmitting target designation not only to subordinates, but also to normal artillery.

                You see, you again came up with the idea that someone says that Chrysanthemum needs to go on the attack all the more in the forefront.
                and if the defense does not need a commander,
                so why in this case the commander in the crews of self-propelled guns (cloves, acacia, revenge) do they also have a battery commander?

                And you did not know why all Soviet-Russian BMDs are much more expensive than their counterparts in the infantry? Because light armor is expensive.

                "light armor" is mainly aluminum alloys, it is more expensive, but by no means 2 times

                Well, maybe Hermes. And "Whirlwind" is controlled in the same way as "Cornet". And the GOS does not.

                don't say that you don't know
                9M227M1, 9M227F, 9M227O-2 with IR (thermal imaging) GSN
                9M227M2 with passive radar .GOS

                But in fact, it was about an American missile, and if the vast majority of our ATGM GOS do not, then why can not an American missile do without it?

                the right word you amused me, such questions after you pathetically talked about what you know what anti-tank reserve is
                all our missiles, which you think do not have a seeker, use the principle of "laser trail", i.e. behind them there is a receiver of laser radiation with the help of which the rocket is controlled.
                This method has advantages (there is no need to highlight the target directly, the signal power is much less than when directly illuminating the target) and disadvantages (the target should be in direct line of sight).
                but the oblique nozzles of the rocket are located in the middle of the body and the rocket has a spiral path

                why can't an American rocket do without it?

                everything is very simple
                the engine nozzle is located on the rear section of the rocket, which excludes the installation of a radiation receiver there
              10. Lopatov
                Lopatov April 30 2013 21: 47
                0
                Quote: olp
                You see, you again came up with the idea that someone says that Chrysanthemum needs to go on the attack all the more in the forefront.

                And the tank in the attack, and even in the forefront must go.

                Quote: olp
                and if the defense does not need a commander,
                so why in this case the commander in the crews of self-propelled guns (cloves, acacia, revenge) do they also have a battery commander?

                Bad example. They do not see the enemy at all. The commander is needed to control the work of the crew, to calculate and enter individual amendments, etc.

                Quote: olp
                "light armor" is mainly aluminum alloys, it does not cost twice as much

                But the technology for the production of aluminum armor is expensive


                Quote: olp
                the right word you amused me, such questions after you pathetically talked about what you know what anti-tank reserve is
                all our missiles, which you think do not have a seeker, use the principle of "laser trail", i.e. behind them there is a receiver of laser radiation with the help of which the rocket is controlled.

                You amused me. Well, do not meddle in something that is not in the tooth with your foot. What is GOS? Head homing What homing can a rocket of the first and second generation have? There is no need for special knowledge, rather basic ingenuity.
                We have systems with control by wire (for example, "Fagot", "Metis"), radio command (for example, "Assault", "Attack"), by a laser beam (for example, "Cornet", "Whirlwind") And they have all, oddly enough, there is no GOS.
                And do not meddle with me with revelations from the Internet manual "Cornet for Dummies", I studied all this at the Department of MLRS and ATGM, and at the level of knowledge about when the pyropatrons of the cover are triggered when fired, when the batteries are started and when the powder charges spin the gyroscope ...

                Quote: olp
                9M227M1, 9M227F, 9M227O-2 with IR (thermal imaging) GSN
                9M227M2 with passive radar .GOS

                Are these missiles of the Vortex complex? Or "Whirlwind-M"? However, I'm not a helicopter pilot, I don't really understand aviation ammunition


                Quote: olp
                the engine nozzle is located on the rear section of the rocket, which excludes the installation of a radiation receiver there

                Hello, we’ve arrived. Have you calculated all this from a photograph?
                Nevertheless, LOSAT has the same laser beam control system as the Kornet, or a laser beam teleorientation system, if you want scientific names.
                By the way, like the "Chrysanthemum", the machine can work for two purposes simultaneously.
              11. PLO
                PLO April 30 2013 22: 59
                0
                And the tank in the attack, and even in the forefront must go.

                Well, so be it with this, I agree, just that it changes)


                Bad example. They do not see the enemy at all. The commander is needed to control the work of the crew, calculation and input of individual amendments, etc.

                this is absolutely true for any armored vehicles


                But the technology for the production of aluminum armor is expensive

                enough groundless allegations
                the fact that aluminum is stupidly more expensive than steel is obvious
                for some reason, you are trying to prove that in the end the price increases 2 times without any facts. all this is strange.

                You amused me. Well, do not meddle in something that is not in the tooth with your foot. What is GOS?

                about off the beaten foot, you have already extremely successfully performed above about intercepting KAZ sub-caliber
                apparently at the departments of the MLRS and anti-tank systems this is not taught.
                in any case, it doesn’t matter that there are no GOS in the cornets / assaults, as such, oddly enough, I would have known otherwise I would not have given you the Whirlwind and Hermes as an example, but you apparently didn’t learn logic at the same time

                Are these missiles of the Vortex complex? Or "Whirlwind-M"? However, I'm not a helicopter pilot, I don't really understand aviation ammunition

                not the point
                but you understand how to lie frankly, apparently this was also taught at the department of MLRS and anti-tank systems or you were taught poorly ..
                Do you know that not one Russian anti-tank missile does not have a seeker?


                Hello, we’ve arrived. Have you calculated all this from a photograph?

                I guessed from the photograph (I was taught at the Department of Astrology and Divination) and came to the conclusion that the torch of a rocket and smoke do not contribute to this method of guidance, so let's proof
              12. Lopatov
                Lopatov April 30 2013 23: 34
                -1
                Quote: olp
                Well, so be it with this, I agree, just that it changes)

                The fact that the Chrysanthemum's crew of two is not a drawback.


                Quote: olp
                this is absolutely true for any armored vehicles

                Is all armored vehicles firing from closed firing positions? This is news to me.

                Quote: olp
                for some reason you’re trying to prove that in the end the price increases by 2 times

                If not more. Because it is not the aluminum sheet that goes to the case, but the ABT 101 alloy, a heat-resistant deformable, highly alloyed, welded.

                Quote: olp
                about off the beaten foot, you have already extremely successfully performed above about intercepting KAZ sub-caliber

                Type in the search "complex of active protection subcaliber shells". The Ukrainian "Zaslon", the Czech EFA, the German AMAP-ADS can change their trajectory (and thus prevent the penetration of armor).

                Quote: olp
                but you understand how to lie frankly, apparently this was also taught at the department of MLRS and anti-tank systems or you were taught poorly ..

                Again, a minimum of quick wits is enough to understand that artillery schools do not study aviation ammunition.
                Nevertheless, "Whirlwind" is a second-generation ATGM. And it has no GOS.

                Quote: olp
                I guessed from the photograph (I was taught at the Department of Astrology and Divination) and came to the conclusion that the torch of a rocket and smoke do not contribute to this method of guidance, so let's proof


                http://www.army-technology.com/projects/losat/
              13. PLO
                PLO 1 May 2013 01: 54
                -1
                Is all armored vehicles firing from closed firing positions? This is news to me.

                really? Who told you such nonsense?

                If not more. Because it is not the aluminum sheet that goes to the case, but the ABT 101 alloy, a heat-resistant deformable, highly alloyed, welded.

                blah blah blah
                nothing concrete
                they would say immediately 10 times maybe I would believe

                Again, a minimum of quick wits is enough to understand that artillery schools do not study aviation ammunition.

                again, a minimum of quick wisdom is enough to understand that besides artillery there are other types of troops


                Nevertheless, "Whirlwind" is a second-generation ATGM. And it has no GOS.

                haha wise guy
                if you found fault with such a trifle distinguishing Vortex and Vortex-M where it is absolutely not essential, you should first find out how ATGM differs from ATGM, if you professionally called Vortex ATGM


                Type in the search "complex of active protection subcaliber shells". The Ukrainian "Zaslon", the Czech EFA, the German AMAP-ADS can change their trajectory (and thus prevent the penetration of armor).

                OBPS remain the most effective and cheapest anti-tank weapon, its successful interception relative to all other anti-tank munitions is unlikely
              14. Lopatov
                Lopatov 1 May 2013 09: 40
                0
                Quote: olp
                blah blah blah
                nothing concrete
                they would say immediately 10 times maybe I would believe

                What do you specifically need? Evidence that turning an aluminum ingot into an ABT 101 armor sheet costs money?

                Quote: olp
                to begin with, you should find out how ATGM differs from ATGM, if you so professionally called Vortex ATGM

                PTRK-anti-tank missile system. ATGM anti-tank guided missile. PTURS - anti-tank guided missile shell. What are you going to argue if you do not know the elementary?
                "ATGM" Vikhr "has no GOS" - do you have any objections?

                Quote: olp
                haha wise guy
                if you find fault with such a trifle distinguishing Vortex and Vortex-M where it is absolutely not essential

                Did I find fault? And not you? After all, it was a matter of the fact that the absence of a GOS on an anti-tank missile does not mean that it is not controllable. Are these your words?
                Quote: olp
                and where at the end of this crowbar is the seeker I am afraid to imagine, but the accuracy of shooting without the seeker, from the TPK is probably very "impressive"

                And you instead smoothly switched to "Whirlwind".
                The presence of GOS in an anti-tank guided missile is optional. Dot.

                Quote: olp
                OBPS remain the most effective and cheapest anti-tank weapon, its successful interception relative to all other anti-tank munitions is unlikely

                So, have KAZ learned how to deal with sub-caliber weapons? And my "speech" about this was correct?
                I will tell you more, they can be opposed not only by modern KAZ, but also by modern types of dynamic protection, both Russian and Ukrainian development. And whether they can fight a much faster rocket, which has more weight, and therefore more kinetic energy, is not known.

                Ps The game called "minus" can be played together.
              15. PLO
                PLO 1 May 2013 10: 35
                0
                What do you specifically need? Evidence that turning an aluminum ingot into an ABT 101 armor sheet costs money?

                No, I need proof that Octopus-SD costs exactly 2 times more expensive than Chrysanthemum (or any other ATGM that you had in mind)

                PTRK-anti-tank missile system. ATGM anti-tank guided missile. PTURS - anti-tank guided missile shell. What are you going to argue if you do not know the elementary?
                "ATGM" Vikhr "has no GOS" - do you have any objections?

                you just called Vortex ATGM again, while in fact Vortex is ATGM.
                did you really study at the aforementioned department or did you buy a military card?
                what is there to argue with you at all if you get confused in such elementary terms that should bounce off your teeth?
                "ATGM" Vikhr "has no GOS" - do you have any objections?

                I see no reason to prove what I did not say)


                And you instead smoothly switched to "Whirlwind".
                The presence of GOS in an anti-tank guided missile is optional. Dot.

                in ATGM the presence of a control system is mandatory (GOS as a special case), and on your photograph you have its presence is doubtful. Exclamation point.

                So, have KAZ learned how to deal with sub-caliber weapons? And my "speech" about this was correct?

                Dynamic protection has also learned how to deal with OBPS, and for a long time ago, KAZ in this regard has not gone far from it in terms of effectiveness. so in essence you are wrong. where all other types of anti-tank weapons are destroyed guaranteed, the interception of BPS is unlikely. PMC.

                And whether they can fight a much faster rocket, which has more weight, and therefore more kinetic energy, is not known.

                how it is unknown. a certain specialist Lopatov argued above that they could not. you already decide. Question mark.

                Ps The game called "minus" can be played together.

                for the entire time of our conversation, I did not put a single minus to you, and even one plus sign at the very beginning. but in this case I will not stay in debt. accept. ellipsis.
  • evil hamster
    evil hamster April 29 2013 22: 27
    +3
    Quote: Spade
    Modern KAZ are able to shoot down "crowbars" But the missiles flying at a speed of almost twice as many, no.

    Mr. You mixed up the shovels, everything is exactly the opposite, and even much worse. The subsonic rocket is approximately 300 m / s, assaults, attacks and chrysanthemums are super sonic, but we are talking about 1,5-2 max marching speed, i.e. 500-600 m / s. Domestic scrap comes at a distance of 2 km at a speed of about 1600 m / s western 1500 m / s. So if, for example, there is a task from an ambush to flip an enemy light armor at a distance of 2 km. then Octopus will cope better with any than any ATGM, faster and several times cheaper. And most importantly, Octopus is not a replacement for anti-tank systems but a means of reinforcing the landing. Our potential partners have a similar ersatz of 105 mm of fluff on the Striker chassis (yes, it’s understandable that it’s wheeled but ideologically closest to the technique of our airborne vehicles)
  • Lopatov
    Lopatov April 30 2013 00: 09
    -1
    Distance 2 km? I'm afraid that at this range, the enemy's light armor will break the Octopus with the bulletproof armor, like a hot water bottle. What is the effective range of the Bradley cannon? 3000 m, if I'm not mistaken. And the Browning M2 2000 m
  • evil hamster
    evil hamster April 30 2013 00: 47
    +2
    Dear, you persist in vain in the obvious. The outcome of the GSTP duel against a small-bore autocannon is obvious and unambiguous. If the modernized Octopus will be implemented at least level T90A self-propelled guns, there will be nothing to catch light armor. You probably joked about browning, I laughed too. And I want to note that in a similar situation, for example, a chrysanthemum is in danger in the same way, only rockets fly slower and there is a significantly longer interval between 2 and 3 shots.
  • Lopatov
    Lopatov April 30 2013 00: 55
    0
    Quote: evil hamster
    Dear, you persist in vain in the obvious. The outcome of the GSTP duel against a small-bore autocannon is obvious and unambiguous.

    Sure. The outcome is an exchange. One destroyed "Bradley" and one destroyed "Octopus" Unless, of course, it is spotted earlier and rammed with ATGMs from a safe distance.
  • evil hamster
    evil hamster April 30 2013 01: 35
    +2
    And in fact, from which should they detect it earlier? And why is this a bargain? SOU BMP in the general case are inferior to tank ones (naturally, of their technical level) The initial velocity of the projectile is lower, the power is incomparably smaller. The accuracy of automatic fire is less. or do we have BMP gunners all with steel eggs, stop the cars and heal the octopus in short bursts? I just see a picture of the commander Bradley’s crew for himself - don’t overshadow the posons, this is not a tank, I recognized it by the leg, I believe in you as a gunner, you chop it before. Sorry for some banter, but the picture is somewhat strange, we get it. About range and ptur. Firstly, it is not always possible to implement it in this particular area, secondly, the octopus also has a TOUR for every fireman, thirdly, if you have been found before, and you still have no ATGMs ready for the enemy, then it doesn’t matter if you have Sprut on your BMP-3 chassis Whether the Cornet is on it, or Chrysanthemum or the hell is bald in a cart. As a result, you will collapse.
    I just can’t understand what you don’t like the self-running gun as a means of reinforcing the airborne forces. It’s better to preserve the anti-tank guards, if tanks really meet. To use anti-tank guided missiles against anything that could be dangerous, because this is not enough ammunition.
  • Lopatov
    Lopatov April 30 2013 02: 06
    -1
    Quote: evil hamster
    SOU BMP in the general case are inferior to tank ones (naturally, of their technical level) The initial velocity of the projectile is lower, the power is incomparably smaller.

    Does this matter for the Octopus with its bulletproof vehicle? When will at least three 25-mm cannons huddle him, and at least two ATGM calculations to target?

    Quote: evil hamster
    or we have BMP gunners all with steel eggs, stop the cars and heal the octopus in short bursts

    No, they jumped out of cars and immediately draped in the rear. Not a war, but a fairy tale, you can defeat all armored vehicles in the district with one shot.

    Quote: evil hamster
    thirdly, if you have been found before, and you still have no ATGM ready for the enemy, then it doesn’t matter if you have Sprut on your BMP-3 chassis, whether it is Cornet on it, or Chrysanthemum or the hell is bald in a cart.

    Important, and very. One ATGM protrudes from the top of an ATGM that is correctly located at the firing position. It is difficult to detect and get into it is a non-trivial task.

    Quote: evil hamster
    I just can’t understand what you don’t like the self-running gun as a means of reinforcing the airborne forces.

    The fact that they spent time and money on it. And now they are pushing into the troops. And the self-propelled gun, which is really necessary for the Airborne Forces, developed on the subject of "Swaging", was abandoned. If, as planned, such SPGs appeared in each mortar battery, then it would be of use. Instead, they rush about with this nedotank, as with a written sack, not knowing what other impossible tasks to set for him in order to justify this cut.
  • evil hamster
    evil hamster April 30 2013 14: 44
    +1
    Quote: Spade
    Does this matter for the Octopus with its bulletproof vehicle? When will at least three 25-mm cannons huddle him, and at least two ATGM calculations to target?

    Hmm .. and on top of it A10 will not go on top of it? Well, so for sure?
    Quote: Spade
    No, they jumped out of cars and immediately draped in the rear. Not a war, but a fairy tale, you can defeat all armored vehicles in the district with one shot.
    This option is as unlikely as described by me. The crews of Bradley seem to get me in such an ambush, first of all they will try to leave the firing zone (they will hide behind the folds of the terrain, cover themselves with smoke, etc.) And then, according to your scenario, some robots are direct and not soldiers.
    Quote: Spade
    Important, and very. One ATGM protrudes from the top of an ATGM that is correctly located at the firing position. It is difficult to detect and get into it is a non-trivial task.
    Well, Octopus, of course, will climb the most noticeable hillock, mark itself with signal smoke, and turn to board the advancing enemy, and then suddenly the frontal armor for 2 km will not be as bulletproof as we would like?
    Quote: Spade
    By spending time and money on her... And now they are pushing into the troops. And the self-propelled gun, which is really necessary for the Airborne Forces, developed on the subject of "Swaging", was abandoned. If, as planned, such SPGs appeared in each mortar battery, then it would be of use. Instead, they rush about with this nedotank, as with a written bag, not knowing what other impossible tasks to set for him in order to justify this cut.
    Here the key word has already been spent, it is necessary to bring the matter to mind. And actually why are you opposing the "crimp" with the octopus? Nona's first development is actually pure artillery. Opportunities for the destruction of mobile armored vehicles are minimal - the ballistics is not the same. So what's the problem, let it be, only the 2A80 gun naturally needs to be installed and the chassis unified with the BMP3 / BMD4M.
  • Lopatov
    Lopatov 1 May 2013 09: 58
    0
    Quote: evil hamster
    Hmm .. and on top of it A10 will not go on top of it? Well, so for sure?

    The infantry is dismounted. And in each compartment, in addition to the installation of an ATGM on the car, they also have a portable ATGM, "Dragon" or "Javelin"

    Quote: evil hamster
    This option is as unlikely as described by me. It seems to me the crews of Bradley, having hit such an ambush, will first of all try to leave the firing zone

    Rather, they will eliminate the threat. To know what kind of terrain can be hidden, you need to localize the source of the threat. Having localized, they will fire at him. Firstly, to make it difficult to aim, 25-mm guns pose a great threat to fire guidance and control devices, and secondly, to indicate the purpose of their infantry with anti-tank systems.

    Quote: evil hamster
    Well, Octopus will certainly climb the most prominent hillock

    Will you argue that the sight is smaller than the tower? And what if getting into the sight does not mean the death of crew members?


    Quote: evil hamster
    Here the key word has already been spent, it is necessary to bring the matter to mind. And actually why are you opposing the "crimp" with the octopus?

    Because that's the way it is. "Crimping" together with the self-propelled ATGM system can perform all tasks to support the airborne forces. Their "replacement" in the form of "Octopus" is not. And nevertheless, they are trying to shove the Sprut into the troops, and work on the self-propelled guns and self-propelled anti-tank systems is practically stopped.
  • No_more
    No_more April 29 2013 18: 39
    0
    For shells this colossus still needs to be bought, So Cornet is much more profitable.
    Another thing is that our airborne forces are used as ordinary motorized rifles.
  • leon-iv
    leon-iv April 29 2013 18: 31
    +2
    Kornet ATGM missiles can replace all three projectiles with increased efficiency

    lolshto?
    And how will they replace the OFS OBPS? And above all OFS. The introduction of COFS? Do not tell my slippers.
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov April 29 2013 19: 32
      -1
      Quote: leon-iv
      lolshto?

      What language is it in?

      Quote: leon-iv
      And how will they replace the OFS OBPS? And above all OFS. The introduction of COFS? Do not tell my slippers.

      There are so many abbreviations ... Have not served, and are trying to prove yourself experienced? I remember that for the phrase "sixteen zero zero" the teachers raped us "you are not in a movie about the war, you are speaking correctly."

      High-explosive fragmentation perfectly replaces artillery when working on group targets, a high-explosive missile with a point-based warhead.
      "Scrap" perfectly replaces the cumulative tandem with homogeneous armor penetration of 1400 mm. Moreover, in contrast to the armor-piercing sub-caliber, at any distance from 100 to 5500 meters
  • self-propelled
    self-propelled April 29 2013 23: 04
    +1
    Quote: Spade
    Kornet ATGM missiles can replace all three projectiles with increased efficiency

    let’s take the most obvious - they learned to shoot down ATGMs, but somehow with a cannon shell it’s not very ...
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov April 29 2013 23: 58
      -1
      Learned temporarily.
  • svp67
    svp67 April 29 2013 13: 44
    +6
    Quote: Z.A.M.
    Why is the VDV such a HUGE? To destroy the tanks? Yes, now such miracles about RPGs tell, wow.

    It remains only to compare the effective firing range, especially at night and everything falls into place. 125mmTP is a universal cannon firing both shells and missiles, in addition to self-propelled, floating, and even airborne ... So its direct place in the rapid reaction forces ...
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov April 29 2013 16: 48
      -1
      Tanks in the rapid reaction troops are no longer quoted?
      1. self-propelled
        self-propelled April 29 2013 23: 13
        +1
        Quote: Spade
        Tanks in the rapid reaction troops are no longer quoted?

        but didn’t think that it’s easier to transfer a tank regiment or a regiment of similar self-propelled guns to some distance? I mean the amount of equipment involved for the transfer (aviation, landing ships, etc.). I think it’s not worth talking about the cost.
        1. Lopatov
          Lopatov April 30 2013 00: 01
          -1
          Easier regiment of self-propelled guns. True, the tank regiment will be able to fight normally, but the regiment of these nedotankov- no. On one tooth to linear motorized infantry units.
          The cost is about the same as the T-90 of the first issues.
          1. self-propelled
            self-propelled April 30 2013 11: 22
            0
            what do you mean by "fighting normally"? if you mean the resistance of these types of equipment to anti-tank weapons, then modern MBTs also burn from grenade launchers ...
  • Aleks tv
    Aleks tv April 29 2013 14: 31
    +4
    Quote: Z.A.M.
    in what conditions it should be used.


    A tank cannon, standard in terms of characteristics of MBT cannons (and not its substitute), for direct-fire firing (and closed fire positions with OFS) with all types of ammunition and guided missile, a weapons warehouse, self-propelled, with bulletproof armor, air transport, amphibious, amphibious ...
    Where are even more advantages? What else is there to add a periscope to it?
    This combat unit will find its application in any troops where tactics are speed and onslaught, but powerful support by fire is urgently needed: airborne forces, marines, special operations forces and quick reaction forces.
    She can even be thrown on the “Cow”. Simple and stupid: at least to the Transbaikal taiga, at least to the mountain pass of the Caucasus, where there are no places for the possibility of landing.

    For its niche weapons Octopus is simply unique. The absence of it in the troops: to put it mildly - sabotage, rude to say - betrayal and wrecking.
    But there is no universal weapon.
  • ultra
    ultra April 29 2013 16: 40
    -1
    Quote: Spade
    The thing is small: come up with why this car is needed.

    good good good
  • Reasonable, 2,3
    Reasonable, 2,3 April 29 2013 12: 58
    +2
    At the cantemation I fired about 3-4 meters near me. I was deaf for half a day. The jokers are bad. And the car is frankly beautiful.
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov April 29 2013 13: 07
      -1
      I hope you weren’t standing at the edge of the trunk?
    2. leon-iv
      leon-iv April 29 2013 13: 36
      +1
      and from what pereperea she hangs out in a cantemation. They all stand in 98 VDD near Kostroma.
      1. igordok
        igordok April 29 2013 14: 36
        0
        Quote: leon-iv
        They all stand in 98 VDD near Kostroma.

        In 76, the HFS is also present.
        1. leon-iv
          leon-iv April 29 2013 15: 31
          0
          Oh, I didn’t know, and they didn’t know there, it's nice. And how much did they put there?
  • sven27
    sven27 April 29 2013 13: 02
    0
    "After modernization, Sprut-SD will become the world's best car in its class"
    And what is the best in class? This article is not disclosed. Title too loud
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov April 29 2013 13: 06
      +3
      In fact, she is the only one in her class. And therefore, without false modesty, it is necessary to recognize that the best in the world.
      Do you still know a lot of airborne self-propelled anti-tank guns?
    2. ultra
      ultra April 29 2013 16: 44
      0
      Quote: sven27
      "After modernization, Sprut-SD will become the world's best car in its class"

      Will anyone name anything else in this "class" or is there nothing else in this "class"?
      1. Joker
        Joker April 29 2013 17: 32
        +1
        None of the army of the world has anything like this, in the USA they do something similar on the basis of Stryker, but to possess all the capabilities of the Octopus, she is far away. It is not landing, cannot swim, it weighs 2 times more, larger in size, there is no possibility of firing a guided missile. Something like that.
        1. Nayhas
          Nayhas April 29 2013 20: 00
          +1
          Quote: Joker
          Strykers do something similar, but to possess all the capabilities of the Octopus, she is far away. It is not landing, cannot swim, it weighs 2 times more, larger in size

          because no one is engaged in parachuting such machines, for this is ridiculous. And it’s harder because the crew must be protected by normal armor, and not by an aluminum ersatz that supports combustion in case of fire.
  • mojohed
    mojohed April 29 2013 13: 49
    +1
    The technique is good. And the landing in the rear of the enemy in any way will be provided with its covert and ambush use against armored vehicles and enemy infantry. Along with the new firing capabilities of the BMP-4M, the landing force will at least double its firepower in any type of combat clash.
  • erased
    erased April 29 2013 13: 49
    +1
    When and how many new cars will be put in the troops - this is the main thing.
  • yllo
    yllo April 29 2013 14: 17
    +1
    "According to the corporate newspaper Tractor Plants"

    Cool.
  • Ivan Tarasov
    Ivan Tarasov April 29 2013 14: 44
    -1
    Why spend money on such a junk, it would be better if they created a modern tank ...
    1. UFO
      UFO April 29 2013 15: 04
      0
      And how the tank "junk" will turn out, say: "it would be better if the" Octopus "was brought to mind"?
    2. dmitry46
      dmitry46 April 29 2013 15: 39
      0
      do not write nonsense! Tanks have other tasks!
    3. ultra
      ultra April 29 2013 16: 48
      +1
      Quote: Ivan Tarasov
      Why spend money on such a junk, it would be better if they created a modern tank ...

      Probably about the "junk" got excited, but in my opinion a car with tasks that are uncertain today and vague prospects! hi
  • VohaAhov
    VohaAhov April 29 2013 16: 47
    0
    Quote: Spade
    The thing is small: come up with why this car is needed.


    In the Airborne Forces, the most powerful airborne equipment has a gun caliber of 30 mm. True, there is a 120 mm Nona mortar. But a mortar is a mortar, not a weapon.
    I would also like to see this installation in the Marine Corps. But with a few changes. It will not be necessary to land it, therefore it is possible to improve the reservation and install an anti-aircraft machine gun.
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov April 29 2013 17: 00
      0
      Quote: VohaAhov
      In the Airborne Forces, the most powerful airborne equipment has a gun caliber of 30 mm. True, there is a 120 mm Nona mortar. But a mortar is a mortar, not a weapon.

      "Nona" is not a mortar. Officially, it is called a "weapon", since it can shoot not only 120-mm mines, but also 122-mm shells, including guided ones.
      In addition, the arsenal of the Airborne Forces also has a 122-mm howitzer D-30.

      Quote: VohaAhov
      I would also like to see this installation in the Marine Corps. But with a few changes. It will not be necessary to land it, therefore it is possible to improve the reservation and install an anti-aircraft machine gun.

      Why ersatz tank Marine Corps, armed with full tanks?
      1. PLO
        PLO April 29 2013 17: 23
        0
        Why ersatz tank Marine Corps, armed with full tanks?

        since when has the MP armed with real tanks?
        1. dmitry46
          dmitry46 April 29 2013 17: 27
          0
          There used to be! In the Bialystok brigade MP were definitely T-72. but after the Serdyukov reform, the Marines did not have them ...
        2. Lopatov
          Lopatov April 29 2013 17: 45
          -1
          Actually, they do. Each MP brigade has a tank battalion. Unless, of course, the "optimizers" have made it to them.
    2. Nayhas
      Nayhas April 29 2013 20: 06
      -1
      Please explain to me for what tasks the units of the Airborne Forces with armored vehicles are parachuted?
      1. awg75
        awg75 April 29 2013 20: 28
        +2
        my friend, I think it’s harmful to read the news on this site - don’t boot .... go to the house2 site --- yours there
        1. Lopatov
          Lopatov April 29 2013 20: 33
          -1
          So you know these tasks?
      2. Per se.
        Per se. April 29 2013 21: 16
        +1
        Quote: Nayhas
        Please explain to me for what tasks the units of the Airborne Forces with armored vehicles are parachuted?
        You guys, as if for the money of overseas "friends" our airborne forces are terrorizing with such arrivals. The Bundeswehr army has airborne troops, whose tasks include parachute landing behind enemy lines; to support the paratroopers, the Germans use the Wiesel and Wiesel-2 armored vehicles. The crew is 2 people, in the basic version they are armed with a 20 mm cannon, but there are many modifications on their chassis with anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles, ambulances and command vehicles, has bulletproof armor and does not float. The main thing in the Airborne Forces technology is AIR TRANSPORTABILITY, which ensures the rapid transfer of troops by air, both in landing and parachute landing. If you don’t know what it’s for, what operational tasks it allows you to solve, don’t try to judge, “Why ?!”. Our equipment for the Airborne Forces, like the troops themselves, surpass what a potential enemy has, do not sing to the tune of our enemies, we have only 30-35 thousand Airborne Forces. There are other troops for heavy equipment, with different tasks.
  • awg75
    awg75 April 29 2013 20: 24
    0
    our artillery is the best in the world and it is indisputable, because all the power in people --- and they are the best in us
  • jagdpanzer
    jagdpanzer April 29 2013 20: 42
    0
    as always noise and scream) yes let it be better than an extra villa with a yacht and 13 sq. hut from someone else)
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov April 29 2013 22: 42
      -1
      It would be better if instead they brought the nedotank to mind and put SPGs developed according to the ROC "Compression"
  • waisson
    waisson April 29 2013 20: 54
    -2
    we are fed one modernization of the equipment of the USSR and where are the new developments than boast ....... RUSSIA