Military Review

Thunder "Abrams" and "Leopards" - self-propelled "Sprut"

106
In December, the Volgograd Machine Building Company will launch the production of experimental models of the Sprut anti-tank cannon for preliminary tests in December, reports "Messenger of Mordovia" With reference to the Department of Strategic Communications Concern Tractor Plants.

Thunder "Abrams" and "Leopards" - self-propelled "Sprut"


The company's executive director, Alexander Klyuzhev, noted that the government contract with the Russian Ministry of Defense, providing for development work on the modernization of the 125-mm self-propelled anti-tank gun 2С25, was signed at the end of 2013.

This year, the designers of the Volgograd plant submitted a technical design to the customer and began to develop working design documentation.

It is planned that in the course of the modernization, the Sprut will be unified with the BMD-4М according to the power unit, chassis and transmission. In addition, the updated self-propelled gun will receive a digital sighting system.

According to military experts, this self-propelled gun will be able to fire with new projectiles capable of destroying the most modern models of the Abrams and the Leopards.

At the same time, Volgograd specialists are working on adapting the Sprut chassis to promising 152-mm and 120-mm artillery guns, developed jointly with the Federal State Unitary Enterprise Central Research Institute of Precision Engineering.
Photos used:
http://vestnik-rm.ru/
106 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Ivan79
    Ivan79 20 August 2014 11: 19
    +25
    As befits an octopus - it swims. :)
    1. Leviton
      Leviton 20 August 2014 11: 22
      +18
      As it should be for an octopus, it has long tentacles and they will long reach (hold) the enemy at a distance soldier
      1. xenod55
        xenod55 20 August 2014 11: 35
        +7
        And "Octopus" has such a "beak" with which it easily bites through any "shells".
        1. stalfal
          stalfal 20 August 2014 11: 54
          +12
          And even the best military equipment has always been produced in Russia.
        2. Cherdak
          Cherdak 20 August 2014 12: 48
          +15
          Beautiful, nimble, and even swims smile
          1. nfoma80
            nfoma80 20 August 2014 12: 55
            +1
            The trunk is a bit heavy, the load on the front rollers is greater, but in general it’s even nothing if the armor penetration is as stated. Paratroopers will receive a full-fledged self-propelled tank gun.
            1. severniy
              severniy 20 August 2014 18: 58
              0
              norm terminator smile , he would still use confusing protection .....
              1. And Us Rat
                And Us Rat 21 August 2014 05: 20
                +1
                Quote: severniy
                norm terminator smile , he would still use confusing protection .....

                KAZ needs to be put on it, this will increase survival and, as a consequence, combat efficiency at times.
          2. Bloody attendant
            Bloody attendant 20 August 2014 13: 04
            0
            As far as I understand, the main thing is a 125mm universal projectile, then maneuverability and speed. Just what the fuel eaters Abrams and Leopards are missing.
            1. 51064
              51064 20 August 2014 13: 38
              +1
              The octopus is landing and floating, the emphasis is placed on this.
              This imposes a basic limitation on everything else - armor, weapons, etc. Why is the angle of the gun small? Of course I understand that it is positioned as an anti-tank weapon, but nonetheless.
        3. Fedor Andreevich
          Fedor Andreevich 20 August 2014 21: 14
          0
          And in the case of a boil, the octopus releases an ink cloud and dumps laughing
      2. GSH-18
        GSH-18 20 August 2014 11: 35
        +3
        Octopus is buzzing! good
        1. Paradoxov
          Paradoxov 20 August 2014 11: 51
          +4
          Summarizing the opinions: Octopus is good!)
          PT 125-152mm - of course a thunderstorm for all tanks, yes with a turret, yes, amphibious, landing, it would be surprising if it were bad, I would like to know more about "new shells"!;)
          1. Cadet787
            Cadet787 20 August 2014 12: 22
            +5
            What can I say here, glory to Russian weapons!
          2. Rus2012
            Rus2012 20 August 2014 12: 48
            +2
            Quote: Paradoxov
            , on "new shells" I would like more details

            here in detail -
            Pierce armor first shot
            http://topwar.ru/42616-probit-bronyu-pervym-vystrelom.html

            Soviet BOPS for 2А46 family of guns
            http://topwar.ru/31292-sovetskie-bops-dlya-orudiy-semeystva-2a46.html
          3. Bloody attendant
            Bloody attendant 20 August 2014 13: 05
            0
            You're right, about the shells I would like to know what they will be and what types.
        2. Rus2012
          Rus2012 20 August 2014 13: 02
          +2
          Quote: GSH-18
          Octopus is buzzing!

          Details about Octopus -
          125-mm self-propelled anti-tank gun 2С25 "Octopus-SD"
          http://topwar.ru/570-125-mm-samoxodnaya-protivotankovaya-pushka-2s25-sprut-sd.ht

          ml
          http://topwar.ru/787-samoxodnoe-artillerijskoe-orudie-sao-2s25-sprut-sd.html
      3. MSA
        MSA 20 August 2014 11: 47
        +2
        And most importantly, this is a thunderstorm of "Abrams" and "Leopards"
    2. Giant thought
      Giant thought 20 August 2014 11: 28
      +6
      It would be nice if this Octopus came into service and went into the army as soon as possible.
      1. Rus2012
        Rus2012 20 August 2014 11: 33
        +8
        Quote: Thought Giant
        this octopus has entered service

        Already getting up ... and not only swimming, but also landing.
        Laser-guided beaten distance - 4000 meters!
        While the effective fire of the Abrams-Leopards max2800 from the parking lot ...
    3. Juborg
      Juborg 20 August 2014 13: 22
      0
      Great news. I would also like to see a floating and dismantled 152 mm monster, I think the sight will be amazing. He feels the heart, we begin to tighten the defense, just not to go into the race.
    4. Znayka
      Znayka 20 August 2014 13: 30
      +4
      As always, I'm not in the subject, but on the Stalinist skyscraper in Moscow, vandals hung out the flag of Ukraine ... It's like not loving your own country, people living in it and not respecting your state in order to get to this ... word, sometimes you want to "meet" the representatives of this fifth column in hand-to-hand combat ... I understand that this is not an option, but somehow it is necessary to "teach" them ..!
  2. Leviton
    Leviton 20 August 2014 11: 20
    0
    And this is good!!!!
    1. armageddon
      armageddon 20 August 2014 11: 28
      0
      Hmm ... Getting ready ... Pleases !!!
      1. sem-yak
        sem-yak 20 August 2014 11: 47
        +1
        and horseradish with cars, most importantly tanks with real guns! It is necessary to put on the RUSSIAN market for free sale (but without ammunition) as an alternative to Lada!
        1. tomket
          tomket 20 August 2014 13: 41
          0
          But interestingly, the rigidity of the epaulette allows him to shoot exactly from this very gun?
  3. RUSOIVAN
    RUSOIVAN 20 August 2014 11: 21
    +3
    well ... Wellcome or something!)
    1. ziqzaq
      ziqzaq 20 August 2014 17: 59
      0
      Quote: RUSOIVAN
      well ... Wellcome or something!)

      Yes, how much can you distort your native language ???
      Let's say, "Welcome !!!!"
  4. svp67
    svp67 20 August 2014 11: 21
    +5
    It is planned that in the course of the modernization, the Sprut will be unified with the BMD-4М according to the power unit, chassis and transmission. In addition, the updated self-propelled gun will receive a digital sighting system.
    Well, here’s the light tank, for the Airborne Forces it’s ready ... Now the old modification with maximum standardization with the BMP-3 and the light tank will be for the supply for light brigades and marine corps ...
  5. Dazdranagon
    Dazdranagon 20 August 2014 11: 22
    +17
    Thunderstorm "Abrams" and "Leopards" - this is certainly said loudly, but the technique is good! soldier
    1. avt
      avt 20 August 2014 11: 46
      +9
      Quote: Dazdranagon
      Thunderstorm "Abrams" and "Leopards" - this is certainly said loudly,

      Actually, this is exactly the case - an anti-tank self-propelled gun with the corresponding tank gun. This is originally a self-propelled gun
      Quote: Krang
      The world's best light amphibious tank.

      by no means a tank! It is necessary by law to prohibit calling it a tank! And then there is a real voivode on it to go in a tank attack and then whine that there is no armor and in general it’s a coffin for the crew, as about the SU-76 in the Patriotic War! This is an excellent, airmobile and floating self-propelled gun to strengthen the airborne forces, but it would be necessary for ALL parts of the first line and marines. But what to do is the best for children, just this technology is not enough. This self-propelled guns logically takes the baton of the PT-76, but at a qualitatively different level.
      1. max702
        max702 20 August 2014 19: 31
        0
        ACS is good and wonderful, BUT what is it for? Now, if you honestly think for what purpose is the need for this technique? Destroy tanks behind enemy lines? It's great, but how will he get there? Let's say it flies and lands (without exceeding the planned losses) and tell me how many tanks this highly specialized technique can actually knock out? It seems to me 1-2 and if all the stars converge then 3! And then it will be destroyed either by a tank or by infantry of NATO countries (there are no more tanks) specially sharpened to destroy the tank armada of the USSR / Russia (saturation of the PTS) If the tank at least withstands a burst from a standard 25mm cannon from a certain distance, it may continue the battle after hitting ATGM (if you're lucky) then this box will fail after a good queue of 12.7, not to mention a larger caliber .. Why hell is this an expensive uzspecialized disposable tool? Vaughn BMD4 with melon may well be the same 1-2 tanks from an ambush easily, but in addition to this, due to the universal weapons and the infantry will work and the landing with the property will be transported! And what about the octopus? What are the gun aiming angles? Have you forgotten about Afghan and Grozny again? And the cost of the shell, and the price of the gun? And how much does a modern FCS cost for a tank that they do not want to put it even on modernized real tanks because it is expensive! At what we will be realists, I will use it exactly as a tank. An assault gun, preferably 152mm, would be useful, but on the other hand there is a spent weapon from NONA or from VIENNA, by the way, the projectile is comparable in power to 152mm, WHY introduce another type of equipment into the troops with dubious combat expediency? At the forum "Courage" all this was discussed and the landing party just recognized nafig this machine is not needed.
    2. Iline
      Iline 20 August 2014 17: 52
      0
      The news about the testing and acceptance of new types of equipment into service is definitely pleasing.
      Only now I can’t understand at what stage the tactics of the Airborne Forces have changed. Are they now preparing for a positional war or for breaking through the enemy’s defense in a direct battle on the front line? It seems that heavy weapons are for this purpose.
  6. Crang
    Crang 20 August 2014 11: 22
    +6
    The world's best light amphibious tank. We need to do more of these. On account of the "thunderstorm" "Abrams" and "Leopards" of course somewhat self-confident, although the idea is correct. In terms of armament, the tank is similar to the T-90A MBT. True, unlike him, "Sprut" has almost no protection, and is even healthier in size.
    1. Vladimirets
      Vladimirets 20 August 2014 11: 40
      0
      Quote: Krang
      and in size even healthier.

      Only higher.
    2. jaguar
      jaguar 20 August 2014 11: 45
      +1
      Octopus is not a tank but a self-propelled anti-tank gun. Unlike the t-90a, which is armed with a 2a46m cannon, the octopus is armed with a 2a75 cannon. Frontal projection protection against 12.7 caliber bullets from 7.62 in total. In size, unfortunately, it is unlikely to replace the floating pt-76 in the Marine Corps
      1. Crang
        Crang 20 August 2014 11: 53
        -2
        Quote: jaguar
        Octopus is not a tank but a self-propelled anti-tank gun.

        What are you? And what is the difference between a "self-propelled anti-tank gun" and a floating tank, which was still a PT-76 before the Octopus?
        1. Lopatov
          Lopatov 20 August 2014 12: 06
          +5
          The difference is huge. Like between a shovel and a plane. They are digging with a shovel, planing a plane. PT-76 for reconnaissance, 2S25 for destroying enemy armored vehicles, the methods of its combat use are similar to the methods of using self-propelled anti-tank systems.
          1. Crang
            Crang 20 August 2014 12: 42
            -2
            Quote: Spade
            PT-76 for reconnaissance, 2S25 for the destruction of enemy armored vehicles,

            PT-76 is a light floating tank. We look at the functionality. Intended "to conduct reconnaissance and provide fire support, including and fight against enemy armored vehicles when crossing water obstacles"... Now let's take a look at 2C25. It has a PKTM machine gun paired with a 7,62mm cannon, which is designed to defeat enemy personnel. In addition, the 125mm 2A75 cannon is designed to fire all the ammunition used in the 125mm 2A46 cannons. Among them are high-explosive fragmentation projectiles designed to destroy enemy manpower, its firing points, lightly armored vehicles, bunkers, bunkers, and the destruction of buildings. In general, in terms of the armament complex, the 2S25 is completely identical to the main battle tanks and is capable of hitting not only enemy armored vehicles, but all possible types of targets on the battlefield, just like the main battle tanks. Thus, the 2S25 "Sprut-SD" is exactly the same light amphibious tank as the PT-76, and not at all a "self-propelled anti-tank gun". This "classification" is your personal invention and nothing more.
            1. Lopatov
              Lopatov 20 August 2014 12: 57
              +5
              Actually, this "classification" is an official thing, not my invention. Using the 2C25 for reconnaissance is like hammering in nails with pasatizh. Well, about the coaxial machine gun - on 2S19 in general "Cliff" is installed. Should it also be used as a reconnaissance vehicle? Or idiotically drive to the front for direct fire?

              2S25 is a self-propelled anti-tank gun, and nothing else. They say that during the Second World War the Americans specially left their tank destroyers without a roof on the towers. So that especially gifted people remember that this is not a tank.
              1. Crang
                Crang 20 August 2014 13: 08
                0
                Quote: Spade
                Using 2C25 for reconnaissance is like hammering nails with pasatages.

                Why? And do you use the PT-76 for reconnaissance normally?
                Quote: Spade
                2S25 is a self-propelled anti-tank gun, and nothing else.

                Once again I say "self-propelled anti-tank gun" is armed with a coaxial 7,62mm machine gun and high-explosive fragmentation shells. And also rockets. And it can hit in general the entire range of targets available for main battle tanks. On what basis is this amphibious tank called a "self-propelled anti-tank gun"?
                Quote: Spade
                They say that during the Second World War the Americans specially left their tank destroyers without a roof on the towers.

                It is not necessary only to refer to the Americans alright. Their classification of military equipment has always been idiotic and confused. Up to the point that the same tank for the period of its existence several times was either self-propelled guns, then medium tanks, then heavy ones.
                1. Lopatov
                  Lopatov 20 August 2014 13: 26
                  +3
                  Quote: Krang
                  Why? And do you use the PT-76 for reconnaissance normally?

                  At the time of its creation, it’s normal. But now the information received from the drone is much more adequate than from a platoon on a PT-76, and the modern Russian military doctrine does not provide for the introduction of tank armies into Western Europe.


                  Quote: Krang
                  Once again I say "self-propelled anti-tank gun" is armed with a coaxial 7,62mm machine gun and high-explosive fragmentation shells.

                  That is, the installation of a coaxial machine gun on a 2C19 with a slight movement of the hand turns this self-propelled gun into a tank? Cool.

                  Quote: Krang
                  On what basis is this amphibious tank called a "self-propelled anti-tank gun"?

                  Based on the fact that this is an anti-tank self-propelled gun.

                  Quote: Krang
                  It is not necessary only to refer to the Americans alright.

                  Why not refer? If this "tank" in your opinion is capable of destroying even a "Humvee" with a 12.7 machine gun mounted on the roof.
                  1. Crang
                    Crang 20 August 2014 13: 44
                    0
                    Quote: Spade
                    At the time of its creation, it’s normal. But now the information received from the drone is much more adequate than from a platoon on a PT-76, and the modern Russian military doctrine does not provide for the introduction of tank armies into Western Europe.

                    Let's not sidetrack the topic. We're not talking about aviation. What is the PT-76, which is larger than the T-55, was "normal" to use for reconnaissance, and what is "not normal" to use the 2S25 for this purpose? In addition, the light amphibious tank was actively used by the same Viet Cong, and by ours in Chechnya as a tank. What is the obstacle to such a use of 2C25? Moreover, in terms of the armament complex, it does not differ from MBT? Whereas the armament of the PT-76 was weaker than that of the T-55. After all, it turns out that due to this, the 2S25 is even closer to tanks than the PT-76 amphibious tank.
                    Quote: Spade
                    That is, the installation of a coaxial machine gun on a 2C19 with a slight movement of the hand turns this self-propelled gun into a tank? Cool.

                    The 2S19 is an SPG. Unlike a tank, it has a different balance of weapons and armor. In addition, in its ammunition there is no adequate ammunition to fight enemy tanks (this is one of the tasks of the tank). That is, the 2S19 does not have the characteristics of a tank. But the 2S25 has all the characteristics of a light amphibious tank on a par with the American light tanks XM8, XM1202 and Stingray. Or is it also "self-propelled anti-tank guns"? Well, you love the American classification. Machines similar to the 2S25 are called light tanks.
                    Quote: Spade
                    Based on the fact that this is an anti-tank self-propelled gun.

                    If it was an anti-tank self-propelled gun, then it would have had signs of an anti-tank self-propelled gun. For example, a powerful reservation. Or adapted weapons only to defeat armored vehicles. But this is not observed. Maybe then the T-90A is also an anti-tank self-propelled guns, if you so easily do not notice the fact about which I have already posted several posts for you - the 2C25 weapons are absolutely identical to the MBT.
                    1. tomket
                      tomket 20 August 2014 13: 53
                      +2
                      Quote: Krang
                      If it was an anti-tank self-propelled gun

                      I repeat once again, "Sprut" was created as an anti-tank weapon, to fight tanks at medium distances.
                      1. Crang
                        Crang 20 August 2014 14: 01
                        -2
                        Quote: tomket
                        I repeat once again, "Sprut" was created as an anti-tank weapon, to fight tanks at medium distances.

                        And he can't do anything else? And then why would he need high-explosive shells and a machine gun? And what exactly is its superiority over the tank? Usually, a specialized technique created for a specific task in this regard has superiority over a universal one. If we talk about tank destroyers, then in relation to tanks they are either small and inconspicuous, or, on the contrary, have a more powerful gun or armor protection than a tank. So what exactly is the 2S25 self-propelled anti-tank gun superior to a tank in?
                      2. Lopatov
                        Lopatov 20 August 2014 14: 28
                        0
                        Quote: Krang
                        So what exactly is the 2S25 self-propelled anti-tank gun superior to a tank in?

                        Nothing. this is absolutely unnecessary. Waste of funds. It would be better if the "Vienna" and "Kornet-T" were put on the airborne base.
                      3. Crang
                        Crang 20 August 2014 14: 50
                        0
                        A piece is very necessary. The Airborne Forces should have their own tank equal at least in firepower with MBT. And they created it.
                      4. Lopatov
                        Lopatov 20 August 2014 19: 07
                        0
                        Once again, the Octopus is not a tank. And therefore it is impossible to use it like a tank. Swat like a fly. And in terms of fire support, he loses even to the old "Nona".
                      5. max702
                        max702 20 August 2014 19: 44
                        +1
                        Nothing. this is absolutely unnecessary. Waste of funds. It would be better if the "Vienna" and "Kornet-T" were put on the airborne base.
                        I completely agree with you for a hell of a lot in modern warfare, this relic of the past! Or, again, the generals want a toy with a big "bump" because, judging by the armament, the SPRUT's work is direct fire, but in reality it is 1.5-2.5 km at the front line, and tell me what means of destruction of the enemy can destroy him in response at such distances? The answer is almost EVERYTHING, except for machine guns and infantry caliber machine guns, any ATGM system and a khan for a kitten, and even just firing heavy machine guns / rifles will cause a lot of problems ..
                    2. Lopatov
                      Lopatov 20 August 2014 14: 05
                      +1
                      Quote: Krang
                      What is the PT-76, which is larger than the T-55, was "normal" to use for reconnaissance, and what is "not normal" to use the 2S25 for this purpose?

                      At the moment, it is abnormal to use both the PT-76 and 2C25. Because both vehicles have near-zero intelligence capabilities.

                      Quote: Krang
                      Unlike a tank, it has a different balance of weapons and armor.

                      And 2C25 also has a different balance of weapons and armor. To put it mildly, loses. Especially on booking

                      Quote: Krang
                      If it was an anti-tank self-propelled gun, then it would have had signs of an anti-tank self-propelled gun. For example, a powerful reservation.

                      laughing Everything is exactly the opposite. The anti-tank gun does not need powerful armor.

                      Quote: Krang
                      if you do not so easily notice the fact about which I have already posted several posts to you - the 2C25 weapons are absolutely identical to the MBT.

                      Yah? The tank has two destruction channels, i.e. it is simultaneously capable of hitting two targets, 2C25 has one channel. And this fact I perfectly notice. Unlike you, who believes that the appearance of a coaxial machine gun turns an SPG into a tank, although it serves only for self-defense.
                      1. Crang
                        Crang 20 August 2014 14: 12
                        0
                        Quote: Spade
                        At the moment, it is abnormal to use both the PT-76 and 2C25. Because both vehicles have near-zero intelligence capabilities.

                        And the PT-76 from this ceased to be a tank? Not. Maybe it's just because reconnaissance is not for tanks at all, no matter what mass?
                        Quote: Spade
                        And 2C25 also has a different balance of weapons and armor. To put it mildly, loses. Especially on booking

                        Well yes. The balance of weapons and armor 2C25 exactly corresponds to light amphibious tanks.
                        Quote: Spade
                        Everything is exactly the opposite. The anti-tank gun does not need powerful armor.

                        Anti-tank self-propelled guns designed to fight with tanks, which means it should surpass something tank - right? At different times this "something" was different. Once the self-propelled guns were taken due to the powerful armor, sometimes due to the powerful cannon and high speed, sometimes due to their small size and stealth. So what exactly are the "anti-tank" advantages of the 2S25 and how will it have to defeat the classic MBT?
                      2. Lopatov
                        Lopatov 20 August 2014 14: 22
                        0
                        Quote: Krang
                        And the PT-76 from this ceased to be a tank?

                        Yes. He became a relic of the past. Like war elephants and chariots.

                        Quote: Krang
                        Well yes. The balance of weapons and armor 2C25 exactly corresponds to light amphibious tanks.

                        In modern conditions, an absolutely useless thing.


                        Quote: Krang
                        Anti-tank self-propelled guns are designed to fight with tanks, which means that it must in some way surpass the tank - right?

                        Sure. And the tank destroyer surpasses the tank. It is cheaper. And therefore, it can be used as a bargaining chip. You will familiarize yourself with the tactics of using anti-tank units at your leisure.
                      3. Crang
                        Crang 20 August 2014 14: 47
                        +1
                        Quote: Spade
                        Yes. He became a relic of the past. Like war elephants and chariots.

                        No, it was simply withdrawn from the arsenal of the RA, although it was still used in the first Chechen campaign. But he remained a tank. And where they still are - they are classified as tanks.
                        Quote: Spade
                        In modern conditions, an absolutely useless thing.

                        Why? Air transport tank with fire capabilities of a full-fledged MBT. On the contrary, for the Airborne Forces, this is what is needed. Instead of these srakh BMD and BTR-D.
                        Quote: Spade
                        Sure. And the tank destroyer surpasses the tank. It is cheaper. And therefore, it can be used as a bargaining chip. You will familiarize yourself with the tactics of using anti-tank units at your leisure.

                        You did not understand. It should surpass the tank in tactical / technical, but not economic terms. In order to successfully deal with them. Now in general, for a long time, there have been no classic artillery tank destroyers. They disappeared shortly after WW2. MBTs turned out to be quite universal for all combat conditions. But when these fighters existed, in relation to the tank on the basis of which they were created, tank destroyers always had an advantage. Typically due to the rejection of a rotating tower. Or it was more powerful armor and a lower silhouette (for example, ISU-122 in relation to the IS-2 tank). Or (more often) a more powerful gun (for example, the SU-100 in relation to the T-34-85 tank). Or both at once. And this allowed such a technique to emerge victorious in duels with tanks of equal weight category. There was another approach to tank destroyers - the minimum dimensions and dimensions, with maximum mobility and firepower (for example, M10). That is, tank destroyers for their successful battle with tanks should surpass something... And what you bring - like "cheapness", it's about nothing. Firstly, the 2S25 is very slightly cheaper than the T-90A. Secondly, in terms of firepower, the 2S25 does not surpass the T-90A. And in terms of protection, it is inferior many times. Moreover, the size of the 2S25 is even larger than the MBT, and the mobility is approximately the same. And that's all - there is no superiority. The 2S25 unit will never be able to withstand a duel with an equal number of T-90A, and moreover, it is much easier itself to become a victim of enemy anti-tank and other fire weapons. So no 2S25 is a "self-propelled anti-tank gun". This is a classic light amphibious tank. Why was it called that? Have you heard about such a thing as "PR"? So this is a typical PR.
                      4. Lopatov
                        Lopatov 20 August 2014 18: 33
                        0
                        Quote: Krang
                        Firstly, the 2C25 is very slightly cheaper than the T-90A. Secondly, the 2C25 does not exceed the T-90A in terms of fire capabilities. And on protection, it is inferior many times.

                        That is why they are not needed. At all.
                2. tomket
                  tomket 20 August 2014 13: 50
                  +2
                  Quote: Krang
                  And do you use PT-76 for reconnaissance normally?

                  And why was it used in your opinion? Often you read, for example, how a PT-76 battalion was deployed in a tank-hazardous direction to fight the "Centurions" ????
                  1. Crang
                    Crang 20 August 2014 14: 02
                    0
                    Quote: tomket
                    And why was it used in your opinion?

                    Well, since the PT-76 is a light floating tank, then it should be used like a tank. For fire support and the fight against enemy armored vehicles when crossing water barriers and in landing operations.
                    1. Lopatov
                      Lopatov 20 August 2014 14: 11
                      0
                      Quote: Krang
                      For fire support and the fight against enemy armored vehicles when crossing water barriers and in landing operations.

                      Moreover, in modern conditions, a floating tank performs both of these functions poorly. To put it mildly.
            2. tomket
              tomket 20 August 2014 13: 48
              +3
              Quote: Krang
              We look at the functionality

              The octopus was originally created to fill the gap in the defense of the Airborne Division at application distances between anti-tank systems and RPGs, and was originally created to combat tanks. Everything else is from the evil one.
      2. Crang
        Crang 20 August 2014 11: 55
        0
        Quote: jaguar
        In size, unfortunately, it is unlikely to replace the floating pt-76 in the Marine Corps

        Too big or too small? Since you called it a "self-propelled anti-tank gun", then it must be small, probably. And so - and the PT-76 is healthier in size than its one-year-old - the T-55.
        1. Andrey Skokovsky
          Andrey Skokovsky 20 August 2014 14: 30
          -1
          Quote: Krang

          you respected Troll or just a youngster that argue about anything? Is it really so hard to understand the difference between a tank and a cannon?
          the crew of the "Sprut" is the same calculation of the 45s of the Great Patriotic War, today the 45 looks like this and the possibilities are correspondingly greater
          1. The comment was deleted.
            1. sniper
              sniper 20 August 2014 18: 14
              +3
              Quote: Krang
              ....................deleted by moderator Apollo
              Dear, site rules do not allow you to insult your opponent ... Behave decently, okay?
    3. svp67
      svp67 20 August 2014 11: 47
      +1
      Quote: Dazdranagon
      Thunderstorm "Abrams" and "Leopards" - this is certainly said loudly, but the technique is good!
      The new modification may well be a "thunderstorm" ...
      Quote: Krang
      In terms of armament, the tank is similar to the MBT T-90A
      No, "Sprut" has a 125-mm smoothbore gun-launcher 2A75, this gun has a "harder" barrel and other firing points, which increases the accuracy of fire, the T90MS is closer ...
      1. Bloody attendant
        Bloody attendant 20 August 2014 13: 12
        +2
        So the guys judged, otherwise they argue with all their might. Not a tank, this is not a tank. The meaning of this thing: dropped, sailed closer to commercials for 3-4 km and waved along Abrams or Löpe, turned and sailed away =)))) The tank has other tasks.
  7. silberwolf88
    silberwolf88 20 August 2014 11: 22
    +5
    Russia has always found and is finding a worthy answer to any threats to its security ... We have a very high scientific and technical potential ... we can concentrate on what is important for defense and security ...
  8. Arsenal
    Arsenal 20 August 2014 11: 24
    -1
    For. tests in real combat conditions.
    A couple of "octopuses" can be transferred to Iraq.
    On Ishilov's "Abrams", check ...
    1. GSH-18
      GSH-18 20 August 2014 11: 45
      0
      [quote] In December 2014, Volgograd Engineering Company will launch production of prototypes floating "Octopus" airborne anti-tank gun for preliminary tests [quote]

      [quote = Arsenal] For. tests in real combat conditions.
      A couple of "octopuses" can be transferred to Iraq.
      On Ishilov's "Abrams", check ... [/ quote]

      Yeah, in the desert will swim. wassat Let’s send them another submarine to check in Baghdad laughing
      1. Arsenal
        Arsenal 21 August 2014 10: 55
        0
        Your head is out of order ... Explicitly

        According to military experts, this self-propelled gun will be able to fire with new projectiles capable of destroying the most modern models of the Abrams and the Leopards.

        Maybe this will be clearer .....
    2. Bloody attendant
      Bloody attendant 20 August 2014 13: 14
      0
      Not Iraq, but the DPR !!!
      1. Arsenal
        Arsenal 21 August 2014 10: 52
        0
        According to military experts, this self-propelled gun will be able to fire with new projectiles capable of destroying the most modern models of the Abrams and the Leopards.

        For your information, the crop does not have "Abrams" ....
  9. mark_rod
    mark_rod 20 August 2014 11: 25
    +7
    For Octopus to be a thunderstorm of Abrams and Leopards, it must be buried in the ground at the very gun with its weak armor ... or always shoot from an ambush. In an open battle, Octopus has no chance ...
    1. Oleg14774
      Oleg14774 20 August 2014 11: 37
      +2
      Quote: mark_rod
      In an open battle, Octopus has no chance ...

      Abrams must also get into it from a distance of 4000 to 2800m.
      1. inkass_98
        inkass_98 20 August 2014 11: 46
        +1
        Quote: mark_rod
        For Octopus to be a thunderstorm of Abrams and Leopards, it must be buried in the ground

        At first I thought that one of the Israeli comrade-in-arms would start to spit on Octopus, but here they also found their own.
        There is no need for an anti-tank gun to go into battle together with tanks or to keep the defense in the forefront. This was already taking place during the time of the SAU-76, when they were driven into battle with the T-34 and said that the self-propelled gun was bad.
      2. GSH-18
        GSH-18 20 August 2014 12: 18
        0
        Quote: Oleg147741
        In an open battle, Octopus has no chance ...

        Abrams must also get into it from a distance of 4000 to 2800m.

        Which is not particularly difficult for modern MBT.
        Against MBT in a maneuvering battle, it is better to set the MBT IMHO.
    2. submelt
      submelt 20 August 2014 11: 46
      +1
      In my opinion, you outplayed the tanks, judging by the comment.
    3. Proud.
      Proud. 20 August 2014 12: 33
      0
      Quote: mark_rod
      For Octopus to be a thunderstorm of Abrams and Leopards, it must be buried in the ground at the very gun with its weak armor ... or always shoot from an ambush. In an open battle, the Octopus has no chance.

      And "Octopus" is not a tank, duels are arranged. In fact, it is an airborne self-propelled gun. The truth is, there is a minus-bulletproof reservation. So the tactics are different. Figurine from ambushes. Shmalnul-change position.
  10. Magic archer
    Magic archer 20 August 2014 11: 25
    +4
    Flutter like a butterfly, sorry like a bee! Lightweight, mobile and deadly! What you need is the Airborne Forces!
  11. sever.56
    sever.56 20 August 2014 11: 25
    +3
    In Iraq, the towers of these "Abrams" from the RPG-7 were demolished. You can imagine what will be left of them after the Octopus hit. Spray.
  12. Basarev
    Basarev 20 August 2014 11: 27
    +2
    I believe that it is quite possible to make a wheeled version of the Octopus - it will reduce weight and increase motor resources tenfold.
  13. Dart_Veyder
    Dart_Veyder 20 August 2014 11: 28
    -8
    Thunderstorm "Abrams" and "Leopards" ?, but the victim of boats wassat - self-propelled "Octopus"
    1. muginov2015
      muginov2015 20 August 2014 11: 44
      0
      And where to get on all the boats?
  14. bmv04636
    bmv04636 20 August 2014 11: 33
    +12
    beautiful photo
    1. Lenar
      Lenar 20 August 2014 11: 37
      +1
      Just wondered if he could shoot afloat, saw a picture
      1. sem-yak
        sem-yak 20 August 2014 11: 51
        0
        here! I didn’t have time to think yet, but he’s on you! Well done designer!
    2. bmv04636
      bmv04636 20 August 2014 22: 09
      +2

      Can shoot when excited three points
  15. Mama_Cholli
    Mama_Cholli 20 August 2014 11: 33
    +1
    Armor is certainly not his hobby, but in modern maneuverable combat, many factors affecting the outcome of the battle are the time the enemy was detected, as well as the height of the target itself and its speed / maneuverability.
    So, if the Octopus has 125 mm of fluff (with some new shells), then the tanks really can only sympathize with.
    1. kyznets
      kyznets 20 August 2014 12: 02
      0
      Armor is not his strong point. And the sighting range? I doubt that with its barrel length the aiming range is higher than that of the Abrams or Leopapd. So the range is not his strong point. A hand-held cumulative grenade can also be a thunderstorm "Abrams" or "Leopapda", but at the throw range of this grenade. And will the adversaries let this close? Will it not work out the same as the T-34 with a 76 mm cannon. and "Tiger". "Tigers" shot thirty-fours at long distances. Here MT-12 is a thunderstorm of the aforementioned pepelats. It's a pity not self-propelled. So it seems to me, I could be wrong.
      1. bmv04636
        bmv04636 20 August 2014 12: 12
        +5
        Sprud-SD can be landed and imagine that such cars were thrown off behind enemy lines, they dug in next to the highway and as in a dash the first, closing and then so on
      2. Gorbtk
        Gorbtk 20 August 2014 12: 50
        0
        Not a fact, quite a competitor judging from the following information
        the ammunition of the 2A75 gun includes a laser-guided projectile, which ensures the destruction of a target at a range of up to 4000 m. The maximum rate of fire is 7 rounds per minute.
  16. gandalf
    gandalf 20 August 2014 11: 34
    +7
    What are all the same, good ones we have "Tractor plants" wink
  17. Anchonsha
    Anchonsha 20 August 2014 11: 35
    -3
    More propaganda article ... If the floating "Octopus", then there is no armor protection. Well, one Abrams will destroy such a machine, and others will immediately destroy it for nothing
    1. starshina wmf
      starshina wmf 20 August 2014 11: 39
      0
      If infa about his defeat range is true, then, in principle, the Abrams have a 70 to 30 chance of survival.
      1. bmv04636
        bmv04636 20 August 2014 12: 14
        +2
        Its task, like that of tank destroyers in the Great Patriotic War, is to destroy enemy tanks from an ambush and do not forget that this machine can land and is designed to support the Airborne Forces
    2. Themi30
      Themi30 20 August 2014 11: 40
      +3
      What a dumb comment. The same can be said about any other unit, well, T-90 will destroy 1 abrams, and the rest will be demolished!
    3. Mama_Cholli
      Mama_Cholli 20 August 2014 11: 43
      +1
      Nobody argues that a herd of elephants will trample any ... But elephants are made for a long time (a tank is more expensive, therefore there are fewer of them) and they grow more slowly. smile
      1. Lopatov
        Lopatov 20 August 2014 12: 08
        0
        Quote: Mama_Cholli
        the tank is more expensive

        Is it much?
    4. aleks 62
      aleks 62 20 August 2014 12: 00
      0
      ...... In principle, there is nothing invulnerable .... If you follow your logic, then you can slide to the German "Mouse" (total weight 150 tons) .... Then it will really be invulnerable .... hi
    5. Proud.
      Proud. 20 August 2014 12: 39
      0
      Quote: Anchonsha
      Well, one Abrams will destroy such a machine, and the others will destroy it right there for no reason

      According to military experts, this self-propelled gun will be able to fire with new projectiles capable of destroying the most modern models of the Abrams and the Leopards.There is little information about the projectiles. But if it is true: "... The ammunition load of the gun (40 125-mm rounds, of which 22 are in the automatic loader) can include a laser-guided projectile, which ensures the destruction of a target located at a distance of up to 4000 m .. . ". Abrasha will be hard, from such a distance.
      1. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh 20 August 2014 15: 16
        0
        It depends on which shell. OBPS loses speed with increasing
        distance and 4 km will not be effective.
        The cop doesn’t care how far the shot is. But the power of the projectile
        125 mm is not enough against the frontal armor of Abrams. For the COP today you need
        at least 155 mm.
  18. Russ69
    Russ69 20 August 2014 11: 36
    +2
    That they returned to "Octopus" is good. And, then they released 3 dozen and everything died out, as one burned out ...
  19. bubalik
    bubalik 20 August 2014 11: 36
    +2
    for the modernization of the 125-mm self-propelled anti-tank gun 2С25


    ,,, all the groundwork from the union ,,,
  20. fairmen
    fairmen 20 August 2014 11: 38
    +1
    found damn super tank abrams he RPG conventional breaks
  21. VNP1958PVN
    VNP1958PVN 20 August 2014 11: 38
    0
    If the characteristics are met, you can rename it to "Terminator"!
    1. Old Cynic
      Old Cynic 20 August 2014 11: 43
      0
      It will be "Terminator 3"! winked
      Arnoldushka aside nervously puffs his favorite cigar ...

      Or not...
      BMPT "Terminator" and, it seems, "Terminator-2" are two.
      "Terminator-3" is a helicopter about which Nadys wrote ...
      It turns out - this is "Terminator-4" !!!

      (Arnoldushka climbed on a new cigar ...)
    2. maxxdesign
      maxxdesign 20 August 2014 11: 45
      +3
      Enough of the terminators already ... even in the spiderman, offer to call!
      octopus normal name
  22. Meckajiuhe
    Meckajiuhe 20 August 2014 11: 39
    +1
    It will be peeling from the water, and then again hiding under the water)))
    1. Evgeny_Lev
      Evgeny_Lev 20 August 2014 13: 27
      0
      It would be nice)))

      I surfaced "up the tower", blew the barrel, shibanul without stopping, went under the water by 3-4 meters))
  23. mrDimkaP
    mrDimkaP 20 August 2014 11: 47
    +1
    Preliminary Tests? But nothing that there are already 24 of them in the army? Storm? Yes, Leo and Abramchik do it once! Just because the tanks.
    I don’t like the way this car is taught in this article. This is not an ordinary PT-Sau (yes, these have already stopped doing at 60). Its main pole is that it is lightweight and can be dropped from a parachute (with the new system about which there was an article, namely from a parachute, without any jet brakes.).
  24. Praetorian
    Praetorian 20 August 2014 11: 47
    +1
    I do not understand. Is it a contract for the modernization of the octopus that is now in service? They told me here that there are hardly a couple of dozen of them. It would be at least a few hundred, it would be possible to rejoice. And so, we have everything, everything is better than everyone, but there is nothing in the army. Eh ..
  25. bubalik
    bubalik 20 August 2014 11: 48
    +2
    self-propelled "Octopus"
  26. el.krokodil
    el.krokodil 20 August 2014 11: 49
    0
    Quote: Krang
    The world's best light amphibious tank. We need to do more of these. On account of the "thunderstorm" "Abrams" and "Leopards" of course somewhat self-confident, although the idea is correct. In terms of armament, the tank is similar to the T-90A MBT. True, unlike him, "Sprut" has almost no protection, and is even healthier in size.
    doubt it? .. it was written about the 152mm gun, with the corresponding shell do you think it will not send abrams and leo to the hangar? and Iraq showed that the abrams dies like everyone else .. I believe in our weapons more .. soldier
  27. sub307
    sub307 20 August 2014 11: 50
    +4
    "SPRUT-SD SPG is not a novelty. Development of the project began soon after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Volgograd Tractor Plant and Plant No. 9 (Yekaterinburg) in the early nineties began to create a promising self-propelled anti-tank gun intended for arming the airborne troops. It was assumed that the new machine will help the paratroopers to fight the tanks of a potential enemy and other targets, which require a powerful weapon of 125 millimeters to defeat. " "Fresh stream", as I understand it, is that "during the modernization" Sprut "will be unified with the BMD-4M in terms of the power unit, chassis and transmission. In addition, the updated self-propelled gun will receive a digital sighting system." And, before the modernization "the chassis of the BMD-3 infantry fighting vehicle was chosen as the basis for the new self-propelled gun."






    Yandex Direct
  28. netwalker
    netwalker 20 August 2014 11: 54
    +2
    I have said it many times and will say it again: our weapon is the best weapon in the world at the moment!
    Who doubts - see above ..! smile
  29. rennim
    rennim 20 August 2014 11: 56
    +1
    At the same time, Volgograd specialists are working on adapting the Sprut chassis to the promising 152-mm and 120-mm artillery guns developed jointly with the Federal State Unitary Enterprise Central Scientific Research Institute of Precision Engineering


    I am sure that such vehicles will be more in demand in the troops as more versatile. I hope that they will also be able to fire on mortar trajectories. So far, the Octopus in the form we see is actually a light amphibious tank, which of course will also be in demand in the MP and Airborne Forces ...
  30. kind
    kind 20 August 2014 11: 57
    +1
    Let's wait for the test results and adoption, and then rejoice!
  31. qwert
    qwert 20 August 2014 12: 08
    +2
    I agree. Octopus self-propelled. Those. self-propelled gun. In the attacking formation should not be. Her task is to help the landing hold the bridgehead. And mobility, it’s good for a gun. And to change the position when they discover and throw it on a dangerous site in order to quickly strengthen and prevent a breakthrough.
    But no one sets tank tasks for her.
    Like a helicopter task fighter. Although both seem to fly and are armed with a gun GSH ...
  32. wladimir
    wladimir 20 August 2014 12: 09
    +1
    An interesting car, but how is it against Chinese tanks, or rather their number?
  33. propolsky
    propolsky 20 August 2014 12: 10
    0
    That's how tractor plants work in Russia! Of course, foreigners are blowing our roof.
  34. brainkiller
    brainkiller 20 August 2014 12: 12
    +2
    the thunderstorm of abrams and leopards will not sooner, and the clever ATGM - no more. Yes BMD, yes mobile, but I see nothing of the supernatural. A cheap way to upgrade existing weapons.

    As far as I understand, the car is designed exclusively for throwing over the front line in order to quickly inflict maximum damage and leave, there can be no direct talk of any confrontation. So the statements "yes, he alone will send everyone to the hangar" - smell like cretinism
    Amerikosy, by the way, also have enough clever ammunition for tank guns that can attack the target from above, while avoiding the folds of the terrain.

    In the first Iraq, as far as I know, the confrontation with the 72 was avoided by the Abrams, because the 72 has a cannon that doesn’t hit far, but it hurts a lot.
    They tried to bomb by air on a tip.
  35. bmv04636
    bmv04636 20 August 2014 12: 21
    +2
    BMD-4, Nona-s, Sprud-SD guess that all of them are correctly united by all this
    Airborne (also amphibious) military equipment with high firepower designed to support the Airborne. For quick capture of the bridgehead and hold it until the arrival of the main forces, as well as for deep sabotage raids behind enemy lines.
  36. silver169
    silver169 20 August 2014 12: 25
    +5
    Good deed needed. "Sprut", maximally unified with the BMD-4M, will greatly strengthen our airborne forces. It is clear that the booking will only be bulletproof (from a maximum of 12,7?) As well as on the base chassis of the BMD-4M, but this is a FLOATING AIRCRAFT SPG and if our paratroopers need a BM with just such characteristics, the armor protection will have to be sacrificed. Is it bad? Perhaps, but there is no other way out, take, for example, the equipment of a potential enemy - Germany. Until recently, their airborne units were armed with the Wiesel self-propelled gun - a small lightly armored freak with a power reserve of only 200 km. In terms of its characteristics, this BM cannot be compared not only with the Sprut and BMD-4M, but also with the BMD-3. In addition, it must be borne in mind that the main task of the Airborne Forces is to quickly capture and hold important areas and objects in deep behind enemy lines, violation of his state and military control, and not conducting a combined-arms battle in the same tactical parameters as combined-arms (tank and motorized rifle) troops.
  37. bmv04636
    bmv04636 20 August 2014 12: 30
    +1
    Good news
    Russian President Vladimir Putin signed a decree awarding the 76th Guards Airborne Assault Chernigov Red Banner Division with the Order of Suvorov, the Kremlin’s press service reports.
    “For the successful completion of the combat missions of the command and the courage and heroism shown by the personnel, award the 76th Guards Airborne Assault Chernigov Red Banner Division with the Order of Suvorov,” the text of the decree published on the Kremlin’s website says.
    The 76th guards air assault Chernihiv Red Banner Division is the oldest of the existing formations of the Airborne Forces (Airborne Forces), according to the website of the Ministry of Defense. The division was formed in 1939, took an active part in the Great Patriotic War, the first combat baptism of the division took place during the defense of Odessa on September 22, 1941. At the place of deployment, the division is also called "Pskov".
    Since 2006, the division has been an air assault. 100% of the personnel of the compound are ready to parachute. In the airborne assault division, unlike the airborne assault division, each regiment has one reinforced battalion capable of landing with equipment.
    1. igordok
      igordok 20 August 2014 13: 42
      0
      Quote: bmv04636
      For the successful fulfillment of the combat missions of the command and the courage and heroism shown by the personnel, award the 76 Guards Airborne Assault Chernigov Red Banner Division with the Order of Suvorov

      Good news. Especially for the diamond anniversary (75 years). Birthday 76 DSD - 1 September 1939
  38. kelevra
    kelevra 20 August 2014 13: 10
    0
    It looks like a medium tank, and mobility will be like that of a powerful BMD! A serious replenishment of paratroopers!
  39. Evgeny_Lev
    Evgeny_Lev 20 August 2014 13: 33
    0
    I would like to know if there is an option for the Marine Corps, a recessed version?

    Well, when they land from the BDK for several kilometers, but they hid 3-4 meters under water and rose from under the water before going out, looked around and fired?
    1. K-50
      K-50 20 August 2014 14: 17
      +1
      Quote: Evgeny_Lev
      Well, when they land from the BDK for several kilometers, but they hid 3-4 meters under water and rose from under the water before going out, looked around and fired?

      What nonsense !!! laughing
  40. Myth
    Myth 20 August 2014 14: 08
    0
    Handsome and strong name, it would not be bad yet, as a promotional action, Michele Placido would be put on armor in a "tankach" and a helmet, for a photo.
  41. rusakov89
    rusakov89 20 August 2014 14: 10
    0
    It is urgent to make a wheel modification with 6 or 8 wheels and sell it for export, because while our Ministry of Defense is swaying, the Octopus may become obsolete. After all, the T-90 saved only exports, allowing you to save and modernize production facilities, and most importantly, jobs and specialists.
  42. Neprostoy
    Neprostoy 20 August 2014 14: 20
    0
    Handsome, he would have shoved a 152mm barrel and an elevation angle like that of "Nona", sent a couple of dozen to the militia for field tests.
    1. avt
      avt 20 August 2014 16: 02
      0
      Quote: Neprostoy
      Handsome man, to shove him a 152mm barrel and an elevation angle like that of "Nona"
      laughing Tukhachevsky’s laurels do not let you sleep !? He, too, was making fun of everything - either he drove Kurchevsky’s bazooka into the army instead of classical artillery, then he rushed about with the idea of ​​a universal gun, so that at the same time the gun and howitzer and anti-aircraft gun.
      In general, he was kidding until his Atets calmed him down. So the continuation of NONA - Vienna, completely occupies its place.
  43. Lock
    Lock 20 August 2014 15: 49
    0
    It is incorrect to talk about just "SPRUT" in this news. That's right - "SPRUT-SD", i.e. Self-propelled Landing.
    And "SPRUT" is just a cannon ....
  44. da Vinci
    da Vinci 20 August 2014 15: 54
    0
    And to use the combat module of the Octopus on Armata?
  45. ferrumio
    ferrumio 21 August 2014 08: 15
    0
    Octopus-SD Well-proven in BF3. Although there I liked more self-propelled guns based on a striker. In this game, their main advantage over tanks is present - they are very mobile, high-speed.