Military Review

Self-propelled mortar "Aibat". International cooperation and corruption scandal

329
In the middle of the last decade, the Ministry of Defense of Kazakhstan appealed to the Israeli defense industry to help in the modernization of artillery. For several years, Israeli companies, primarily Soltam, created three projects of new artillery systems. These were the Naiza MLRS, the Semser 122-mm self-propelled howitzer and the Aybat 120-mm self-propelled mortar. All three types of technology were adopted by the Army of Kazakhstan and are still in use.


Self-propelled mortar "Aibat". International cooperation and corruption scandal


A characteristic feature of all three projects, including the 120-mm self-propelled mortar project, was the minimal participation of the Kazakh defense industry. The development of new artillery systems was almost completely carried out by Israeli specialists, if necessary involving colleagues from Kazakhstan. Similarly, the composition of the equipment and armament of new vehicles was determined: some units of the new artillery systems are of Soviet / Russian origin, and some are produced in Israel. This approach allowed the two countries to complete the project and bring the new artillery systems to mass production and operation.

120-mm self-propelled mortar "Aybat" ("Grozny") was created on the basis of ready-made components and was designed to use the ammunition in stockpiles. So, as the basis for the combat vehicle were selected two chassis, created in the USSR. The possibility of installing an artillery unit on the chassis of an MT-LB tractor or an armored personnel carrier BTR-70 was reported. For several reasons, a mortar on a wheeled chassis is not widespread. Moreover, some sources claim that this version of the Aybat machine did not pass the test, which is why all self-propelled mortars in the troops use the MT-LB armored tractor as a chassis.



The use of the slightly modified MT-LB chassis allowed the self-propelled mortar to provide good mobility. The maximum speed of the combat vehicle reaches 60 km / h. The armored tractor was considered a convenient base for placing modern equipment and weapons. As a result, all (or almost all) Aibat mortars were built on the basis of a tracked chassis.

Rear cargo volume of the base tractor is given under the fighting compartment. For the convenience of placing weapons and crew on the back of the armored hull of the base machine installed an additional wheelhouse with an opening roof. Before shooting, the hatch doors open and allow firing in any direction. Israeli designers, seeking to provide the greatest opportunities at minimal cost, have chosen the original method of creating an armament complex. The main weapons Aibat machines became slightly modified mortar 2B11 "Sleigh" caliber 120 mm Soviet development. Because of this, the Israeli project can be considered a direct analogue of the Soviet self-propelled mortar "Tundzha-Sani". However, the new mortar "Aibat" has several interesting differences.

In order to increase the characteristics of the base mortar, Soltam employees used in the Aybat project some elements of their previous development, the Cardom mortar system. The combat vehicle for Kazakhstan was fitted with recoil devices and a number of electronic equipment designed for the Cardom complex. Thanks to this, it was possible to provide relatively high combat characteristics, including accuracy and accuracy of fire. In developing the Aibat project, Israeli specialists had to make some adjustments to the design of the elements of the Cardom complex, as well as to modify the 2B11 mortar a little.



In all photos of the self-propelled mortar "Aibat" there is a nuance that directly speaks about one of the most interesting aspects of the project. On the lower front plate of the body of the combat vehicle there are fastenings for the mortar baseplate. If necessary, the calculation can remove it and use it for its intended purpose. On the sides and on the roof of the hull, the barrel and the elements of the 82-mm mortar gun carriage are mounted in the stowed position. Thus, the “Aibat” combat vehicle carries two mortars at once and can solve assigned tasks using the most convenient of them. For self-defense, the crew of the combat vehicle has a heavy machine gun NSV.

To control the fire of the main 120-mm mortar used a digital system made in Israel. The calculation of the combat vehicle, consisting of four people, can independently guide the weapon using information about the position of the target. If necessary, the Aibat mortar is capable of working with external target designation. It is alleged that the preparation for shooting after arriving at the position takes no more than 30 seconds. The main weapon of a combat vehicle is not equipped with any means of automatic loader, however, an experienced calculation can ensure the rate of fire at the level of 16 shots per minute.

In addition to the self-propelled mortar, Israeli designers created meteorological services for Kazakhstan, as well as an intelligence complex equipped with unmanned aerial vehicles. Each battalion consisting of three batteries is assigned one meteorological station and an intelligence vehicle.



In 2008, the Aibat self-propelled mortar was tested and put into service. In the same year, the Petropavlovsk Heavy Machinery Plant, with the help of specialists from Soltam and IMI, set up mass production of new combat vehicles. For several years, the 560 self-propelled mortars were converted from the available armored tractors. The military department of Kazakhstan positively assessed the Israeli project, created by his order.

However, soon after the mortar was put into service, problems began to appear. Already in the first months of operation, reports appeared that, when firing from an 120-mm mortar, despite the recoil devices, deformation of the bottom of the base machine occurred. The lack of rigidity was corrected by reinforcing the bottom, but as it turned out soon, this was not the most serious problem.

At the end of the last decade, a major corruption scandal began in Kazakhstan. Several high-ranking officials of the Ministry of Defense were involved in illegal schemes. According to some reports, the treaties between Kazakhstan and Israel, concerning the creation of new artillery systems, appeared as a result of illegal processes and bypassing existing legislation. In addition, some sources state that several points were present in the contract with the executing company, due to which the Kazakh side could not independently and without the approval of Israeli industrialists perform any actions related to the production of new artillery systems.

A number of officials were sentenced to prison, but Israeli-made combat vehicles remained in service with the Kazakh army. Despite the ambiguous and dubious origin, the Aibat self-propelled mortar and other types of military equipment remain the newest artillery systems in the land forces of Kazakhstan.


On the materials of the sites:
http://army-guide.com/
http://strangernn.livejournal.com/
http://defense-update.com/
http://centrasia.ru/
Author:
329 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Prohor
    Prohor 25 October 2013 08: 49
    +7
    The choice of tracked chassis is incomprehensible, it seems to me that in Kazakhstan, wheels are preferable.
    1. Hon
      Hon 25 October 2013 09: 27
      +7
      Most likely "motorbikes" have nowhere to do.
      1. Semurg
        Semurg 25 October 2013 10: 03
        +8
        Quote: Hon
        Most likely "motorbikes" have nowhere to do.

        on wheels, this is acceptable only for the south, I think the caterpillars are preferable for the whole of Kazakhstan, well, the finished chassis (cranks) were adapted after completion.
      2. mirag2
        mirag2 25 October 2013 12: 18
        0
        You see how Israel participated, so immediately the problem.
        Now let's give some money, why wait!
        Correct ...
        For the lave.
        And with the drones sold to us, what?
        Do not fly?
        Or millions more to pay for their specialists to launch drones for us?
        With these drones, a dark topic, as dark as with abuses when buying radio overflights, is understandable, someone was given money to sell us more, and probably with the condition that agricultural products were taken in kibbutz-stopudovo.
    2. Dezzed
      Dezzed 25 October 2013 09: 58
      +3
      Perhaps a decision in favor of stabilizing the machine and subsequently increasing the rate of fire.
    3. Civil
      Civil 25 October 2013 12: 03
      +3
      Aybat from some languages ​​translates to Good
      1. xetai9977
        xetai9977 25 October 2013 12: 30
        +6
        Among the Turkic peoples, HEYBƏT is terrible, formidable, terrible.
        1. Zymran
          Zymran 25 October 2013 13: 58
          +8
          We have two words aybәt beautiful and aybat formidable.
    4. Airman
      Airman 25 October 2013 12: 45
      +6
      Quote: Prokhor
      The choice of tracked chassis is incomprehensible, it seems to me that in Kazakhstan, wheels are preferable.

      Do not forget, there are salt marshes in Kazakhstan, such as at night, east of Lake Alakol, moving north along the border, we drove into such a salt marsh, BSL-110CHK dug up until morning. So the choice of chassis is optimal.
  2. Lindon
    Lindon 25 October 2013 08: 56
    14
    The main weapon of a combat vehicle is not equipped with any means of automatic loading, however, an experimental calculation can provide a rate of fire at the level of 16 rounds per minute.


    Why automatic loader for 120 mm mortar? Increasing the density of fire is easier to achieve by increasing the number of trunks. On a Tulip with 250 mm caliber, this is certainly justified.
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. xetai9977
      xetai9977 25 October 2013 09: 23
      12
      Swedish-Finnish CV-90 AMOS is an excellent mortar example. But the Kazakh brothers are on the right track. Looking for partners for the joint production of advanced designs.
      1. Lopatov
        Lopatov 25 October 2013 09: 48
        +6
        Quote: xetai9977
        Swedish-Finnish CV-90 AMOS is an excellent mortar example.

        And the most interesting thing is that Russia can start producing this kind of SM right now. R&D on the installation of the AMOS tower on the BMP-3 chassis was carried out back in 1999 by the Kurgan MZ Design Bureau (object 699).
        1. IS-80
          IS-80 25 October 2013 09: 53
          +1
          And what are its significant advantages over 2C9?
          1. Lopatov
            Lopatov 25 October 2013 10: 06
            +4
            Quote: IS-80
            And what are its significant advantages over 2C9?

            They are incomparable - machines of different generations.
            Adequately compare with the "Vienna" 2C31. AMOS has an automatic loader, and therefore has a higher rate of fire, but "Vienna" is able to shoot 122-mm shells, however, not unified with the D-30 shells (2S1)
    3. Lopatov
      Lopatov 25 October 2013 09: 44
      +4
      Sorry, but the 16 fps rate is very high for a self-propelled mortar. Only the Czechoslovak ShM vz. 85 PRÁM-S has a higher - 18-20 rpm. The vaunted AMOS has only 12 of the two trunks.
  3. ramin_serg
    ramin_serg 25 October 2013 09: 05
    10
    I'm afraid it will happen again, but I think that any research is useful for the military industry and for the experience of the defense industry. Even if the first samples turn out so-so
  4. albai
    albai 25 October 2013 09: 18
    +9
    Such cars would be useful for Kyrgyzstan, in the mountains, mortars are preferable to guns and howitzers, especially on caterpillar tracks.
  5. Lopatov
    Lopatov 25 October 2013 09: 29
    +5
    Because of this, the Israeli project can be considered a direct analogue of the Soviet self-propelled mortar Tundzha-Sani.

    Brave claim. However, it is not true. "Tunja-Sani" fired with the slab in the ground, and therefore the firing sector was limited
    1. bask
      bask 25 October 2013 17: 22
      +1
      Quote: Spade
      "Tunja-Sani" fired with the slab in the ground, and therefore the firing sector was limited

      MT-LB, as a GSH platform, is very limited.
      Need more mobile, wheeled or GSH.
      The choice of mortar is of course automatic.
      The rest of the SLA, and electronics.
      American 120-mm mortar M-327 - 120. Marine Corps of the United States.
      1. Lopatov
        Lopatov 25 October 2013 18: 19
        +4
        Actually, a French mortar, rifled. Knows how to shoot shells. And it was after his study that the epic of "Nona" began
        1. bask
          bask 25 October 2013 22: 19
          +1
          Quote: Spade
          Actually, a French mortar, rifled. Knows how to shoot shells. And it was after his study that the epic of "Nona" began

          You mean: French 120mm rifled mortar MO-RT-61.
          "" "Testing the option of transporting a mock-up model of a 120-mm rifled mortar with a swivel barrel by train as part of the GTMU tractor and the KLP-1 (GAZ) floating wheeled ski trailer, 1980" "
          http://coollib.com/b/230106/read


          120-mm mortar "Nona-M". Towing by UAZ vehicle.

          1. Lopatov
            Lopatov 25 October 2013 23: 10
            +2
            Nona-M mortar new. There, the level of informatization would be increased, and the apparatus would not have a price.
            1. bask
              bask 25 October 2013 23: 56
              +1
              Quote: Spade
              There, the level of informatization would be increased, and the apparatus of the price would

              First introduced at IDELF-2010 in Moscow.
              120 mm mortar - 2B23 Nona-M1, can fire ammunition of 120 mm caliber of Russia and NATO. The maximum firing range is 12,8 km.
              French 120mm towed rifled mortar MO 120 RT.
              It has a computerized fire control system.
              It can fire all types of 120-mm TDA mortar ammunition, including a standard high-explosive mortar mine, has a maximum firing range of 8,1 km or up to 13 km when using mines with rocket boosters.
  6. makarov
    makarov 25 October 2013 09: 45
    +2
    The new weapons, which, as a result of adopting them, caused colossal (by the standards of Kazakhstan) material damage in peacetime, is NONSENS !!! So war is not necessary .....
  7. Semurg
    Semurg 25 October 2013 09: 54
    13
    if Aibat was brought to mind well, the army received modernized weapons, industry orders, the Israelis sewed up the reputation of their innovations, the thief got the deadlines. I think everyone got what they wanted. The Russians should take an example from the Israelis on how to work in the post-Soviet modernization market, and until recently they were, to put it mildly, not quick. At the expense of the damage, the issue is controversial, when transferring our capital, many thought the same thing that it was a waste of money in poor Kazakhstan.
    1. avt
      avt 25 October 2013 10: 17
      +4
      Quote: Semurg
      .Russians need to take an example from the Israelis how to work in the post-Soviet modernization market, and until recently they were, to put it mildly, not quick.

      Well, why, here is KAMAZ, by the method of the Israelis, you’ve breathed in cracked armored cars, though new ones. And with regards to this unit, well, if you like it - yes to health request There is nowhere to put motorcycle skaters that are on the move, so it's better to redo it than to write off. Well, if you have pennies, then it is better to buy "Vienna", "Nonu" at the extreme.
      1. Lopatov
        Lopatov 25 October 2013 10: 24
        +5
        "Nona" is a car of the last century, hopelessly outdated. "Vienna" is dear. So much so that even the Russian Ministry of Defense does not buy it.
        1. bask
          bask 25 October 2013 22: 30
          +1
          Quote: Spade
          ... "Vienna" is dear. So much so that even the Russian Ministry of Defense does not buy it.

          But the Ministry of Defense of Azerbaijan is purchasing.
          Now it’s cheap and high-quality, it can be produced only when you have your own elemental base at 100%.
          And a closed production cycle, from suppliers of allies, of their country.
          1. alone
            alone 25 October 2013 22: 37
            +3
            Quote: shovels
            Vienna is "expensive. So much so that even the Russian Ministry of Defense does not buy it.



            Quote: bask
            But the Ministry of Defense of Azerbaijan is purchasing.
            Now it’s cheap and high-quality, it can be produced only when you have your own elemental base at 100%.
            And a closed production cycle, from suppliers of allies, of their country.


            good weapons cost good money. you want to have excellent weapons be able to pay the appropriate amount. I am glad that ours were not stingy. Vienna in nature is a good weapon. And it is a pity that the Russian Federation refused this SAO
            1. bask
              bask 25 October 2013 23: 04
              +1
              Quote: lonely
              Vienna in nature is a good weapon. And it is a pity that the Russian Federation refused this SAO

              They (the Russian Ministry of Defense) have also refused the T-90 (Azerbaijan is purchasing) in favor of the T-72 x.
              Only there is a saying: avaricious pays twice.
              Again, if war, they will pay the lives of soldiers from workers and peasants.
            2. Lopatov
              Lopatov 25 October 2013 23: 12
              +3
              They just save on pennies where you have to pay normally. And spend billions where you can do without it.
              1. bask
                bask 25 October 2013 23: 24
                +1
                Quote: Spade
                And spend billions where you can do without it.

                No, a clear program for the production and purchase of weapons for the Republic of Armenia (planned economy as in the USSR).
                Clear performance characteristics for the new armored vehicles (continuous shyness and total corruption).
                If you are from Vienna, that they will buy self-propelled guns, tanks, at the General Staff, Armata, which for the price will be three more expensive.
        2. cdrt
          cdrt 25 October 2013 23: 37
          +1
          Quote: Spade
          "Nona" is a car of the last century, hopelessly outdated. "Vienna" is dear. So much so that even the Russian Ministry of Defense does not buy it.


          At the same time, for example, Keshet (the installation for a mortar in an armored personnel carrier costs $ 200000, the control system for a mortar - also $ 200000. What’s stopping the same MTLB or BMP-1/2 chassis (there are thousands of them in storage)?
          Anyway cheaper than Vienna, and effective enough for battalion artillery
          1. Lopatov
            Lopatov 25 October 2013 23: 53
            +1
            Yes, it is very effective.
            But firstly, "Vienna" can be used for direct fire, which is very much in demand in local conflicts, and secondly, the Israelis will never sell us Cardom. They, like the Papuans, only give us old stuff.
            1. Professor
              Professor 26 October 2013 08: 51
              +2
              Quote: Spade
              Israel will never sell us kardom. They are us, like the Papuans, only junk.

              Will be sold with a bang, this is not an atomic bomb and not a secret technology.
      2. Semurg
        Semurg 25 October 2013 10: 38
        +5
        Quote: avt
        Quote: Semurg
        .Russians need to take an example from the Israelis how to work in the post-Soviet modernization market, and until recently they were, to put it mildly, not quick.

        Well, why, here is KAMAZ, by the method of the Israelis, you’ve breathed in cracked armored cars, though new ones. And with regards to this unit, well, if you like it - yes to health request There is nowhere to put motorcycle skaters that are on the move, so it's better to redo it than to write off. Well, if you have pennies, then it is better to buy "Vienna", "Nonu" at the extreme.

        Vienna is no doubt good, but we and our plants need to be loaded. If KAMAZ does something, it’s bad for KAMAZ to lose its reputation is expensive.
      3. Oberst_71
        Oberst_71 25 October 2013 13: 20
        +2
        I wonder who destroyed the defense enterprises!
    2. Aaron Zawi
      Aaron Zawi 25 October 2013 15: 46
      +5
      So it seems they have already brought if 560 units are in service. To be honest, I was even surprised by such a quantity. 120mm mortar is a battalion niche. If one battery is attached to the battalion, then we are talking about 140 fur / baht. Something too much for Kazakhstan.
      1. igor67
        igor67 25 October 2013 16: 10
        +4
        Quote: Aaron Zawi
        So it seems they have already brought if 560 units are in service. To be honest, I was even surprised by such a quantity. 120mm mortar is a battalion niche. If one battery is attached to the battalion, then we are talking about 140 fur / baht. Something too much for Kazakhstan.

        There China is not asleep,
      2. 77bob1973
        77bob1973 25 October 2013 20: 14
        +3
        The Kazakhs still have somewhere around 10000 tanks (if not remelted in 20 years).
        1. Marek Rozny
          Marek Rozny 28 October 2013 08: 43
          +2
          1000 tanks in the troops, about 5000 at storage bases.
          melted nothing. Only in the early 90s, several tanks were solemnly poured with cement under foreign commissions, showing their pacifism, as soon as the commission left, the cement suddenly "ran out."
          in the KZ are very careful about weapons. absolutely nothing is cut, everything is on the bases, but what is very outdated is being modernized. moreover, cooperation on this topic is going on (with varying degrees of success) not only with Israel, but also with other CIS countries and non-CIS countries.
          plus buy new items.
          tanks of old types are now being modernized with Ukrainians. T-72 upgrade with the Turks.
          as for the aybat, semser and nise, the incident has long been over: their generals and an Israeli businessman have been imprisoned, the shortcomings have been eliminated, and troops are being saturated with this equipment.
  8. Rinat 1
    Rinat 1 25 October 2013 10: 04
    +8
    Good idea, to bring to mind. The army must be armed in peacetime. In order not to feed someone else’s army after the war.
  9. ramin_serg
    ramin_serg 25 October 2013 10: 07
    +9
    Ours bought several samples from the Kazakhs, we tested them and were satisfied, but decided to do our best for the self-propelled mortars of the chassis. on the balance sheet of MO 394 MTB
  10. The comment was deleted.
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 25 October 2013 10: 15
      +9
      Quote: Echo
      Jews Kazakhstan threw hard. What prevented the installation of a circular rotation tower from Nona-S on the same MTLB? Yes, nothing bothered!

      Nothing got in the way. Only a car would be more expensive, and the rate of fire is much lower
  11. kafa
    kafa 25 October 2013 12: 58
    -1
    Quote: Echo
    Jews harshly threw Kazakhstan. What prevented the installation of a circular rotation tower from Nona-S on the same MTLB? Yes, nothing interfered! In general, everything is installed on MTLB, except for a tank turret. And that's not a fact. But what did the Jews do? They cut a hole in the roof with grinders, stuck a mortar in there, called it "the latest development" and drove our Kazakh brothers at the price of a new one. So it is not surprising that someone was later imprisoned.

    Jewish woman russian
    A useful lesson to teach.
    He will outbid a horse
    I’ll sell a burning hut.

    I would ask you, dear, not to offend our women, otherwise some Nona will wake up with a bunch of hyacinths and not by the soup, but you yourself know belay
    1. Oberst_71
      Oberst_71 25 October 2013 13: 22
      +3
      you are not under that flag!
  12. Tourist Breakfast
    Tourist Breakfast 25 October 2013 13: 19
    +3
    Already in the first months of operation, there were reports according to which, when firing from a 120-mm mortar, despite the recoil device, the bottom of the base machine was deformed. Insufficient structural rigidity was corrected by reinforcing the bottom,


    What is it that the MTLB design is weaker than that of the M-113 or the Stryker. Or does the Soviet mortar have a stronger rollback than the NATO one?
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 25 October 2013 13: 32
      +7
      Quote: Tourist's Breakfast
      Or is the Soviet mortar recoil stronger than the NATO?

      He is heavier. And therefore, the momentum arising from the rollback is greater
      1. Tourist Breakfast
        Tourist Breakfast 25 October 2013 13: 42
        +4
        He is heavier. And therefore, the momentum arising from the rollback is greater


        Thanks for the answer! Azerbaijan obviously took the Saltamov mortars. Therefore, they had no problems.
        1. Lopatov
          Lopatov 25 October 2013 13: 59
          +3
          Most likely also Soviet 2B11. It's just that Saltam has worked on the bugs.
          Azerbaijan has a bunch of 120 mm min. I do not think that they went to the arming of new ammunition.
        2. alone
          alone 25 October 2013 14: 22
          +5
          we took several Saltamov’s, as well as aybats. We tested, tested differently and definitely bought Saltamov’s. card called.
      2. Professor
        Professor 25 October 2013 14: 13
        +3
        Quote: Spade
        He is heavier. And therefore, the momentum arising from the rollback is greater

        Seems to me the exact opposite. Spread the formula?
        1. Thunderbolt
          Thunderbolt 25 October 2013 14: 17
          +3
          Quote: Professor
          . Spread the formula?
          Oh, please hi
        2. Lopatov
          Lopatov 25 October 2013 14: 19
          +2
          p = mV

          Not?
          Maybe there is still some formula?
          1. Professor
            Professor 25 October 2013 14: 35
            +5
            Quote: Spade
            Maybe there is still some formula?

            The formula is correct, but its interpretation is not quite right. Example, we’ll accelerate a ball weighing 1 kg to a speed of 1 m / s (say mine) and hit it with a stationary ball weighing 100 kg (mortar). Impulse 1 kg * m / s. The large ball will bounce at a speed of 0.01 m / s (and then it will blink on the bottom of the self-propelled gun).
            Increase the mass of the ball 10 times (the mass of the mortar). The impulse will remain the same (mine is the same and the initial speed is the same), but the larger ball will bounce 10 times slower (weaker on the bottom). Let’s increase the mass of the mortar by 1000 times and the bottom will not feel a blow at all (if by itself it does not break from the weight wink ) Agree with the calculations?
            1. Lopatov
              Lopatov 25 October 2013 14: 42
              +2
              Here you have a mistake crept in: when firing there is no ball shimping on the ball
              1. Professor
                Professor 25 October 2013 15: 20
                +2
                Quote: Spade
                Here you have a mistake crept in: when firing there is no ball shimping on the ball

                Specify please. The mass of a mine at its speed is the momentum, and this value depends on the mass of the mortar. The mortar, the harder it is, the return (snarls) will be less. I’m not an artilleryman and Termeh taught 100 years ago and may be wrong, so correct if something is wrong. hi
                1. Lopatov
                  Lopatov 25 October 2013 15: 37
                  0
                  We are not dealing with an absolutely elastic collision. And the mass of mines along with speed are of little importance. What matters is only the force of pressure of the powder gases at the bottom of the bore and the resistance to the movement of mines along the bore. Here the law of conservation of momentum is not applicable.
                  1. Professor
                    Professor 25 October 2013 15: 41
                    +3
                    Quote: Spade
                    Here the law of conservation of momentum is not applicable.

                    The thought understood, but it seems to me (not for the sake of nit-picking, but for the sake of truth) that, ceteris paribus, the heavier the mortar, the lower the return. At least that’s what we were taught in the artillery weapons course, and Techmehde kind supports this theory. hi
                    1. Lopatov
                      Lopatov 25 October 2013 15: 46
                      +3
                      In short, I will be with my parents, I will find my synopsis, I will look at the formulas and count. We have the calculation of recoil went as a course
                      1. Professor
                        Professor 25 October 2013 15: 52
                        10
                        Quote: Spade
                        In short, I will be with my parents, I will find my synopsis, I will look at the formulas and count. We have the calculation of recoil went as a course

                        Yes, quit. Spend time talking with parents, not looking for information for forum mice. hi
                      2. Lesnik
                        Lesnik 26 October 2013 00: 03
                        -1
                        I'm wildly sorry, but what kind of recoil can a mortar have?
                        or is it no longer a mortar? throw me plizzz formulas laughing
                      3. Lopatov
                        Lopatov 26 October 2013 00: 09
                        0
                        That’s the whole ficus picus, that there are still anti-recoil mortars on modern self-propelled mortars.
                      4. Lesnik
                        Lesnik 26 October 2013 00: 44
                        0
                        Wow and what are they called these mortars?
                      5. Lopatov
                        Lopatov 26 October 2013 00: 53
                        0
                        Too long to list.
                      6. Lesnik
                        Lesnik 26 October 2013 00: 54
                        +1
                        Damn you hit me more and more negative
                      7. Lopatov
                        Lopatov 26 October 2013 01: 20
                        +1
                        This is you me. Only Israeli CARDOM is not only with them, but also among Americans, Spaniards, Azerbaijanis, Kazakhs.
                        There is the French 2R2M, the American-British "DRAGON FIRE" based on it, the Swiss "Bighorn" and "Agrab", the German "lePzMrs", the Singaporean "SRAMS".

                        Plus mortars mounted in towers
                      8. Lesnik
                        Lesnik 26 October 2013 02: 16
                        -2
                        You know, after 20 years of service in artillery units, I am surprised to find out that it turns out I don’t know anything about artillery, and it made me SMINNY so terrible laughing and you’re turned out to be a special one here, carefully read to you WHAT IS A MORTAR
                        http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9C%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%BC%D1%91%D1%82
                        With immense respect for you and your erudition!
                      9. Lopatov
                        Lopatov 26 October 2013 09: 39
                        +2
                        Quote: Forestman
                        You know after 20 years of service in artillery units

                        ... you are referring to Wikipedia. This is probably not entirely acceptable for the artilleryman, can you find it? For the artilleryman, the main features of the mortar were always not the presence of a base plate, but the available trajectories and the type of ammunition used. You probably spent 20 years in anti-tankers, only there you can so thoroughly forget what you taught in bursa.
                      10. Lesnik
                        Lesnik 26 October 2013 12: 51
                        +1
                        Suppose you are right then the question arises NONA is it a gun or a mortar? And as regards the anti-tankists, you were a little mistaken - the receiver and reactive forces, moreover, are of great power, although I respect the anti-tankers immensely because they are suicide bombers!
                      11. Lesnik
                        Lesnik 26 October 2013 13: 25
                        +2
                        And about the trajectories, if you knew the subject, you would know about howitzer artillery and projectile throwing trajectories!
                      12. Lopatov
                        Lopatov 26 October 2013 13: 44
                        +1
                        But from this moment in great detail ... Are you sure that the trajectories available for howitzers during mortar shooting completely coincide with the available mortars?
                    2. Lopatov
                      Lopatov 26 October 2013 13: 31
                      +1
                      "Nona" is officially a "weapon" Unlike the rest of the guns, howitzers, guns, howitzers, howitzers and mortars. You should know that.

                      By the way, Nona-M1 is still a rifled mortar, like its ancestor MO-RT-61.

                      As for the anti-tankers, I wrote for good reason, an artilleryman with twenty years of experience should know why.
                    3. Lesnik
                      Lesnik 26 October 2013 13: 55
                      +1
                      I am wildly sorry, enlighten me, what is an "official weapon" and there are not official ones? And the complete coincidence of the trajectories cannot be, in principle, for a number of reasons! You, as a great specialist, should not be ignorant of this, and it does not depend on whether it is a mortar or a weapon, but on the design features of a particular type of weaponry and any such "long-range charges" laughing
                    4. Lopatov
                      Lopatov 26 October 2013 15: 56
                      0
                      Quote: Forestman
                      I'm wildly sorry, educate me on what the "official weapon" is

                      Not an "official weapon" but an "official" weapon "Are there problems with the Russian language? What is "Nona" called according to TO and IE?
                    5. Lesnik
                      Lesnik 26 October 2013 16: 05
                      0
                      2С9 "Nona-C" 120 mm SELF-PROPELLED ARTILLERY WEAPONS.
                      What do you mean? again to the "world revolution" laughing
                    6. Lopatov
                      Lopatov 26 October 2013 16: 40
                      0
                      Hooray, finally. And what is the name of, for example, D-30 in terms of TO and IE? Or 2B9 "Cornflower"?
                    7. Lesnik
                      Lesnik 26 October 2013 16: 46
                      -1
                      Open the primer can find something new
                      You are absolutely not friends with logic !!!!!
                    8. Lopatov
                      Lopatov 26 October 2013 17: 07
                      +1
                      Again common phrases? No, you write what they are called by TO and IE D-30 and "Cornflower". Why is the first not a "weapon" but a "howitzer", and the second is undeservedly called a "mortar"
  13. Aaron Zawi
    Aaron Zawi 26 October 2013 16: 50
    +2
    Quote: Forestman
    I'm wildly sorry, but what kind of recoil can a mortar have?
    or is it no longer a mortar? throw me plizzz formulas laughing

    I hope to help you.
    http://defense-update.com/20120522_spear-a-mortar-for-the-hmmwv.html
    http://elbitsystems.com/Elbitmain/files/SPEAR.pdf
  • Forget
    Forget 25 October 2013 16: 34
    +2
    Quote: Spade
    Here the law of conservation of momentum is not applicable.

    This law is applicable. And the force of impact on the bottom will be equal to the mass of the shell multiplied by the initial speed and divide everything by the time of action.
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 25 October 2013 18: 26
      -2
      This is the wrong formula. It does not take into account the main pressure of the powder gases
      1. cdrt
        cdrt 26 October 2013 00: 06
        0
        Quote: Spade
        This is the wrong formula. It does not take into account the main pressure of the powder gases


        The law of conservation of momentum and the third law of Newton are applicable in ANY inertial reference systems with the dimensions of the system excluding quantum effects and when the system moves at speeds much lower than the speed of light. There is nothing to discuss ...
      2. Lopatov
        Lopatov 26 October 2013 00: 12
        -1
        This is if there is this system. But she is not.
    2. Lesnik
      Lesnik 26 October 2013 00: 45
      +3
      and ischo of the wrong honey
  • cdrt
    cdrt 25 October 2013 23: 49
    +1
    Quote: Spade
    We are not dealing with an absolutely elastic collision. And the mass of mines along with speed are of little importance. What matters is only the force of pressure of the powder gases at the bottom of the bore and the resistance to the movement of mines along the bore. Here the law of conservation of momentum is not applicable.


    There is a closed system: a mortar, the bottom on which it stands, a mine and a charge in the barrel. When a shot is fired, the Newton’s 3 law is fulfilled (because Newton’s mechanics always act when quantum and relativistic effects don’t work - the system is inertial and the speed of the system is much lower than the speed of light, the dimensions are not quantum), given that the time of the shot and the time of the recoil are (mine mass * mine speed + gas mass * gas velocity) = (mortar mass * mortar speed).
    Chtd
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 25 October 2013 23: 57
      -1
      No, the mass and speed of mines are only mediated, as components of the resistance to the movement of mines along the bore.
  • atalef
    atalef 25 October 2013 15: 40
    +5
    Quote: Professor
    Specify please. The mass of a mine at its speed is the momentum, and this value depends on the mass of the mortar. The mortar, the harder it is, the return (snarls) will be less. I’m not an artilleryman and Termeh taught 100 years ago and may be wrong, so correct if something is wrong.

    Well, in general, I taught physics a long time ago. but I understand it. There is no difference than firing a mortar, cannon or gun. at point zero, the moment of ignition of the gunpowder that the projectile. what a mortar. that the gun is static, like a shell, a mine, a cartridge (not movable 0 at the moment of ignition of the gunpowder and the ejection of a bullet. shot, mines - there is a vector of anti-mass movement (gas pressure, or jet stream from the mine) directed opposite to the flight. ie shutter, plate, shoulder (arrow) From the point of view of physics, the physical forces are the same. Now for simplicity we take a gun (and go from the opposite, because the formula is linear and directly proportional) with an unchanged mass of the gun, reducing the weight of the bullet leads to a decrease in recoil 9 any hunter knows this) i.e. based on the same formula, an increase in the mass of the gun (while maintaining the mass of the bullet is different) leads to a decrease in recoil force. Hopefully I explained correctly. if . something is wrong --- correct. .
    1. Professor
      Professor 25 October 2013 15: 46
      +2
      You confirm my words, the mortar is harder the return is weaker.
      1. atalef
        atalef 25 October 2013 15: 55
        +1
        Quote: Professor
        You confirm my words, the mortar is harder the return is weaker.

        Of course. hi
        1. Professor
          Professor 25 October 2013 15: 57
          0
          accordingly, the Soviet mortar should not bend the bottom unless the lighter bourgeois bottom does not bend. request
        2. Lopatov
          Lopatov 25 October 2013 18: 28
          0
          And he bent. So the representatives of the Israeli company reacted to their work completely disregard.
        3. Professor
          Professor 25 October 2013 20: 03
          +2
          Quote: Spade
          And he bent. So the representatives of the Israeli company reacted to their work completely disregard.

          This is puzzling. I did not bend the 120-mm card on both the Soviet BTR-80 and the BMP, moreover, they even stand on Hamer and do not complain.
        4. Lopatov
          Lopatov 25 October 2013 20: 30
          +1
          If we assume that the recoil energy of 2B11 turned out to be higher, then perplexity will be removed by hand.

          And what is the mass of your 120 mm mine?
        5. Professor
          Professor 26 October 2013 08: 55
          0
          Quote: Spade
          And what is the mass of your 120 mm mine?

          13.65 kg
          M933 / M934, 120mm HE Cartridge
        6. Lopatov
          Lopatov 26 October 2013 09: 50
          0
          Then everything becomes clear. Mines for 2B11 weigh from 15.42 to 16.28 kg. Specifically, OF-843B, on which there is a long-range charge, weighs 16 kg. So, in order to fly at approximately the same distance with your mine, you need a lot of muzzle energy, which means that the recoil energy will be higher
        7. Professor
          Professor 26 October 2013 11: 38
          0
          Quote: Spade
          So, in order to fly at approximately the same distance with your mine, you need a lot of muzzle energy, which means that the recoil energy will be higher

          ... and the mortar weighs more, so with recoil not everything is clear. Give the mass, mortars and the initial speed of the mines and we will calculate the force of bestowal.
        8. Lopatov
          Lopatov 26 October 2013 12: 55
          0
          Through the law of conservation of momentum? This will be wrong.
        9. Professor
          Professor 26 October 2013 13: 35
          0
          Quote: Spade
          Through the law of conservation of momentum? This will be wrong.

          It will be right, argue in vain. What happens in the trunk before a mine leaves it is not at all important for calculating recoil. The mass of the mine and its initial speed are important. And all these friction, pressure, heating, etc. affect the initial speed of the mines, but not the return.
        10. Lopatov
          Lopatov 26 October 2013 13: 46
          0
          Quote: Professor
          What happens in the trunk before a mine leaves it is not at all important for calculating recoil.

          Yah? You have a mine and a barrel practically not connected when fired, but can this be ignored?
        11. Professor
          Professor 26 October 2013 13: 54
          0
          Quote: Spade
          Yah? You have a mine and a barrel practically not connected when fired, but can this be ignored?

          What happens in the trunk is absolutely irrelevant. The result-initial speed is important. Nobody has yet canceled the energy conservation window.
        12. Lopatov
          Lopatov 26 October 2013 13: 57
          -2
          Mina gets its full initial speed without interacting with the barrel at all during the aftereffect of powder gases. What the hell is the law of conservation of momentum? It can be applied only to powder gases and a mine, but not to the barrel.
        13. Professor
          Professor 26 October 2013 14: 02
          0
          Quote: Spade
          What the hell is the law of conservation of momentum?

          Actually, I wrote about law of energy conservation. Nevertheless, start looking for calculations of calculating the return of the gun? The Internet is full of stuff.

          PS
          What is the return on a fire hose? It is necessary to take into account the friction of water on the walls of the hose, the efficiency of the pump? Or is there enough water velocity at the exit of the nozzle and the diameter of the nozzle? wink
        14. Semurg
          Semurg 26 October 2013 14: 34
          0
          You can question amateur. different amounts of gunpowder and its qualitative characteristics do not affect recoil or what is there instead of gunpowder in mines.
        15. Lopatov
          Lopatov 26 October 2013 15: 52
          0
          Quote: Professor
          Nevertheless, start looking for calculations of calculating the return of the gun? The Internet is full of stuff.

          Get started.
        16. Professor
          Professor 26 October 2013 17: 21
          +2
          Quote: Spade
          has absolutely no meaning. The result-initial speed is important. Energy Saver Still

          Please, but you will never admit that you are wrong and will refute commonplace things.
          How to Calculate The Recoil of a Mortar
        17. Lesnik
          Lesnik 26 October 2013 17: 25
          0
          And you say I was wrong and rude You read the pearls of Lapatov carefully
        18. Professor
          Professor 26 October 2013 17: 29
          +1
          Quote: Forestman
          And you say I was wrong and rude You read the pearls of Lapatov carefully

          I did not say that you were wrong (although at some points you really are wrong), but you really started to be rude, and this is superfluous.

          PS
          For those who want to take into account everything including stress in the barrel and heat transfer:
          Force, pressure and strain measurements for traditional heavy mortar launch cycle
          but the essence of eo does not change.
  • Lesnik
    Lesnik 26 October 2013 13: 58
    0
    What is it like? You are not only an expert but also a great theoretician "Tsialkovsky of our time" can you also have publications? I don’t know something about new breakthroughs in ballistics laughing
  • Lopatov
    Lopatov 26 October 2013 15: 49
    0
    Unlike some, I still remember something from the internal ballistics.
  • Lesnik
    Lesnik 26 October 2013 16: 08
    0
    laughing Probably what it basically is? well then yes then it’s clear laughing
  • Lopatov
    Lopatov 26 October 2013 16: 44
    0
    Probably the fact that some should stop throwing general phrases, trying to portray a deep knowledge of the subject.

    By the way, what does "maximum elevation turn" mean?
  • Lesnik
    Lesnik 26 October 2013 00: 08
    -1
    There is such a thing in artillery as the maximum dodge for elevation and full charge - applicable to howitzer and mortar artillery. So at the maximum elevation angle at full charge during methodical firing at 2C1, the bottom bursts on the basis of the mteleb! and your comparison with lighter samples does not stand up to criticism! Moreover, it is not known at what charge and elevation angle your vaunted mortar is shown in this video wink
    And the fact that it’s on the Hamer is no longer a mortar, but a muzzle-loading self-propelled gun - this is so as information
  • Lopatov
    Lopatov 26 October 2013 00: 19
    +1
    Dear, their "Kadom" shoots a 120-mm mine 250 meters further than our 2B11 on a long-range charge. So shta ... They don't have an "easier sample"
  • Lesnik
    Lesnik 26 October 2013 00: 40
    0
    You smiled at the mass, what do you equate with the firing range Dear? the more it is not known what resource their "miracle weapon" has wink at maximum elevation angle and "long-range charge" laughing
  • Lopatov
    Lopatov 26 October 2013 00: 55
    0
    Did you yourself understand that you "smiled"?
  • Lesnik
    Lesnik 26 October 2013 01: 02
    0
    Oh, vey .... Fima .... yes, calm down, I passed the artillery so laughing
  • Lopatov
    Lopatov 26 October 2013 01: 22
    +1
    It can be seen.
  • Lesnik
    Lesnik 26 October 2013 02: 37
    -1
    What do you undertake to discuss what you are a complete layman in? I agree you are a layman
  • Lopatov
    Lopatov 26 October 2013 09: 52
    -1
    Well, try to prove it is not a spite. And then I just watch links to Wikipedia from you. And ignorance of the elementary. Probably because this is not written on Wikipedia.
  • Lesnik
    Lesnik 26 October 2013 13: 16
    0
    I agree for you there is only a "correct opinion" that is, yours and the "wrong" of all the others, and no evidence has anything to do with it laughing Reading your pearls like "long-range charge" "missiles" "guns" I understand that YOU are a layman and, moreover, an aggressive layman, this is about materiel, but about tactics, you obviously did not even stand next to the military department of a civil university, let alone a military university
  • Lopatov
    Lopatov 26 October 2013 13: 32
    +1
    I agree with the opinions of others, if not right. If it is, of course, there is.
  • Professor
    Professor 26 October 2013 13: 36
    +1
    Quote: Forestman
    that you are an ignoramus and, moreover, an ignoramus an aggressive

    In vain you go to rudeness. So any dialogue goes to srach. negative
  • Lesnik
    Lesnik 26 October 2013 14: 26
    0
    I agree sorry to blame. repeat
  • Professor
    Professor 26 October 2013 08: 58
    0
    Quote: Forestman
    Moreover, it is not known at what charge and elevation angle your vaunted mortar is shown in this video

    "My vaunted" mortar has been put into service, has experience in combat use, and successful. At the same time, the bottom did not bend, moreover, it was installed even on the Hamera

    And the fact that it’s on the Hamer is no longer a mortar, but a muzzle-loading self-propelled gun - this is so as information

    Put him at least on the Cossack, he will not cease to be a mortar from this.
  • cdrt
    cdrt 26 October 2013 00: 11
    +1
    Quote: Spade
    And he bent. So the representatives of the Israeli company reacted to their work completely disregard.


    Well, maybe. And most likely they did not take into account the design tolerances in the production of the MTLB bottom. Well, apparently the bottom of the M113 is tougher than that of MTLB
  • Lopatov
    Lopatov 26 October 2013 00: 20
    +1
    The professor correctly pointed out: they put this mortar even on the Humvee. I don't think this device is stronger than the MT-LB.
  • 528Obrp
    528Obrp 25 October 2013 18: 46
    +1
    This is done only if the mass of the shells and charges are the same (to ensure the same velocity of the shells)
  • 528Obrp
    528Obrp 25 October 2013 18: 39
    +2
    Too abstruse. It is easier: Sit in a small rubber boat and throw the brick forward - the boat will roll back. Now repeat this procedure from the big ship - nothing will happen. This means that the larger the mass of the gun (boat), the less its backward movement, i.e., recoil. But! The speed of the projectile should be the same.
    And so everything is true. The law of conservation of momentum. m1 * V1 = M2 * V2
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 25 October 2013 18: 44
      -4
      Maybe abstruse. But wrong. The law of conservation of momentum is not related to the process of firing.
      1. 528Obrp
        528Obrp 25 October 2013 19: 10
        +2
        Seriously? then here you are: http://old.college.ru/physics/courses/op25part1/content/chapter1/section/paragra
        ph17 / theory.html
      2. Lopatov
        Lopatov 25 October 2013 19: 16
        -3
        Absolutely seriously. You think differently?
      3. 528Obrp
        528Obrp 25 October 2013 19: 27
        +2
        Конечно.
        This is physics. Just physics. School textbook. Well, firstly, the projectile is pushed out of the barrel under the influence of pressure - So? So! There is pressure Force to the square - So? So! Force Yes acceleration on bulk - So? So! Acceleration is valid certain time - So? So. The force acts on the gun in exactly the same way as on the projectile - the force of action is equal to the force of reaction - right? So! That's all. (a1 * T) M1 gun momentum, - (a2 * T) * M2 - projectile. Scalar they are equal
        Knowing the speed of the rollback and the mass of the gun, you can determine the momentum of the projectile, and knowing the mass of the projectile, determine its initial speed.
      4. Lopatov
        Lopatov 25 October 2013 19: 40
        -2
        Quote: 528Obrp
        This is physics. Just physics. School textbook.

        The school does not study internal ballistics
      5. 528Obrp
        528Obrp 25 October 2013 19: 45
        +3
        And what is ballistics? Everything in the world is tied to three values:
        mass, acceleration, time. All artillery, even jet artillery, is considered one of these quantities. Yes, the orbits of the satellites !!!!
      6. Lopatov
        Lopatov 25 October 2013 19: 50
        -2
        Sorry, but the fact is that the pressure on the bottom of the charging chamber is not equal to the pressure of the powder gases on the projectile, which means that your constructions initially contain an error
      7. 528Obrp
        528Obrp 25 October 2013 20: 01
        +4
        Quote: Spade
        the pressure on the bottom of the charging chamber is not equal to the pressure of the powder gases

        It does not matter! The total impulse is determined by the mass of the projectile, its speed and the mass and speed of the gases ejected from the barrel, but only until the barrel is cut. The force of action of the powder gases directed to the charging chamber (or rather their vector) only compensates for the recoil of the gun.
        Now I do not want to go into the details of the distribution of the vectors of static and dynamic gas pressures in the barrel, but, believe me, everything is determined only by the law of conservation of momentum. no more.
      8. Lopatov
        Lopatov 25 October 2013 20: 11
        -2
        Quote: 528Obrp
        The force of action of the powder gases directed to the charging chamber (or rather their vector) only compensates for the recoil of the gun.

        On the contrary, this is the main force causing the rollback. Along with the force of resistance to the movement of the projectile along the bore and with the force of pressure on the slope of the chamber, which this recoil somewhat reduces
      9. 528Obrp
        528Obrp 25 October 2013 20: 27
        +3
        by
        Quote: Spade
        pressure force on the ramp of the chamber
        - the strength of the action is equal to the strength of the counteraction! you only confirmed Newton’s law. Now if you make a hole in the chamber, and plug the barrel
        : you have a rocket with traction
        Quote: Spade
        pressure force on the ramp of the chamber
        with a motion vector opposite the rollback.
        Even easier: to put a sheet of tin on a person and hit with a sledgehammer - it is difficult to imagine what will happen to him. And if you put a massive slab maximum bruise. Sledgehammer = force of bestowal. Stove = stove.
        Okay. It was nice to talk with you. But the impulse is the basis of any artillery, at least barrel, at least reactive. Till tomorrow!
        wink
  • Lesnik
    Lesnik 26 October 2013 00: 59
    +1
    And what kind of "charging chamber" appeared in the mortar, I see what I missed
  • Lopatov
    Lopatov 26 October 2013 01: 21
    0
    It's about guns in general.
  • Lesnik
    Lesnik 26 October 2013 02: 39
    0
    Then I advise you to speculate about the world revolution "in general" and in general
  • Lopatov
    Lopatov 26 October 2013 09: 55
    0
    How are you? No, thank you.
  • Lesnik
    Lesnik 26 October 2013 13: 12
    0
    Well, at least like me! maybe you know more about her "world revolution" laughing
  • cdrt
    cdrt 25 October 2013 23: 42
    +1
    Quote: Spade
    Quote: Tourist's Breakfast
    Or is the Soviet mortar recoil stronger than the NATO?

    He is heavier. And therefore, the momentum arising from the rollback is greater


    How so?
    After all, the momentum should be equal to the momentum of the mines and powder gases ??? (Law of conservation of momentum).
    It’s more likely that the matter is in a thin bottom (friends at the leshoz on the Far East complained - regularly the bottom of the motolab was torn on stumps, reinforced by welding steel strips)
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 25 October 2013 23: 54
      0
      Quote: cdrt
      After all, the momentum should be equal to the momentum of the mines and powder gases ??? (Law of conservation of momentum).

      No, he is not equal.
  • roial
    roial 25 October 2013 14: 18
    +6
    Chinese gunners mastered the method of firing without a gun laughing

    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 25 October 2013 14: 37
      +2
      It was already. Only these are not shells, but rockets. And they don’t need guns to run
      1. Lesnik
        Lesnik 26 October 2013 04: 00
        +1
        I agree "guns" are not needed to launch rockets at all. Here you are FULLY RIGHT laughing
    2. Dezzed
      Dezzed 25 October 2013 15: 23
      +4
      Elegant!

      so they will slowly switch to the production of ammunition alone.
    3. Ramadan
      Ramadan 25 October 2013 21: 47
      +1
      Well, the discovery was made)
      The Taliban seem to take over the experience, they still shot at ours from the roofs of houses in this way ... You need to search on YouTube.
      1. Lopatov
        Lopatov 25 October 2013 23: 14
        +3
        Quote: Ramazan
        The Taliban seem to learn from

        Quite the opposite. The Chinese have been launching rockets since the time when the oldest of the Taliban sucked a tit
    4. Lesnik
      Lesnik 26 October 2013 00: 12
      0
      It's old. Afghans shot like Nurses back in the 80s
      1. Lopatov
        Lopatov 26 October 2013 00: 23
        +1
        The Chinese have been firing like rockets since 1963. And it was they who taught how to shoot Afghans. When they delivered Type 63
        1. Lesnik
          Lesnik 26 October 2013 03: 58
          0
          Then the question arises: why did the Afghans need Toure 63 at all if they coped without a launcher anyway? wink
          1. Lopatov
            Lopatov 26 October 2013 09: 57
            0
            The question is, to put it mildly, very stupid. Especially for a "gunner with twenty years of experience."
            1. Lesnik
              Lesnik 26 October 2013 13: 10
              0
              This is to who taught whom and what? laughing
              1. Lopatov
                Lopatov 26 October 2013 13: 37
                0
                Look at this picture and you will immediately understand who taught whom and what
                1. Lesnik
                  Lesnik 26 October 2013 14: 01
                  0
                  And what does this drawing prove?
                  1. Lopatov
                    Lopatov 26 October 2013 15: 47
                    0
                    That the Chinese used this method of launch before the appearance of the Taliban. This is elementary
                    1. Lesnik
                      Lesnik 26 October 2013 16: 11
                      0
                      yeah there it is written 1500-some year laughing
                      1. Lopatov
                        Lopatov 26 October 2013 16: 45
                        0
                        No, just an uncle in an old uniform.
  • Ckyf
    Ckyf 25 October 2013 19: 22
    +2
    Terrible weapons turned out, only this is a typical step back.
    Structurally, these weapons cannot conduct flank fire without rearranging the base at an aiming angle of 45 degrees, 16v / min can only be fired from it with pre-prepared shots, I did not understand how bundles are knitted in such a limited space, then, back in the early 20s abandoned bicaliber systems as tactically inconvenient, but here the lesson of the former wars is not going to good use.
    In general, for parades and firing range training it will do, for military use in such a tactical link - hardly.
    1. cdrt
      cdrt 26 October 2013 00: 15
      +2
      Quote: Ckyf
      Terrible weapons turned out, only this is a typical step back.
      Structurally, these weapons cannot conduct flank fire without rearranging the base at an aiming angle of 45 degrees, 16v / min can only be fired from it with pre-prepared shots, I did not understand how bundles are knitted in such a limited space, then, back in the early 20s abandoned bicaliber systems as tactically inconvenient, but here the lesson of the former wars is not going to good use.
      In general, for parades and firing range training it will do, for military use in such a tactical link - hardly.


      But the IDF is very pleased with their mortars
      Yes, and Stryker brigades with such an army of Iraq split

      About rearrangement - with CARDOM there is a fairly advanced fire control system with sensors for the position of the machine and mortar. You can quickly recount.
      The system is not bicalibrated. We are talking about the approach adopted by the Stryker brigades. There are also mortars with a CARDOM, in the company’s mouth when keeping the database away from cars (for example, with helicopter landings), the self-propelled mortar’s compartment is at war with a 60 mm mortar (the mortar and stockpile are fixed on the machine), the same is in the battalion, only mortars for operations without 81 mm equipment
  • Aaron Zawi
    Aaron Zawi 25 October 2013 20: 42
    +3
    Quote: Ckyf

    In general, for parades and firing range training it will do, for military use in such a tactical link - hardly.

    Well, CARDOM showed itself very well both in the Second Lebanon and in clashes with Hamas. Why should "Aybat" be worse?
    1. bask
      bask 25 October 2013 22: 53
      -1
      Quote: Aron Zaavi

      Well, CARDOM showed itself very well both in the Second Lebanon and in clashes with Hamas. Why should "Aybat" be worse?

      All of these mortars are out of date.
      The future of mortar guns SAO (NONA-S ,, Vienna ,, AMOS).
      NONA-S, armed with a 120-mm mortar gun 2A51, barrel length 24,2 caliber.
      The firing of the guns is carried out by shotgun shell shots with shells with rifled rifles, as well as mortar mines.
      Elevation angles from -4 gr. up to +80 gr. Horizontal guidance - 35 grams on both sides.
      The ability to fire direct fire. Direct fire from tower laying - 8-10 rds / min, from closed positions - 6-8 rds / min.
      The exception is the self-propelled 240-mm mortar 2S4 "Tulip" (national treasure of Russia).
      1. Aaron Zawi
        Aaron Zawi 25 October 2013 22: 59
        +3
        Why are they out of date? A completely modern system for the battalion level. All of the above you are already a regiment / brigade.
        1. Lopatov
          Lopatov 25 October 2013 23: 15
          +1
          Regiment brigade is howitzer artillery in 152 mm
          1. Aaron Zawi
            Aaron Zawi 26 October 2013 00: 01
            0
            Quote: Spade
            Regiment brigade is howitzer artillery in 152 mm

            Okay, but "Vienna" is a bit fat for a battalion. (IMHO)
            1. Lopatov
              Lopatov 26 October 2013 00: 15
              0
              It depends on what. To shove a "heavy" battalion on an infantry fighting vehicle 120-mm "Sani" is somewhat silly. Such a mortar will always lag behind.
              1. Lesnik
                Lesnik 26 October 2013 01: 06
                +1
                Do you not even understand what you're talking about? Sleds are usually on the Gas-66 and obviously will catch up with any laughing "heavy" battalion
                1. Lopatov
                  Lopatov 26 October 2013 01: 23
                  -1
                  Of course they’ll catch up. If all the time they will remain in the back.
                  1. Lesnik
                    Lesnik 26 October 2013 02: 43
                    0
                    Yeah, but it's better if the "heavy battalions" do not go anywhere at all laughing otherwise it will be loaded by accident, and then what to do with them? take scrap metal? laughing
                    1. Lopatov
                      Lopatov 26 October 2013 09: 59
                      -1
                      No, it is better to replace the "Sani" with something more adequate.
                      1. Lesnik
                        Lesnik 26 October 2013 12: 55
                        0
                        Let's immediately replace them with these notorious "heavy battalions" on Topol-m.
                      2. Lopatov
                        Lopatov 26 October 2013 13: 40
                        0
                        At least on Nony-SVK. With a lot of serious flaws, they are still more mobile "Sanya"
  • Ckyf
    Ckyf 25 October 2013 23: 14
    +2
    Quote: Aaron Zawi
    Quote: Ckyf

    In general, for parades and firing range training it will do, for military use in such a tactical link - hardly.

    Well, CARDOM showed itself very well both in the Second Lebanon and in clashes with Hamas. Why should "Aybat" be worse?
    The fact of the matter is that this system is suitable for the battalion level, and not for the regimental brigade. In the latter case, an additional 82mm barrel is a stupid anachronism.
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 25 October 2013 23: 37
      +1
      Quote: Ckyf
      In the latter case, an additional 82mm barrel is a stupid anachronism.


      If we are not talking about units that may be used in the mountains.
  • Lesnik
    Lesnik 25 October 2013 23: 20
    0
    The idea is not bad, but the bottom of the MTLB is deformed and thin (bursting at the welded seams), and about the increase in combat capabilities, this is, let's say, "somewhat exaggerated" to say the least. Outputs can be caliber reduction
    with its replacement by 82mm. In general, the loot stupidly mastered wink the game is not worth the candle
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 25 October 2013 23: 44
      0
      The combat capabilities were not exaggerated. Possibility of firing indirect fire from short stops, automatic aiming and restoration of aiming, a very short reaction time - opening fire from a march at newly discovered targets. We have only "Veins" and "Msta-S" of the latest modification approaching their capabilities.
    2. cdrt
      cdrt 26 October 2013 00: 18
      0
      Quote: Forestman
      The idea is not bad, but the bottom of the MTLB is deformed and thin (bursting at the welded seams), and about the increase in combat capabilities, this is, let's say, "somewhat exaggerated" to say the least. Outputs can be caliber reduction
      with its replacement by 82mm. In general, the loot stupidly mastered wink the game is not worth the candle



      If ours did not work out, this does not mean that it is bad.
      It turns out a good not expensive quick-firing system, you can remove it from the base, there are a lot of old APCs, so ... the next 20 years such systems will still be in demand.
      By the way, Belarusians did something like Keshet with 120mm based on MTLBu
      1. Lesnik
        Lesnik 26 October 2013 00: 24
        0
        Not dear performed by the Israelis? - MUCHLY SMILE
      2. Lopatov
        Lopatov 26 October 2013 00: 37
        0
        Quote: cdrt
        By the way, Belarusians did something like Keshet with 120mm based on MTLBu

        There is nothing "like Keshet" there. We just put an ordinary mortar in the hull. The shooting sector is limited, no mechanization, it is not known what resource.
        1. bask
          bask 26 October 2013 07: 55
          0
          Quote: Spade

          There is nothing "like Keshet" there.

          There are other modern systems.
          SESHA - automatic mortar XM-326 DRAGON FIRE (TDA 2R2M), an independent mortar system.


          In 1998, a Swiss company, RUAG Defense, developed a 120mm Bighorn mortar. It can be installed on various platforms.
  • Ckyf
    Ckyf 25 October 2013 23: 29
    +1
    Quote: Aaron Zawi
    Why are they out of date? A completely modern system for the battalion level. All of the above you are already a regiment / brigade.

    For RA, this artillery is planned for the battalion unit. Regimental / brigade link - howitzers from 122mm.
    However, the Kazakh mortar is not the forefront of Israeli engineers, it’s enough to recall that in the 80s in Afghanistan, regimental forces installed an automatic mortar 2B9 on MTLB, they turned out to be a wonderful machine, they shot both with closed OP and direct fire with high fire density and high precision.
    1. Aaron Zawi
      Aaron Zawi 26 October 2013 00: 09
      +2
      And who was talking about "having no analogue"? Many weapons systems have a common idea, but different designs.
      http://www.army-guide.com/rus/article/article.php?forumID=2464
      The Israeli has its own zest. Surely there are cons. In general, the ideal is not achievable.
  • Lesnik
    Lesnik 25 October 2013 23: 47
    0
    Quote: Spade
    The ability to fire indirect fire from short stops, automatic fire and restore fire, a very short reaction time - opening fire from a march on newly discovered targets.

    All this is done by a properly trained gun crew (source - a collection of standards of artillery units, part 2)
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 26 October 2013 00: 05
      0
      And you look in the collection for how long it takes a mortar battery to take up a firing position, and you will understand everything. By the way, it is called "Collection of standards for combat training of ground forces"
      1. Lesnik
        Lesnik 26 October 2013 00: 28
        0
        Smiled ..... laughing
        1. Lopatov
          Lopatov 26 October 2013 00: 49
          0
          What smiled time? Here, damn it, you need to cry
          1. Lesnik
            Lesnik 26 October 2013 01: 08
            0
            Listen to you time to give up on the Israelis with such defeatist talk
            1. Lopatov
              Lopatov 26 October 2013 01: 25
              0
              And in your opinion it is necessary to yell "urya"?
              1. Lesnik
                Lesnik 26 October 2013 02: 45
                0
                No, you must first think what you write wink
                1. Lopatov
                  Lopatov 26 October 2013 10: 01
                  -1
                  Try your advice to yourself. And then, apart from complete nonsense, emoticons and "smiled" nothing comes from you.
                  1. Lesnik
                    Lesnik 26 October 2013 13: 00
                    0
                    And you, besides groans as everything is bad with us, a lot of things "come out" I already wrote what you should do!
                    1. Lopatov
                      Lopatov 26 October 2013 13: 42
                      0
                      These are not "groans", this is a real assessment of the state of the forgotten type of troops
                      1. Lesnik
                        Lesnik 26 October 2013 14: 03
                        0
                        Before you forget, you need to know laughing
                      2. Lopatov
                        Lopatov 26 October 2013 15: 45
                        0
                        Are you a robot Do not you think that your post does not correspond at all with mine?
          2. Aaron Zawi
            Aaron Zawi 26 October 2013 01: 43
            +3
            Quote: Forestman
            Listen to you time to give up on the Israelis with such defeatist talk

            But does the Israeli and Russian army have at least a theoretical opportunity for conflict? request
            1. Marek Rozny
              Marek Rozny 28 October 2013 08: 54
              +1
              Quote: Aron Zaavi
              But does the Israeli and Russian army have at least a theoretical opportunity for conflict? request

              recently on the Russian-Israeli border has been restless ...
  • Ckyf
    Ckyf 26 October 2013 00: 14
    +1
    Quote: Spade
    The combat capabilities were not exaggerated. Possibility of firing indirect fire from short stops, automatic aiming and restoration of aiming, a very short reaction time - opening fire from a march at newly discovered targets. We have only "Veins" and "Msta-S" of the latest modification approaching their capabilities.

    Yah?! Only approaching such opportunities? At the end of the 80s, our SADN TP battery on the move from the march opened fire on an unplanned target 1 minute after the occupation of the OP, this was when GLONASS was only in perspective.
    Automatic aiming for such a tool is like a sniper scope on a shovel, restoring aiming for a muzzle-charged manually charged product is like a fly swatter with an Intel processor.
    Do not stick unnecessary functions to weapons that do not need it.
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 26 October 2013 00: 30
      0
      Quote: Ckyf
      Yah?! Only approaching such opportunities? At the end of the 80s, our SADN TP battery opened fire on the way from the march on an unplanned target 1 minute after occupying the OP,

      And these devices will not even occupy the OP. They just stop and after 30 seconds open fire on an unplanned target.
  • Lesnik
    Lesnik 26 October 2013 00: 35
    0
    There is a screw for every tricky opa wink moving firing units with rifts - if this tells you something wink
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 26 October 2013 01: 01
      0
      Rolls? Once again for today I will remember August 2008, Zemo Quiti. The infantry was left without artillery support. While they were occupying the OP, the Georgians simply left. Leaving one tank, two infantry fighting vehicles and two Urals on fire. And nine killed. And our infantry under artillery fire.
      1. Lesnik
        Lesnik 26 October 2013 01: 16
        0
        This operation was distinguished by the absence of any interaction in principle !!!!!
        1. Lopatov
          Lopatov 26 October 2013 01: 28
          +1
          The interaction was at a high level. They were in the same column. But the deployment time ... 17 minutes for five points ...
          Urya?
          1. Thunderbolt
            Thunderbolt 26 October 2013 01: 36
            +2
            Quote: Spade
            Urya?
            Hurray to shout in this situation and the state of affairs there will be no one. It's a shame that "Vienna" was not bought.
            1. Lesnik
              Lesnik 26 October 2013 02: 49
              0
              If, as you say, the interaction was organized and everyone worked, this situation, in principle, could not have happened! and so you would still remember the satellite orbital constellation - why they say they do not work wink
              And to nod at others, they say we are good fellows and they didn’t do it, then let's say it "very controversial"
              1. Lopatov
                Lopatov 26 October 2013 10: 12
                0
                What situation? When is fire needed right now, and artillery spends tens of minutes deploying from a march?

                It was possible, of course, in the old fashioned way to move artillery rifts. But at the same time, one or two companies would have to be taken from a supported reinforced motorized rifle battalion to make such dances with tambourines safe. Let one company carry out the task.

                You think in terms of still Soviet combat manuals, but those wars ended long ago without ever happening.
                1. Lesnik
                  Lesnik 26 October 2013 15: 39
                  0
                  Let it be known to you a connoisseur of the theory of ballistics, tactics and combat use of artillery, artillery battery fire platoons I cover myself!
                  1. Lopatov
                    Lopatov 26 October 2013 16: 21
                    0
                    Let it be known to you that the artillery battery is unable to cover itself. Not on the march, much less on the OP. Even a mortar battery. And therefore, artillery is always covered by infantry.
                    1. Lesnik
                      Lesnik 26 October 2013 16: 22
                      0
                      Well, I also say "THE GREAT THEORETIC" negative
                      1. Lopatov
                        Lopatov 26 October 2013 16: 47
                        0
                        The practitioner. Self-propelled battery on the OP. How many people will you guard?
                      2. Lesnik
                        Lesnik 26 October 2013 17: 59
                        0
                        On the OP there are fire platoons, on the KNP there is a platoon of the battery commander’s control, this is so as a reference that where to be so that next time you know that the OP does not take a self-propelled battery !!! And all together this is called the battle order of the self-propelled battery!
                        I do not know how much the special security standards will allocate for protection and self-defense
                        in my practice from 5-10 people (this number depends on what kind of battery in the sense of the state), with the task of mining dangerous areas and monitoring! and the reflection of attacks if it happened is engaged in the entire l / s fire platoons
                        I see that this is a "secret behind seven locks" for you
                      3. Lopatov
                        Lopatov 26 October 2013 18: 15
                        0
                        Well, come on, you are SOB gsabatr. Occupied OP, firing according to data received from the NS division or from the KNP. How many people do you personally allocate to protect the OP and who exactly.
                      4. Lesnik
                        Lesnik 26 October 2013 18: 21
                        0
                        did you read my koment? I doubt your ability to test me!
                        Who are you to test me? judging by your comments and the depth of thoughts, it’s not just that you’re not examining anyone; negative
                      5. Lopatov
                        Lopatov 26 October 2013 18: 32
                        0
                        Read. And I did not see the answer. Like in this comment. Is it really that hard? Or have you never been an SOB, despite twenty years of experience?

                        They took to prove that the artillery units are capable of protecting themselves, but you cannot answer such a simple question.

                        Once again: How many people do you personally allocate to protect the OP and who exactly.
                      6. Lesnik
                        Lesnik 26 October 2013 18: 40
                        0
                        I am amazed at your incompetence and it’s funny to test there. Have you ever held the RBD in your hands? although no, they didn’t keep it because everything was written there by people much smarter than me! Study
                      7. Lopatov
                        Lopatov 26 October 2013 18: 53
                        0
                        Again. Once again I repeat the question: How many people do you personally allocate to protect the OP and who exactly.
                      8. Lesnik
                        Lesnik 26 October 2013 18: 57
                        0
                        And I repeat to you if you don’t know, read those RBR examiners .... although I’m what it is I don’t know what it is
                        Well, you forgive the Democrats laughing
                      9. Lopatov
                        Lopatov 26 October 2013 19: 24
                        0
                        Dear, have you read the RBD yourself? There is nothing about the organization of security and self-defense at the military unit, except that the SOB should have a scheme and trenches should be dug somewhere. That's bad luck, right?

                        Presumably, the compilers relied on the sanity and tactical preparedness of the SOBs.

                        So let's continue. How many people do you personally allocate to protect the OP and who exactly.
  • Lesnik
    Lesnik 26 October 2013 03: 07
    0
    And why did the infantry unfold in front of the positions abandoned by the enemy, can you tell me? The primary task of the combined arms commander was to prevent the enemy from breaking contact to forge him in battle! surround and destroy for not waiting 3 hours until the artillery irones empty positions! And do not expose the infantry to enemy artillery fire, all the more so according to previously shot coordinates!
    1. Lesnik
      Lesnik 26 October 2013 03: 31
      0
      After the fight, they don’t wave their fists. I got excited I wasn’t there and I can’t objectively judge, although I read an analysis of the maintenance of the b / d and let's say there were so many jambs that one justifies that they were Georgians laughing
    2. Lopatov
      Lopatov 26 October 2013 10: 18
      0
      Quote: Forestman
      The primary task of the combined arms commander was to prevent the enemy from breaking contact to forge him in battle!

      Tried it like that already. In Komsomolsky. They chained in battle instead of moving away and blocking the village. As a result, 15th VVshny commandos put.
      1. Lesnik
        Lesnik 26 October 2013 13: 33
        0
        The same specialists as you planned and performed the operation !!!!!
        1. Lopatov
          Lopatov 26 October 2013 13: 48
          0
          Nobody planned it. Except Gelayev. However, his plans collapsed immediately after he broke through the 1/503 positions of SMEs and entered Komsomolskoye.
          1. Lesnik
            Lesnik 26 October 2013 14: 19
            0
            I say the same specialists
            1. Lopatov
              Lopatov 26 October 2013 15: 44
              0
              You say a lot of stupid things, I already noticed.
              1. Lesnik
                Lesnik 26 October 2013 15: 45
                -1
                Make friends with logic wink
                1. Lopatov
                  Lopatov 26 October 2013 16: 24
                  0
                  Is it like throwing words like "smiled", emoticons, common phrases, and absolutely nothing to write on the topic? Not to give ANY fact except one link to Wikipedia? Is this your "logic"? Trying to appear smarter than you really are?
                  1. Lesnik
                    Lesnik 26 October 2013 16: 27
                    0
                    Yeah i'm so wink where am I to you "GREAT THEORETIC" laughing
                    And the arguments and facts I see do not influence you in any way. You exist in your world where YOU ARE "THE GREAT THEORETIC" and everything else does not bother you much
                    I already wrote that for you there is your opinion and "wrong"
                  2. Lopatov
                    Lopatov 26 October 2013 16: 47
                    0
                    Quote: Forestman
                    But the arguments and facts I see in no way affect you

                    Have you ever tried, what if it works out?
                  3. Lesnik
                    Lesnik 26 October 2013 17: 49
                    0
                    Yes, how much you can "try" like peas against the wall, no sense!
                  4. Lopatov
                    Lopatov 26 October 2013 18: 01
                    0
                    You haven’t provided a single fact yet, so it’s not worth saying “how much you can try”.
                  5. Lesnik
                    Lesnik 26 October 2013 18: 44
                    0
                    Can you read? judging by your comments, no
                    Well, I certainly knew the democrat! laughing
                  6. Lopatov
                    Lopatov 26 October 2013 19: 06
                    0
                    Of course I read. And I observe the absolute absence of arguments

                    But there are a lot of emoticons. Highly.
                  7. Lesnik
                    Lesnik 26 October 2013 19: 12
                    0
                    Well let it not be so for me to compete in demagogy with a democrat laughing
                2. Aaron Zawi
                  Aaron Zawi 26 October 2013 19: 21
                  +1
                  Quote: Forestman
                  Can you read? judging by your comments, no
                  Well, I certainly knew the democrat! laughing

                  I remember another person who spoke with the same hatred of democracy. His name was Adolf Hitler. Maybe you should not be like this character?
  • Ckyf
    Ckyf 26 October 2013 07: 44
    +1
    Quote: Spade
    Quote: Ckyf
    Yah?! Only approaching such opportunities? At the end of the 80s, our SADN TP battery opened fire on the way from the march on an unplanned target 1 minute after occupying the OP,

    And these devices will not even occupy the OP. They just stop and after 30 seconds open fire on an unplanned target.
    Do not open. Do you even imagine the procedure for preparing artillery units for shooting? Yes, one shot must be prepared for 30 seconds, from the mortar even more. In addition, you still need to orient your mortars into OH firing, set at least collimators, because there are no individual decisive PGZ-OGZ devices on your mortar.
    OP is a very arbitrary name, simpler - it is a point on the terrain from which the artillery fire is being fired.
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 26 October 2013 10: 25
      +1
      Quote: Ckyf
      Do not open. Do you even imagine the procedure for preparing artillery units for shooting? Yes, one shot must be prepared for 30 seconds, from the mortar even more. In addition, you still need to orient your mortars into OH firing, set at least collimators, because there are no individual decisive PGZ-OGZ devices on your mortar.

      I apologize, but we're talking about a self-propelled mortar from Kazakhstan, right? He stopped, and immediately the equipment receives the coordinates of the standing point and the true azimuth of the axis of the machine. Collimators and pickup points are not needed for these mortars. SOB will throw target coordinates at the machines, the equipment will recount them taking into account the coordinates of the SM and individual corrections, and automatically launch mortars. All you need to do is to throw mines into the barrel and add. beams to fix. After all, the equipment even restores the tip after each shot


      Quote: Ckyf
      OP is a very conditional name

      I would not call this name "conditional"
  • Ckyf
    Ckyf 26 October 2013 07: 52
    +1
    Quote: Spade
    Rolls? Once again for today I will remember August 2008, Zemo Quiti. The infantry was left without artillery support. While they were occupying the OP, the Georgians simply left. Leaving one tank, two infantry fighting vehicles and two Urals on fire. And nine killed. And our infantry under artillery fire.
    The attack on the column always occurs suddenly and fleetingly, therefore, it is simply not serious to discuss the possibilities of artillery to cover the columns on the march. This is done by AVIATION. The fact that they did not organize aviation interaction in any way is not a reason for discussing the capabilities of artillery.
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 26 October 2013 10: 27
      +1
      Quote: Ckyf
      Aviation does this.

      And since aviation a) was scarce, b) it was hit by MANPADS fire by both Georgians and their own, she did not engage in wiring columns.
      1. Lesnik
        Lesnik 26 October 2013 13: 36
        0
        You contradict yourself! then you have interaction at the "highest level" then there is no laughing You already decide whether it was interaction, or was it not? negative
        1. Lopatov
          Lopatov 26 October 2013 13: 51
          0
          That you do not know how to read. The interaction with its own mortar battery and the artillery division of its regiment at the motorized rifle battalion was excellent. And that was what was being discussed. But there is no interaction with aviation.
          1. Lesnik
            Lesnik 26 October 2013 14: 23
            0
            Back to the beginning. If it was this "wonderful interaction" of yours, how did this situation take place? Where is the logic?
            1. Lopatov
              Lopatov 26 October 2013 15: 43
              0
              They began to unfold in battle formation. The only thing that could be done correctly in this situation. They naturally did not possess intelligence tools for counter-battery operation, and excesses in the form of various kinds of drones, too. Only heroic battery commanders who were supposed to fulfill the duties of spotters. After, respectively, the deployment of artillery.

              Well, when they turned around, they got the opportunity to beat in an empty village, because Georgians are not fools either.
              1. Lesnik
                Lesnik 26 October 2013 15: 50
                0
                May the GREAT THEORETIAN know you in the duties of the Battery Commander the preparation of data for the shooting and the adjustment of fire is just included !!!!!! and the fact that the infantry foolishly pearl columns, contrary to all the charters and instructions, this is no longer the fault of the artillery commander,
                which just confirms what was written earlier negative
                I guess you already led this herd
                And, of course, specially created artillery units such as the KAG, DAG with the appropriate intelligence tools are engaged in counter-battery fighting !!!!!
                and returning to the issues of organization of interaction - I advise you to ask how, with whom, in what time frame and by what means, interaction is organized
                YOU AMAZE ME WITH THE DEPTH OF YOUR Ignorance !!!!!!! negative
                1. Lopatov
                  Lopatov 26 October 2013 16: 30
                  0
                  I apologize, but how do all the banalities written by you relate to my posts?

                  Infantry pearl foolishness. It was so. The infantry came in. It was the same.

                  And here the most interesting part begins: you are trying to prove that it is right, that the artillery did absolutely nothing to help the infantry because of its technical backwardness. Of course, this is not the fault of artillery. This is the fault of dolboklyuy, who have the same opinion as you, that artillery does not need systems that provide a short time for hitting unprepared targets from the march. These stick-keepers, like you, consider this an unnecessary whim.
                  1. Lesnik
                    Lesnik 26 October 2013 16: 42
                    0
                    What’s up front for you that everything is the same half a way !!!!!! But to insult people that they are trying to highlight the abyss of your ignorance dear Lapatov negative how comes around and responds !!!
                    What kind of technical backwardness can you talk about, dear Lapatov, in the given situation?
                    There was no advanced security and you, dear Lapatov, have confirmed this! Otherwise, the enemy would have been discovered much earlier and the gunners would
                    worked as it should and not how it happened and led to this situation CRIMINAL negligence of the general commander and not the timing of the deployment of fire platoons at the base. So if you, dear Lapatov, have not yet understood this or do not want to understand who are you and that Commander, or all the same, those people who wrote charters and instructions specifically for such "dolboklyuyev"
                    With disrespect !!!!!
                    1. Lopatov
                      Lopatov 26 October 2013 17: 13
                      0
                      Quote: Forestman
                      There was no forward guard

                      It was. From the reconnaissance. But they just missed him.

                      And again flooded general phrases. You already bother to prove that artillery does not need all sorts of sophistication like modern weapons. And do not hide behind the respectable creators of charters.
                      1. Lesnik
                        Lesnik 26 October 2013 17: 28
                        0
                        What general phrases do I literally poke your nose.
                        Once again I will repeat for you there is your opinion and "wrong"
                      2. Lopatov
                        Lopatov 26 October 2013 17: 47
                        0
                        What are you "poking your nose" into? In the axiom about the infallibility of the Soviet military manuals?

                        Once again: "We do not need tools like" Aybat "with a high degree of informatization and automation because: ......" And you start listing the arguments.
                      3. Lesnik
                        Lesnik 26 October 2013 18: 01
                        0
                        Why is it useless negative
                      4. Lopatov
                        Lopatov 26 October 2013 18: 20
                        0
                        Of course it's useless. This is not to yell
                        Quote: Forestman
                        In general, the loot stupidly mastered

                        Quote: Forestman
                        There is a screw for every tricky opa

                        Quote: Forestman
                        The same specialists as you planned and performed the operation !!!!!


                        It needs a normal argument. And you have big problems with that
                      5. Lesnik
                        Lesnik 26 October 2013 18: 34
                        0
                        God forbid you to prove anything, and apparently I think so far from alone !!! negative
                      6. Lopatov
                        Lopatov 26 October 2013 19: 08
                        0
                        That is, I can’t wait for arguments from you?
                      7. Lesnik
                        Lesnik 26 October 2013 19: 15
                        +1
                        For a democrat, the only argument is his own opinion, and since I'm not a democrat, you will not wait wink
                      8. Lopatov
                        Lopatov 26 October 2013 19: 29
                        0
                        I am always ready to accept and discuss your arguments. If they finally appear.
                      9. Lesnik
                        Lesnik 26 October 2013 19: 36
                        0
                        I posted my opinion in this thread, but apparently democratic education prevents you from perceiving it! negative
                      10. Lopatov
                        Lopatov 26 October 2013 19: 58
                        0
                        You do not post opinions, you multiply common phrases and emoticons. And they are absolutely incapable of discussing specific issues.
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Ckyf
    Ckyf 26 October 2013 07: 59
    +1
    Quote: Spade
    It depends on what. To shove a "heavy" battalion on an infantry fighting vehicle 120-mm "Sani" is somewhat silly. Such a mortar will always lag behind.
    According to the staff of "Division-86", it was 120mm towed mortars that were battalion weapons. About lagging - sheer fiction, not a single artillery unit operates autonomously in the battalion-regiment-division level, they all enter PAG-DAG-AAG, depending on their capabilities and tasks.
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 26 October 2013 10: 27
      0
      Dear, forget the Soviet charters, the modern war is absolutely not like that.
      1. Lesnik
        Lesnik 26 October 2013 14: 05
        0
        And you enlighten me which is not like that?
        1. Lesnik
          Lesnik 26 October 2013 17: 36
          0
          AUUUU WHERE ARE YOU A GREAT THEORETIST?
  • Ckyf
    Ckyf 26 October 2013 08: 25
    +1
    Quote: bask

    SESHA - automatic mortar XM-326 DRAGON FIRE (TDA 2R2M), an independent mortar system.
    This system causes a homeric laugh))))
    I did not expect that Americans would think of cutting tonsils through ... opu))))
    1. bask
      bask 26 October 2013 08: 55
      0
      Quote: Ckyf
      that Americans think of cutting tonsils through ... op

      And not only them.
      120 mm Singapore-made mortar SRAMS (Super Rapid Advanced Mortar System) for the UAE, based on the RG-31. Inside the combat module placed stacking for 58 min.



      Swiss company RUAG Land Systems has developed the mortar complex Bighorn. This combat module is a turntable with a mortar and electronic equipment, designed for installation on various types of armored vehicles. MOWAG

      Already not funny?
      1. Lesnik
        Lesnik 26 October 2013 13: 38
        0
        This is no longer a mortar, but a gun, according to the definitions adopted in artillery, the same as NONA
        1. Lopatov
          Lopatov 26 October 2013 13: 52
          0
          This is the purest mortar
          1. Lesnik
            Lesnik 26 October 2013 14: 29
            0
            Well if you say mortar let it be mortar laughing
  • Ckyf
    Ckyf 26 October 2013 08: 37
    +1
    Quote: Spade
    And you look in the collection for how long it takes a mortar battery to take up a firing position, and you will understand everything. By the way, it is called "Collection of standards for combat training of ground forces"
    And here is the time of occupation of the OP minbattery? There are tactical standards according to which the battery occupies an OD at the minimum possible movements. In addition, in the interests of the battalion, not one minbattery works, but PAG_DAG, etc., depending on the situation. And last, the least vulnerable is always buried in the ground OP, and not busy on the move.
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 26 October 2013 10: 31
      0
      Quote: Ckyf
      There are tactical standards according to which the battery occupies an OD at the minimum possible movements.

      And does it for a long time. Until they unload, until they are brought to the fighting position, while the main mortar is tied, while a parallel fan is built ... The infantry will again begin to move.
  • Ckyf
    Ckyf 26 October 2013 10: 14
    +1
    Quote: bask

    Already not funny?
    Funny.
    I can’t understand - why use a muzzle charging system for this type of system? Cheaper and easier to pay.
    In principle, all these products are only for peaceful conditions, window dressing, exercises, local conflicts with the "Papuans", reflection or first strike. In the face of a major confrontation with a worthy adversary, all this will soon turn into scrap metal, then the equipment will fight much easier and cheaper.
  • Ckyf
    Ckyf 26 October 2013 15: 02
    +1
    Quote: Spade

    And does it for a long time. Until they unload, until they are brought to the fighting position, while the main mortar is tied, while a parallel fan is built ... The infantry will again begin to move.
    I repeat to you once again that not a single battalion operates independently in the battalion, they are part of the PAG.
    No attachment, orientation and parallel fan when moving as part of a b-one is done, usually a half-direct fire is fired or with the help of an external VT for speed. All of these excesses indicated by you for a peaceful life.
    Next, remember the depth of the next task of the b-she in the offensive (on average) and compare with the firing range of the battalion mortars. Where to go?
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 26 October 2013 15: 37
      0
      Quote: Ckyf
      No binding, orientation and parallel fan when moving as part of a b-she is not done, usually a half-direct fire is fired

      Cool. We got to one-time mortars. How long do you think they will live in a modern war with this course of action? Seconds?

      Where did you get this game from? From ostentatious BTU? I just saw this kind of application there.
      1. Lesnik
        Lesnik 26 October 2013 15: 44
        -1
        Toto and it TERETIC laughing
        1. Lopatov
          Lopatov 26 October 2013 16: 34
          +2
          Actually, it’s more like a practitioner. What is your database experience?
          1. Lesnik
            Lesnik 26 October 2013 16: 48
            -1
            What do you say in which army? in Israeli?
            1. Lopatov
              Lopatov 26 October 2013 17: 14
              0
              You have not answered my question.
              1. Lesnik
                Lesnik 26 October 2013 17: 30
                0
                What army do you serve in? I do not know which one you say laughing
                1. Lopatov
                  Lopatov 26 October 2013 17: 49
                  0
                  Served. In the Russian Army. Now again, back to my question: did you participate in the database? Or something else will not allow you to answer my question?
                  1. Lesnik
                    Lesnik 26 October 2013 18: 04
                    0
                    if you do not take into account the "peacekeeping" in Iraq, then no, I satisfied you laughing
                    1. Lopatov
                      Lopatov 26 October 2013 18: 21
                      0
                      That is a sofa? Clear. Maybe you should expand your knowledge of the subject?
                      1. Lesnik
                        Lesnik 26 October 2013 18: 32
                        0
                        Well, where do I go to you wink I saw such experts on TV called Democrats probably because they can speak nothing and look very smart at the same time laughing
                      2. Lopatov
                        Lopatov 26 October 2013 19: 09
                        0
                        I agree, you are very far away from me.
                      3. Lesnik
                        Lesnik 26 October 2013 19: 16
                        0
                        Well, at least in this you agree with me laughing is democracy contagious? laughing I’m afraid to get infected laughing
  • Ckyf
    Ckyf 26 October 2013 16: 08
    +1
    Quote: Spade

    Cool. We got to one-time mortars.
    Not yet in any army in the world have towed artillery systems been removed from service, on the contrary, they are part of the most mobile formations - airborne forces, naval infantry, and mountain rifle units.
    Teach a materiel.

    Quote: Spade
    How long do you think they will live in a modern war with this course of action? Seconds?
    No less than self-propelled guns.

    Quote: Spade
    Where did you get this game from? From ostentatious BTU? I just saw this kind of application there.
    Did you compare the depth of the next task of b-she and the firing range of the battalion mortar?
    Game? You, apparently, only the ostentatious BTU and watched, Mr. Theorist)))
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 26 October 2013 16: 59
      0
      Quote: Ckyf
      Not yet in any army in the world have towed artillery systems been removed from service, on the contrary, they are part of the most mobile formations - airborne forces, naval infantry, and mountain rifle units.

      Of course have. But in terms of their level of informatization, modern towed guns and mortars overtake ours so much that some M777 battery takes up battle formation faster than our self-propelled battery.

      Quote: Ckyf
      No less than self-propelled guns.

      When shooting half direct fire? Is not a fact. SPGs will live much longer than a few seconds.


      Quote: Ckyf
      Did you compare the depth of the next task of b-she and the firing range of the battalion mortar?

      And what is the "depth of the subsequent mission" in modern combat operations, where counter engagement will become the main method of conducting a combat mission?
  • Lesnik
    Lesnik 26 October 2013 17: 05
    +1
    [quote = Ckyf] No less than self-propelled guns. [/ quote]
    When shooting half direct fire? Is not a fact. SPGs will live much longer than a few seconds.

    Is this YOUR own experience determined?

    [quote = Ckyf] Did you compare the depth of the next task of b-she and the firing range of the battalion mortar? [/ quote]
    And what is the "depth of the subsequent task" in modern hostilities, where the main method of conducting a database will be a counter battle? [/ Quote]
    I also say Theorist with his own vision of "modern warfare" negative
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 26 October 2013 17: 20
      0
      Quote: Forestman
      Is this YOUR own experience determined?

      Yes. Under the Komsomolsky mortar platoon pulled into a half-line. One machine gunner was enough for a third of the platoon to fly away on the turntables. Part of the hospital, and part of the division battalion. There they soldered zinc.

      Quote: Forestman
      I also say Theorist with his own vision of "modern warfare"

      Refute. Tell us about the front from sea to sea in the style of the First World War.
      1. Lesnik
        Lesnik 26 October 2013 17: 24
        0
        And there is nothing to refute!
        As you say the commander "gouge" that's all
        1. Lopatov
          Lopatov 26 October 2013 17: 39
          0
          "There is nothing"? Rather "nothing". Here, after all, general phrases cannot do.
          1. Lesnik
            Lesnik 26 October 2013 18: 28
            -1
            You would give examples of the 1902 war and say that this is correct
            I am really amazed at your demagoguery. Transfusion from empty to empty and blaming everyone and everything for incompetence, giving examples of stupidly torn out of context which not only prove nothing but quite the opposite, and when you poke your nose into it you excuse me for the allegory of a fool include negative
            Are you by any chance not a THEORETIC democrat?
            1. Lopatov
              Lopatov 26 October 2013 19: 12
              +1
              I apologize, but am I limited to general phrases? Is it from me to try to pull specifics with ticks? I’m already asking extremely simple questions, but even so you can’t justify your point of view.
  • Aaron Zawi
    Aaron Zawi 26 October 2013 17: 07
    0
    http://defense-update.com/20120522_spear-a-mortar-for-the-hmmwv.html
    http://elbitsystems.com/Elbitmain/files/SPEAR.pdf
    So what about the anti-recoil systems of the mortars, Mr. "Lesnik"? And as you understand this general direction today in mortars. Israel is just one of the first, and not at all the creator of something "unparalleled".
  • Lesnik
    Lesnik 26 October 2013 17: 19
    0
    All the examples you have given dear Aron Zawi have a place to be!
    And yes, these are mortars that were added by self-propelled guns, barrel locking devices and other mortar designs absolutely not inherent in mortars, essentially turned into self-propelled guns and the only reminder or reference to the mortar is the ammunition used itself.
    And this is essentially the only reference to the mortar origin of the weapon itself. Therefore I gave an example of NONA
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 26 October 2013 17: 23
      0
      Why not "Cornflower"?
  • Aaron Zawi
    Aaron Zawi 26 October 2013 17: 30
    +1
    Well, I don’t even know what to say here. It seems to me if the creators of this device clearly stated that they have created a mortar that can be installed on various platforms, we have the right to believe them. hi
    1. Lesnik
      Lesnik 26 October 2013 17: 38
      0
      Well, do I have to do with it? wink
      1. Aaron Zawi
        Aaron Zawi 26 October 2013 19: 31
        +1
        Quote: Forestman
        Well, do I have to do with it? wink

        It’s just that the sergeant of the engineering battalion, tank brigade, who served as a reservist in the AOI, who had gone through two small wars and several conflicts, you were a career officer, you could neither explain nor prove anything. Either you play someone else's role or you simply forgot everything that you once taught and compensate for the lack of arguments by clowning around. I would be glad to make a mistake and read an argument worthy of an officer with twenty years of service. hi
        1. Lesnik
          Lesnik 26 October 2013 19: 43
          -1
          Why should I argue with you? I laid out my argument. Your right to agree with me or not is all. And where does the 20 of years of service, I honestly don’t understand, probably you wanted to hurt me? Why do you need this, I also do not understand. Do you want me to tear my heart and defend my point of view? spit on the screen and tapped the keys like crazy then this will not be hopefully not respect wink
          1. Aaron Zawi
            Aaron Zawi 26 October 2013 19: 59
            0
            Quote: Forestman
            Why should I argue with you? I laid out my argument. Your right to agree with me or not is all. And where does the 20 of years of service, I honestly don’t understand, probably you wanted to hurt me? Why do you need this, I also do not understand. Do you want me to tear my heart and defend my point of view? spit on the screen and tapped the keys like crazy then this will not be hopefully not respect wink

            Be healthy until 120. I didn’t want to hurt anyone, but you yourself mentioned your length of service. I just brought her as an argument for my misunderstanding of your arguments. And if it doesn’t complicate you, could you please combine your arguments into one specific post explaining your position on self-propelled mortars, on their new models, on their modern SLAs.
  • Ckyf
    Ckyf 26 October 2013 17: 30
    +1
    Quote: Spade

    Of course have. But in terms of their level of informatization, modern towed guns and mortars overtake ours so much that some M777 battery takes up battle formation faster than our self-propelled battery.
    .... This is seriously alarming)))
    What sort of battle order takes something faster than something?

    Quote: Spade

    When shooting half direct fire? Is not a fact. SPGs will live much longer than a few seconds.
    )))
    Tell me, how long will a non-armored non-self-propelled AGS live for half-direct fire.

    Quote: Spade

    And what is the "depth of the subsequent mission" in modern combat operations, where counter engagement will become the main method of conducting a combat mission?
    Truth? This is an interesting discovery! For a battle to occur on an army scale, some conditions are needed. Could you name these conditions for a Central European theater?
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 26 October 2013 17: 58
      0
      Quote: Ckyf
      ... This is seriously alarming)))

      I'm glad that the voice of reason spoke to you

      Quote: Ckyf
      Tell me, how long will an unarmored non-self-propelled AGS last for half-direct fire

      Is this an argument in favor of refusing to fire mortar batteries with a closed OP? Or maybe we can roll out the "Grady" for direct fire, since the AGS is not protected? Dear, a 120mm mortar is capable of creating much more problems than an AGS, and therefore it will be much higher in the list of targets by priority.

      Quote: Ckyf
      Truth? This is an interesting discovery! For a battle to occur on an army scale, some conditions are needed. Could you name these conditions for a Central European theater?

      The presence in the troops of both sides of highly effective means of destruction, which does not allow creating a solid front line, as during the First World War.
  • Ckyf
    Ckyf 26 October 2013 17: 49
    -2
    Quote: Spade

    Yes. Under the Komsomolsky mortar platoon pulled into a half-line. One machine gunner was enough for a third of the platoon to fly away on the turntables. Part of the hospital, and part of the division battalion. There they soldered zinc.
    Because of the fool-commander who pulled his mortars half-straight at a range of small arms fire, did you conclude that self-propelled mortars are a prodigy?)))
    Maybe the truth is different?
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 26 October 2013 18: 09
      +1
      Sorry, I didn’t understand a little. Have you stated that
      Quote: Ckyf
      No binding, orientation and parallel fan when moving as part of a b-she is not done, usually a half-direct fire is fired

      The terrain conditions were such that if he moved another 50 meters back, it would be shooting with a closed gunship, and he would have to determine the coordinates, orient mortars, build a parallel fan, and do other things that take a lot of time.


      Quote: Ckyf
      self-propelled mortars have a wunderwaffe

      Not necessarily self-propelled. I wrote about guns and mortars with a high degree of computerization and automation. And not "wunderwaffe", and samples of art. weapons that are needed by artillery. It is just that so far only "Vienna", 2S19M2 and "Tornado-G" meet these requirements.
  • Ckyf
    Ckyf 26 October 2013 18: 14
    0
    Quote: Spade

    I'm glad that the voice of reason spoke to you
    no, I’m worried about something completely different - your mention of the battle order)))
    The presence of computers in the artillery unit does not render any benefit to the speed and correctness of the occupation of the OP.

    Quote: Spade

    Is this an argument in favor of refusing to fire mortar batteries with a closed OP? Or maybe we can roll out the "Grady" for direct fire, since the AGS is not protected? Dear, a 120mm mortar is capable of creating much more problems than an AGS, and therefore it will be much higher in the list of targets by priority.
    No, it's like trying to show you the failure of your point of view. Priority goals have nothing to do with it. TTX look.

    Quote: Spade

    The presence in the troops of both sides of highly effective means of destruction, which does not allow creating a solid front line, as during the First World War.
    Alas, you are absolutely wrong. The main cause of the oncoming battle is the lack of information about the enemy. Now evaluate the saturation with reconnaissance equipment of different levels of the Central European theater of operations and imagine what is the likelihood of a battle in the given conditions.
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 26 October 2013 18: 50
      0
      Quote: Ckyf
      no, I’m worried about something completely different - your mention of the battle order)))

      Everything is very simple. The high degree of automation and computerization of the guns makes it possible not to collect them at the same firing position in our classical sense. It is a dispersed battle order. What makes counter-battery combat impossible.

      Quote: Ckyf
      The presence of computers in the artillery unit does not render any benefit to the speed and correctness of the occupation of the OP.

      You do not quite correctly understand the term "occupation of the OP" This is not only to transfer the guns to a combat position


      Quote: Ckyf
      No, it's like trying to show you the failure of your point of view. Priority goals have nothing to do with it.

      If we are talking about a European theater, then half-direct-fire mortars will be within the effective range of the ATGM. And that means they will be destroyed. Right away. Because you should not count on the stupidity of the enemy.

      Quote: Ckyf
      The main cause of the oncoming battle is the lack of information about the enemy.

      Not a fact.
  • Ckyf
    Ckyf 26 October 2013 19: 22
    0
    Quote: Spade
    It is a dispersed battle order. What makes counter-battery combat impossible.
    )))
    see AZK-7

    Quote: Spade

    You do not quite correctly understand the term "occupation of the OP" This is not only to transfer the guns to a combat position
    What else does the term "OP employment" include?


    Quote: Spade

    If we are talking about a European theater, then half-direct-fire mortars will be within the effective range of the ATGM. And that means they will be destroyed. Right away. Because you should not count on the stupidity of the enemy.
    Those. do you confirm the negative side of self-propelled mortars in infantry battle formations?))))

    Quote: Spade

    Not a fact.
    Yes? So for 200 years, military science, designating this condition as the main reason for the onset of the oncoming battle, was simply mistaken ... head patrols and GPPs, vanguards and other elements of the battle formation are not means of detecting the enemy, but ceremonial calculations to intimidate the enemy.
    What are your conditions for the onset of the oncoming battle.
    1. Aaron Zawi
      Aaron Zawi 26 October 2013 19: 50
      0
      Quote: Ckyf
      ]Those. do you confirm the negative side of self-propelled mortars in infantry battle formations?))))

      And what is the value of self-propelled mortars in that they should go on direct fire belay ... I honestly managed to visit only one exercise, where the "Keshet" was used, and in VLV I did not see the infantry at all, I worked only with 401 t / b, but I remember that we were introduced to this system and called the main advantages mobility, the ability to fire 360 ​​degrees at the expense of the turntable, and equipping with a high-tech control system, which literally increases the accuracy of fire by an order of magnitude. Yes, I don’t know how now, but then the question was considered that this OMS would allow the use of adjusted mines.
      1. Lopatov
        Lopatov 26 October 2013 20: 07
        0
        Quote: Aron Zaavi
        Yes, I don’t know how it is now, and then the question was considered that this SLA would allow the use of correctable mines.

        Guided mines. As far as I read, there is already such an opportunity.
    2. Lopatov
      Lopatov 26 October 2013 19: 54
      +1
      Quote: Ckyf
      )))
      see AZK-7

      What is there to watch? Both sound reconnaissance and ARSOM radar will be able to calculate the coordinates of the firing guns, not the batteries. That is, the struggle from a counter-battery turns into a counter-weapon, the battery guns are placed so that they can not be covered in one volley.


      Quote: Ckyf
      What else does the term "OP employment" include?

      What, RBD quote? About all sorts of compasses installed above the place of placement of the main gun, topographic reference, etc.?


      Quote: Ckyf
      Those. do you confirm the negative side of self-propelled mortars in infantry battle formations?))))

      The original conclusion from my words. And what, self-propelled mortars can not fire from closed OP?


      Quote: Ckyf
      So for 200 years, military science

      Dear, over 200 years, everything has changed in the practice of warfare ...
  • Ckyf
    Ckyf 26 October 2013 20: 53
    0
    Quote: Aaron Zawi

    And what is the value of self-propelled mortars in that they should go on direct fire belay .
    The value of self-propelled mortars is different, although anything can be in battle.

    Quote: Aaron Zawi
    equipping of high-precision fire control system, increasing literally an order of magnitude accuracy of fire. Yes, I don’t know how it is now, and then the question was considered that this SLA would allow the use of correctable mines.
    How is this? On the simplest tablet PUW, the accuracy of data preparation is + _5m in range and 0-01 in direction. which is many times less than the Vd and Vb of both a single gun and the best half of the battery.
    Corrected shells are good, but do not forget about them by orders of magnitude of expensive cost and lower reliability.
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 26 October 2013 21: 05
      0
      Quote: Ckyf
      How is this?

      First of all, modern LMS improves the accuracy of determining the calculated data for firing, individual corrections, the coordinates of the standing point and the orientation of the mortar. The modern weather station included in the automated control system also improves accuracy, like the SNAR radar, which controls its mines on the trajectory and introduces corrections, i.e. they practically shoot by transferring fire from a fictitious rapper.
  • Ckyf
    Ckyf 26 October 2013 21: 20
    0
    Quote: Spade

    What is there to watch? Both sound reconnaissance and ARSOM radar will be able to calculate the coordinates of the firing guns, not the batteries. That is, the struggle from a counter-battery turns into a counter-weapon, the battery guns are placed so that they can not be covered in one volley.
    In counter-battery combat, the battery is not covered with one salvo, especially self-propelled. The dream of any artilleryman is to destroy the enemy’s batteries equipment-wise.


    Quote: Spade

    What, RBD quote? About all sorts of compasses installed above the place of placement of the main gun, topographic reference, etc.?
    What you named does not concern occupation of OP.

    Quote: Spade
    The original conclusion from my words. And what, self-propelled mortars can not fire from closed OP?
    They can. I just showed you the negative side of self-propelled mortars - less stealth.
    So how do you compare the firing range of the battalion mortar and the depth of the immediate task of the offensive?
    This is to ensure that towed mortars should not be neglected)))

    Quote: Spade
    Dear, over 200 years, everything has changed in the practice of warfare ...

    Of course it has changed! There used to be a combat patrol, and now drones and satellites, before there was a GPZ, and now there is remote mining.
    Well, and how, the likelihood of oncoming combat for 200 years has decreased or increased?
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 26 October 2013 22: 06
      0
      Quote: Ckyf
      In counter-battery combat, the battery is not covered with one salvo, especially self-propelled. The dream of any artilleryman is to destroy the enemy’s batteries equipment-wise.

      For your sake I will be more precise in the wording. One fire attack. Taking the battery for a group target and attracting from one division. It's all right?

      And about the "dream" - I do not understand. This is for pleasure to stretch, since in time it will be an order of magnitude longer?

      Quote: Ckyf
      What you named does not concern occupation of OP.

      Isn't it time to read the RBR? In general, it is worth talking about the time from the moment the command was given for the OP training to the report of the GSS on the readiness to fire. And you are well aware that the use of automation tools reduces it by an order of magnitude. The Tornado-G battery is ready to open fire at an unplanned target from the march in 3 minutes, as far as I remember.

      Quote: Ckyf
      I just showed you the negative side of self-propelled mortars - less stealth.

      You showed me that the GAZ-66 is more secretive than MT-LB? I didn’t notice.

      Quote: Ckyf
      Well, and how, the likelihood of oncoming combat for 200 years has decreased or increased?

      Increased. Having excellent relevant intelligence, one of the parties will strive to get ahead of the enemy in deployment. And therefore, the same Americans are not afraid of the oncoming battle, because they have clearly shown in Iraq. Al-Nasiriya, Basra- Is this not enough for you?
  • Ckyf
    Ckyf 26 October 2013 21: 25
    0
    Quote: Spade
    Quote: Ckyf
    How is this?

    First of all, modern LMS improves the accuracy of determining the calculated data for firing, individual corrections, the coordinates of the standing point and the orientation of the mortar. The modern weather station included in the automated control system also improves accuracy, like the SNAR radar, which controls its mines on the trajectory and introduces corrections, i.e. they practically shoot by transferring fire from a fictitious rapper.
    I read it.
    Sorry for the immodest question - what do you have to do with artillery, because what you wrote in your post is a collection of nonsense.
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 26 October 2013 22: 06
      0
      Or maybe you are not particularly in the subject? I can explain on the fingers.
  • Ckyf
    Ckyf 26 October 2013 22: 28
    0
    Quote: Spade
    Or maybe you are not particularly in the subject? I can explain on the fingers.

    ))) on fingers? Do not.
    You better answer my questions asked above or write what you really understand.
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 26 October 2013 22: 40
      0
      Let's not on the fingers. When fully prepared, the main share of the median error of the software consists of topographic errors of elements of the battle order. Up to 40%. And who are you trying to fool with a penny median error in the preparation of data on the PUW?

      Did you say something about Airborne? For mortars, the median error of full range training is 0.8..1.8% of the firing range. Take for example 3 km. On average, it will be 39 meters. And Vd we have at this range of 16 meters for 2B11. Is there room to grow?
  • Ckyf
    Ckyf 26 October 2013 23: 49
    0
    Quote: Spade
    Let's not on the fingers. When fully prepared, the main share of the median error of the software consists of topographic errors of elements of the battle order. Up to 40%. And who are you trying to fool with a penny median error in the preparation of data on the PUW?
    Do you understand what you wrote?)))) The binding norm based on what software?)))) For a change, calculate the weight of the total RM

    Quote: Spade
    Did you say something about Airborne? For mortars, the median error of full range training is 0.8..1.8% of the firing range. Take for example 3 km. On average, it will be 39 meters. And Vd we have at this range of 16 meters for 2B11. Is there room to grow?
    For mortars ?! Really?)))) There, in the formula for determining CO, some value is multiplied by a THOUSAND range to the target)))) What is this value, you do not know?))))
    For mortars, for machine guns, the formula is the same ....
    Once again, I suggest you write only what you really understand, and not "control" mines on the trajectory using SNAR radar, calling this transfer of fire from a fictitious frame.
    When are you asked my questions above?
  • Ckyf
    Ckyf 26 October 2013 23: 49
    0
    Quote: Spade
    Let's not on the fingers. When fully prepared, the main share of the median error of the software consists of topographic errors of elements of the battle order. Up to 40%. And who are you trying to fool with a penny median error in the preparation of data on the PUW?
    Do you understand what you wrote?)))) The binding norm based on what software?)))) For a change, calculate the weight of the total RM

    Quote: Spade
    Did you say something about Airborne? For mortars, the median error of full range training is 0.8..1.8% of the firing range. Take for example 3 km. On average, it will be 39 meters. And Vd we have at this range of 16 meters for 2B11. Is there room to grow?
    For mortars ?! Really?)))) There, in the formula for determining CO, some value is multiplied by a THOUSAND range to the target)))) What is this value, you do not know?))))
    For mortars, for machine guns, the formula is the same ....
    Once again, I suggest you write only what you really understand, and not "control" mines on the trajectory using SNAR radar, calling this transfer of fire from a fictitious frame.
    When are you asked my questions above?
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 27 October 2013 02: 58
      0
      Quote: Ckyf
      Do you understand what you wrote?)))) The binding norm based on what software?)))) For a change, calculate the weight of the total RM

      I-yes, and you-obviously not. Or are you on the principle "for us the Chinese, anyway, retreat-run, advance-run"? Do you have the same accuracy standard as the median error in determining the coordinates? Cool.
      And the advice "calculate the weight of the total CO" is even steeper. Actually it's "she", a mistake. And by default its weight is 100%

      Quote: Ckyf
      For mortars ?! Really?)))) There, in the formula for determining CO, some value is multiplied by a THOUSAND range to the target)))) What is this value, you do not know?))))
      For mortars, for machine guns, the formula is the same ....

      Oh, that. The median errors are calculated for different ranges, and then, performing simple arithmetic operations, they find what percentage of the range they are. This is elementary.
      For mortars and machine guns the formula is the same, the results are different. Because errors in technical training, errors in shooting tables, errors in meteorological training (different trajectory heights), errors in ballistic training are different, aren't they?


      Quote: Ckyf
      Once again, I suggest you write only what you really understand, and not "control" mines on the trajectory using SNAR radar, calling this transfer of fire from a fictitious frame.

      Let’s think ... We know on which sight and with what twist the cool Israeli mortar shoots. Using the radar, we detect 4 of its mines in flight when firing at these installations. The equipment calculates the group average, then calculates the corrections in range and direction. And introduces them when shooting at the next target.
      What is the difference between this algorithm and the algorithm for creating a fictitious rapper using ARSOM radar with the transfer of fire from it? .. Yes, nothing.
      If you think that this is not so, then you should refer to the primer called PS and UO.

      As for the questions, you repeat them, maybe you just missed the answer to them?
  • Ckyf
    Ckyf 27 October 2013 08: 26
    0
    Quote: Spade

    I-yes, and you-obviously not. Or are you on the principle "for us the Chinese, anyway, retreat-run, advance-run"? Do you have the same accuracy standard as the median error in determining the coordinates? Cool.
    And the advice "calculate the weight of the total CO" is even steeper. Actually it's "she", a mistake. And by default its weight is 100%
    When you break your fables, then give the link. In this case, here it is from here: http: // militaryconspect.rf/%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%87%D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D1%8C-%D1%82 % D
    0%BE%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%B5%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%B7%D0%B8%D1%87%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%
    BA% D0% BE% D0% B9-% D0% BF% D1% 80% D0% B8% D0% B2% D1% 8F% D0% B7% D0% BA% D0% B8 / the storehouse of your knowledge is very doubtful. This compendium is about 30 years old))))

    Quote: Spade

    Oh, that. The median errors are calculated for different ranges, and then, performing simple arithmetic operations, they find what percentage of the range they are. This is elementary.

    Homeric laughter)))) Yes, you are a genius! Probability Theory for you the simplest arithmetic operations? Then it will not be difficult for you, I don’t know, to write what value is multiplied by thousand ranges to determine the CO in range .... We are waiting, sir ...

    Quote: Spade

    What is the difference between this algorithm and the algorithm for creating a fictitious rapper using ARSOM radar with the transfer of fire from it? .. Yes, nothing.
    Well, now, instead of SNAR, it has become ARSOM ...
    Those. any adjustment for measured deviations for you is the creation of a fictitious rapper?)))) Brilliant!

    Quote: Spade
    If you think that this is not so, then you should refer to the primer called PS and UO.
    Thanks for the tip! )))
    In this case, I highly recommend that you carefully read the differences between the fictitious rapper and the real one.

    Quote: Spade
    As for the questions, you repeat them, maybe you just missed the answer to them?
    No, you didn’t answer one.
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 27 October 2013 09: 04
      0
      Quote: Ckyf
      When you break your fables, then give the link. the storehouse of your knowledge is highly doubtful. This compendium is about 30 years old))))

      In fact, from a collection of lectures on the OMS of the Kolomna College. And he is less than years old, because the author 30 years ago was not yet a teacher, but served in the army. Any fundamental objections? As I understand it, no.

      Quote: Ckyf
      Well, now, instead of SNAR, it has become ARSOM ...
      Those. any adjustment for measured deviations for you is the creation of a fictitious rapper?)))) Brilliant!

      And what, wrote SNAR. Confused, I'm sorry. However, a fictitious one is created with the help of SNAR in the same order, isn't it? The Israelis in the ASUO includes a radar that tracks the trajectories of their shots exclusively.
      The sighting by measured deviation is more like the sighting of a real rapper, right? And I wrote about the fictitious one. Why, you yourself will understand, after reading about the differences in the process of creating a fictitious and shooting real, you confuse them. And therefore the ABC-book-read-think.

      Quote: Ckyf
      No, you didn’t answer one.

      Well, repeat them.
  • Ckyf
    Ckyf 27 October 2013 09: 24
    0
    Quote: Spade
    And about the "dream" - I do not understand. This is for pleasure to stretch, since in time it will be an order of magnitude longer?
    Naturally, you did not understand.
    Now compare the consumption and the means involved in defeating the battery of self-propelled guns and one self-propelled guns.

    Quote: Spade

    But is it time to read the RBD?
    Read and the truth will be revealed to you - what is the difference between PREPARING FOR OP OPERATION AND OP OPPORTUNITY!

    Quote: Spade
    In general, it’s worth talking about the time from the moment the command was issued for the OP to the report of the FSS on readiness for firing.
    If you work on RBD, then while the battery is made to fire according to the requirements, then there will be no one to support. It is worth talking about the readiness to fire at least one weapon - putting into combat readiness, the coordinates of Op, OH, guidance to the target. It takes about 2-3 minutes for towed and 30-60 seconds for self-propelled guns.

    Quote: Spade
    And you are well aware that the use of automation reduces it by an order of magnitude.
    An order of magnitude ?! Automation tools reduce the time it takes to determine the calculated units, but they practically have no effect on the work of combat crews.

    Quote: Spade

    You showed me that the GAZ-66 is more secretive than MT-LB? I didn’t notice.
    "I would have a saber, but a horse, but on the line of fire!" (C)
    Are you seriously going to drag the mortars to the front line at the 66th in a half-direct fire?

    Quote: Spade

    Increased.
    In the absence of intelligence ...

    Quote: Spade
    Having excellent relevant intelligence, one of the parties will strive to get ahead of the enemy in deployment.
    Undoubtedly.

    Quote: Lopatov And therefore, the same Americans are not afraid of the oncoming battle, because they have shown quite intelligibly in Iraq. En-Nasiriya, Basra- Is this not enough for you? [/ Quote
    Very intelligibly, these battles showed that the Americans generally overslept a counterattack under En-Nasiriya, and near Basra the British attacked the hastily occupied defense orders.
    I held the second factor in the onset of the oncoming battle, I thought that you would still guess, but - alas ... There are two more factors ...
    So, on the Central European theater of war, oncoming fights will be rare. Assess these factors and make a conclusion.
    [/ comment-show]
  • Ckyf
    Ckyf 27 October 2013 09: 42
    -1
    Quote: Spade

    Any fundamental objections? As I understand it, no.
    What makes you think that there are no objections? There is a sign below that completely refutes your filkin letter from supposedly KVAKU.
    Why do I have doubts about this compendium - there are very good reasons))))

    Quote: Spade

    The sighting by measured deviation is more like the sighting of a real rapper, right? And I wrote about the fictitious one. Why, you yourself will understand, after reading about the differences in the process of creating a fictitious and shooting real, you confuse them. And therefore the ABC-book-read-think.
    Original thinking. They wrote nonsense, and it's my fault that you pointed it out ...

    Quote: Spade

    Well, repeat them.
    Wait ...
    What do you have to do with artillery? I had a strong opinion that at the level of educational programs at some institute.
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 27 October 2013 12: 54
      0
      Quote: Ckyf
      What makes you think that there are no objections? There is a sign below that completely refutes your filkin letter from supposedly KVAKU.

      So do you have any objections to what I have written? Sorry, I do not need the epithets of "filkin literacy", I need numbers. Do you have doubts and objections? Sound out, otherwise I am already getting bored with your pouring of water.
      Here, take it and prove that, as you have stated, the only significant error is the calculation error on the ASW, the rest can be neglected.


      Quote: Ckyf
      Original thinking. They wrote nonsense, and it's my fault that you pointed it out ...

      Respected. to call something "nonsense" does not mean to refute it. Do you have the facts? Are there specific objections that completely refute what I have written? If not, it's best to keep quiet.


      Quote: Ckyf
      Wait ...
      What do you have to do with artillery? I had a strong opinion that at the level of educational programs at some institute.

      It arose in me. You do not even know the ABC and PS booklet, you are little familiar with combat work at the OP, your objections do not contain any specifics, no facts.

      And finally, you moved on to the Main Argument - the transition to the individual. Presumably, due to the lack of normal arguments.
  • Ckyf
    Ckyf 27 October 2013 13: 58
    0
    Quote: Spade

    So do you have any objections to what I have written? Sorry, I do not need the epithets of "filkin literacy", I need numbers. Do you have doubts and objections? Sound out, otherwise I am already getting bored with your pouring of water.
    The third time I ask - what is the expression in the formula for determining the weight of CO before multiplying by 0,001 Dt? I have already mentioned a certain table in the copy-paste you quoted.
    Again, will you write about "pouring" water instead of a specific answer?

    Quote: Spade
    Here, take it and prove that, as you have stated, the only significant error is the calculation error on the ASW, the rest can be neglected.
    All errors are selected by proofreading after the first shot. Don't you really know that?

    Quote: Spade

    Do you have any facts? Are there specific objections that completely refute what I wrote? If not, it’s better to be silent.
    Are you either mocking, or really not understanding anything? I specifically wrote to you in previous posts what and how.

    Quote: Spade

    Quote: Ckyf
    Wait ...
    What do you have to do with artillery? I had a strong opinion that at the level of educational programs at some institute.

    It arose in me. You do not even know the ABC and PS booklet, you are little familiar with combat work at the OP, your objections do not contain any specifics, no facts.
    What do you have to do with artillery?

    Quote: Spade
    And finally, you moved on to the Main Argument - the transition to the individual. Presumably, due to the lack of normal arguments.
    So you answer the question - what do you have to do with artillery? No transition to personality.
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 27 October 2013 14: 34
      +1
      Quote: Ckyf
      Are you either mocking, or really not understanding anything? I specifically wrote to you in previous posts what and how.

      Well, let's repeat what you wrote in your posts on this particular issue, and try to find FACTS and Concrete in your posts. We start in order:

      Quote: Ckyf
      because what you wrote in your post is a collection of nonsense.

      Quote: Ckyf
      Once again, I suggest you write only what you really understand, and not "control" mines on the trajectory using SNAR radar, calling this transfer of fire from a fictitious frame.

      Quote: Ckyf
      Well, now, instead of SNAR, it has become ARSOM ...
      Those. any adjustment for measured deviations for you is the creation of a fictitious rapper?)))) Brilliant!

      Quote: Ckyf
      In this case, I highly recommend that you carefully read the differences between the fictitious rapper and the real one.

      Quote: Ckyf
      Original thinking. They wrote nonsense, and it's my fault that you pointed it out ...


      Didn't seem to have missed anything. Sorry, and where is the specifics here? Where is there something like "this is not a fictitious benchmark because ..."? Some epithets. Which, as far as I know, are not arguments.
      And the most interesting thing is that you also conduct a "discussion" on other issues.

      My last position before the dismissal of NSh gsadn. He served in the same division, starting with SOB. SCWO, so often applied knowledge in practice.
      Now stop typing water posts, tyrannize your keyboard?
  • Ckyf
    Ckyf 27 October 2013 15: 13
    0
    Quote: Spade

    N-yes ... Primer, my friend, primer. Even a single weapon, you must hit 200 to 150 as a group target. With the fire of one or more divisions. Of course, I did not understand you.
    Let's land your mentor tone))) Is it really 200x150m?
    Something is said somewhere about 6km, and about 25 and 50m, and about b / p consumption, and about attracted facilities based on something there that does not fully correspond to your statements ...

    Quote: Spade

    Of course, an order of magnitude. Minutes instead of tens of minutes to open fire battery (not one of the guns, slightly attached and slightly oriented) for an unplanned target from the march.
    Dozens of minutes? An order of magnitude?)))
    The prepared towed D-30 battery is ready to open fire in 3 minutes, the self-propelled gun battery in 30-60 seconds. Set the fuse case for 2 seconds for the RGM-2, gain charge for another 5 seconds. Restore the tip for 5 seconds.
    Everything is checked and worked out realistically.
    I repeat once again that practically automation only facilitates the work of calculation, but it practically does not save time. I'm not talking about towed systems.

    Quote: Spade

    Did the Americans miss Iraq?
    Present, but the command was asleep. In this case, the point is not in the presence of intelligence, but in the implementation of intelligence.

    Quote: Spade

    Overslept .. With perfect intelligence. Under almost ideal conditions for its management.
    Are these claims against me or against coalition troops?

    Quote: Spade
    Especially when you consider that the Americans consciously We went into the oncoming battle, began their advance later than the enemy.
    Especially when you consider that it was a Iraqi counterattack, when you consider that the Americans had thermal imagers that provided shooting at a distance of 2,5 km against a kilometer of Iraqis, that there was no information about the attacking enemy, that if the counterattack was successful, two American divisions would be surrounded and pr nuance.
    In general, the very concept of a meeting battle defines an unplanned and unprepared type of military action, such as "the last argument of kings." Do you want to make this type of fight dominant.)))
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 27 October 2013 15: 40
      0
      Quote: Ckyf
      Let's land your mentor tone))) Is it really 200x150m?
      Something is said somewhere about 6km, and about 25 and 50m, and about b / p consumption, and about attracted facilities based on something there that does not fully correspond to your statements ...

      Water.
      ARSOM radar or sound reconnaissance tracks the coordinates of the firing gun. By default, you, as an artillery commander, are required to consider this an artillery battery or platoon, as this target is unobservable. Are there any objections?
      Further, since the front and depth of the target are not defined, they are taken as 200 to 150 according to the PS and UO. Are there any objections?
      Further, the battery (platoon), by default, is struck as a battery of armored guns, unless otherwise indicated, with the corresponding consumption of ammunition. Are there any objections?

      Let’s try so, otherwise your water has already got me.
  • Ckyf
    Ckyf 27 October 2013 15: 14
    0
    Quote: Spade
    The network has many tactical examples of the actions of Americans. They very rarely defended. The response to the Iraqi counterattacks was almost always a battle in the course of which the Americans imposed their initiative on the enemy. Maybe they just did not study the calculations of military science two centuries ago?
    You first compare the performance characteristics of the technology and the capabilities of opponents, then to talk about the initiative. Always, if there was a counter battle, the reconnaissance did not work or the action of either side fell outside the control of battle planning.

    Quote: Spade

    When such statements begin, with vague hints of their vast knowledge that I do not want to dump out yet, I begin to suspect that the opponent, in fact, has no arguments.
    The arguments are, in fact, elementary, which are unknown to you.
    First - do not want to compare the geographical maps of the area of ​​Middle Europe and Bl. East? Well, at least recall the African operations of World War II ... What is the main characteristic feature of military operations, huh?
    Well, lay it out ...
    Now try to justify the predominant nature of the oncoming battles in the Central European theater.)))
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 27 October 2013 15: 42
      +1
      Quote: Ckyf
      The arguments are, in fact, elementary, which are unknown to you.

      And from you I can’t wait for them.
  • The comment was deleted.