Military Review

Wheel tank "Boomerang": what it can be

86
The demonstration at the Parade of Victory of the newest Russian wheeled combat vehicle MIC-7829 of the average unified platform "Boomerang" caused a lot of positive feedback. Indeed, the Russian military industry has created a machine that will be at the level of the best world standards. As expected, a whole family of various combat and auxiliary equipment will appear at its base, including, probably, a wheeled tank.

"Sting"

Wheel tank "Boomerang": what it can be


The first national attempt to create a wheeled combat vehicle with an anti-tank gun is considered to be work on the 2C14 "Sting-S", they turned around in the middle of the 70-s. As a base, the BTR-70, which was then produced in Arzamas, was chosen.

The car was armed with an 85 mm 2A62 cannon with an ammunition load of 40 armor-piercing rounds. Two engines with a total capacity of 240 hp dispersed a 12,5-ton fighter tanks"up to 80 km / h. The car" walked "well on water, according to some reports - up to 10 km / h. Reservation protected from rifle bullets weapons and splinters. The crew was 4 man.

Despite successful trials, “Sting-S” was never put into service, which, according to some experts, was a mistake. This combat vehicle could be useful to the parts of the Marine Corps, which until the beginning of the 90-s exploited an outdated tank PT-76. In addition, the M1 and Leopard-2 tanks were only in the Federal Republic of Germany, and potential adversaries had armored vehicles (such as M-60 tanks and the 59 Type) in other directions, which the Sting could successfully fight.

In addition, after some modernization (replacing engines with a diesel-type BTR-80), the 2-14 could be successful in international arms markets. In particular, countries such as Libya and Iraq, which paid for Soviet supplies with hard currency, were in dire need of such armored vehicles. For example, the same Saddam Iraq purchased about three hundred Brazilian Engesa EE-9 Cascavel armored vehicles armed with an 90-mm cannon. Libya has acquired about 400 such machines.

"Sprut-K"



In 90-s in Russia, work was carried out on an armored personnel carrier of a new generation, the BTR-90. This machine was supposed to be the basis for a whole family of different equipment. It was assumed that the wheeled tank 2C28 "Sprut-K" would be created.

According to some reports, this combat vehicle was supposed to receive an 125-mm cannon as the main weapon, similar to the 2-XNNXX tracked "Spruce". Yes, and the tower itself is almost consistent with the one that stands on 25C2.

According to military experts, if the car were brought to the series, then at present the Russian army would have a best-in-class combat vehicle. However, due to 90's chronic lack of money, the base itself, BTR-90, was built up over 20 years. And, despite the official adoption for service, not a single BTR-90 did not get into the troops. And then it was generally decided to make a new armored personnel carrier.

Wheeled tank "Boomerang"



When the exterior of the military-industrial complex-7829 was not yet declassified, a lot of supposed images of this car appeared on the web. For example, there are options for what a boomerang wheeled tank could look like. On it hoisted the combat module, which was developed for the "Sprut K".

In fact, according to military experts, most likely, the layout of the Boomerang cannon variant will be similar to the Armata tank: with a fully automated uninhabited turret with protected ammunition. It is possible that the wheeled tank will be unified with the main battle tank by the sighting system and means of active protection.

Various assumptions about the weapon are made, but, most likely, the discussion will be about the 2А75 variant, which is used on the Sprut-SD on the 2С25. Thanks to him, the "tank" "Boomerang" in firepower will be equal to the modern T-90A. That, in principle, will be sufficient for the performance of all combat missions by medium combined-arms brigades.
Author:
Originator:
http://vestnik-rm.ru/news-4-12163.htm
86 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. Rurikovich
    Rurikovich 16 May 2015 07: 31
    +32
    And what ... In the same Brazil, identical are in service, and in many places. Of course, in terms of security, such "tanks" lose, but they are much more mobile. But everyone has their own vision of the possibility of such a technique. Personally, I believe that if we were armed with such powerful light artillery systems, they would definitely not get lost and a worthy application would be found for them. hi
    1. armageddon
      armageddon 16 May 2015 07: 43
      +13
      Hmm ... Well, why do we like to talk SO ... How it will be ... I hope that everything will be EXCELLENT !!!
      1. NEXUS
        NEXUS 16 May 2015 08: 02
        +6
        Quote: Armagedon
        Hmm ... Well, why do we like to talk SO ... How it will be ... I hope that everything will be EXCELLENT !!!

        when they do, then we'll see .. hi And you can argue before that for a long time and hard.
        Boomerang is good, unambiguously, which means that the "tank version" will logically be successful. The question is in the cannon.
    2. bolat19640303
      bolat19640303 16 May 2015 07: 48
      +9
      The use of anti-tank and other armored vehicles (from closed positions), the destruction of firing points, structures, fire support of infantry - is quite a suitable machine.
      1. Mooh
        Mooh 16 May 2015 08: 02
        +14
        It is a little tall for an artillery platform. All the same, the mine chassis is not quite suitable for a tank destroyer. But a light howitzer or self-propelled mortar from it can and does.
        1. avt
          avt 16 May 2015 09: 38
          +14
          Quote: MooH
          It is a little tall for an artillery platform.

          If it is stupidly screwed on top of the "Boomerang" - nothing good will come of it. The same crap will turn out as with the "Stryker" c 105mm. If they decide to develop a wheeled self-propelled guns, then the chassis needs to be rearranged around the cannon, that is, to make the vehicle practically from scratch and by eliminating the troop compartment to reduce the size.
          1. wanderer_032
            wanderer_032 16 May 2015 10: 06
            +5
            Quote: avt
            make the car practically from scratch and reduce the dimensions by eliminating the airborne compartment


            Why from scratch. After all, the main components of the suspension, transmission and engine can be taken from the "Boomerang". This is already more than half the battle. All that remains is to design and make a new armored hull, as well as to select a suitable combat module (tower), there is a weapon, the control system and observation equipment too. In principle, everything.

            Of course, just cram into a base armored module with 125 mm. a tank gun is not a good idea.
            As additional improvements, you can still think about placing the BC and over the AZ.
            1. avt
              avt 16 May 2015 10: 13
              +11
              Quote: wanderer_032
              Why from scratch. After all, the main components of the suspension, transmission and engine can be taken from the "Boomerang".

              Well, firstly, I'm talking about this for the second day - I started with an article about "Octopus"; secondly, we need to make a new body, and this, of course, if there is an engine and main components, a practically new car. Ask anyone who is in the auto industry works, thirdly - the concept of building a machine with an existing "Boomerang" DIFFERENT. There the car was made ... ... around the landing party and its more or less comfortable transportation, but here you need a stable platform for the precise operation of the 125mm cannon. And the main thing is that it will not be a tank, but an SPG. But if such a platform for a tank gun is made, then it will take longer to extend the line both under the mortar and under the "VIENA" / "HOST".
              1. boris-1230
                boris-1230 16 May 2015 21: 54
                +2
                In the early 70s, the Arabs made wheeled tanks based on the Kraz-255, it seemed to work out well. The YaMZ-238 engine has a large power reserve, you accelerate the Lapot to 90 km / h and you understand how 6 gears are missing in the checkpoint. negative
      2. Lenivets
        Lenivets 16 May 2015 12: 46
        +2
        That is, you are for a wheeled self-propelled gun, and not for a tank on wheels?
        1. avt
          avt 16 May 2015 16: 10
          +3
          Quote: Lenivets
          That is, you are for a wheeled self-propelled gun, and not for a tank on wheels?

          Do you think on wheels you will make an MBT comparable in security to the Armata ???
          1. Lenivets
            Lenivets 17 May 2015 00: 40
            +2
            Somewhere in my comment you saw support for this idea?
            To clarify: I hinted to the user "bolat19640303" that the parameters described by him are more suitable for the SPG, and not for the tank. wink
      3. Vladimir 5
        Vladimir 5 29 September 2018 16: 13
        -1
        To fight only with tanks they lie, but to support their more powerful front edge cannon (almost self-propelled guns on wheels). that itself. Syria has once again shown that operational, powerful artillery support for the front line is needed. The armored personnel carrier and infantry fighting vehicle are rather weak; a gun of 100 caliber or more with fast movements to the required directions is needed. All self-propelled guns of the flower series are tracked and slower, and often throwing 100 km or more is not very suitable. Conclusion, we need mobile artillery self-propelled guns to support the front line and wheeled tanks and self-propelled guns can occupy this niche of weapons .........
    3. vladkavkaz
      vladkavkaz 16 May 2015 07: 57
      +4
      Rurikovich
      How many lives would be saved in units on the APC, if, as a reinforcement, nominally, such vehicles were in service.
      In the Airborne Forces, they finally put the SPRUT SD into service, and how much time was spent idling because of the miners-mavers Serdyukov?
      One thing is not clear, is there an BTR-90, like a base for a gun, a great car, isn’t there some kind of a barn, like the French, Italian and Brazilian ones, are they showing themselves somewhere, once?
      View the dead zone in front of the last machine in the picture .. where is this needed?
      1. AzBooks
        AzBooks 16 May 2015 09: 28
        +13
        Quote: vladkavkaz
        some sort of barn is proposed, like the French, Italian and Brazilian ones — did they show themselves somewhere, when?


        vorobey (2) SU August 27, 2012 09:14 ↑
        .... I've been trying to dig into the combat use of the centaurs and that's what happened.

        The "Centaur" armored vehicles were tested in combat conditions during the "Restore Hope" peacekeeping operation conducted in Somalia under the auspices of the UN. At the end of 1992, eight wheeled tanks from the 19th Cavalry Regiment were sent to the African continent as part of a mixed armored company (in addition to the Centaurs, it included five more M-6OA1 tanks). Two airborne regiments, which made up the backbone of the Italian contingent of UN forces, were reinforced with heavy equipment. The Centaurs were widely used to conduct reconnaissance raids, blockade the main lines of communication between the separatists and escort convoys with humanitarian supplies. During the first four months of 1993, seven armored vehicles wound 8400 km along the Somali highways and off-road, for the entire time there was not a single serious case of equipment failure. The eighth car was not used, since immediately upon arrival in Somalia, its engine was out of order. Until the end of the UN mission in Somalia, the eighth armored car was commissioned, and two more vehicles were transferred from Italy. The main headache for the crews of the "Centaurs" was constant puncture of the cameras. Somalia's main highway, the Imperial Highway, has not been repaired for four years, let alone other roads. In conditions of constant tire damage, the system of centralized pressure regulation in pneumatics proved to be especially good; it, of course, could not get rid of punctures, but it allowed to complete the task.

        Over the entire campaign, worthy targets for 105-mm guns were not found, of which they fired only at training firing at an improvised training ground in the Jialalxi area. But the commander’s panoramic sight with an electron-optical image intensifier was very useful. "Centaurs" are very often used as moving observation posts along the Imperial Highway. The cars took up positions 500 meters from the road, and the crews, using sights as night vision devices, tracked nightlife, and if necessary, Italian patrols aimed at its suspicious manifestations.

        VHF radio stations installed on armored vehicles turned out to be not powerful enough, it was considered necessary to have a medium-range short-range radio station, at least on command vehicles. Oddly enough, in a very hot climate, the crews did not use the air conditioning system, preferring to open all the hatches wide open.



        broneavtomobil_fiat_iveko_oto_melara_v1_kentavr.html # ixzz24ij984os
        1. vladkavkaz
          vladkavkaz 16 May 2015 11: 01
          +6
          AzBooks
          Well?
          Well, I wrote, WHERE did they show themselves as something worthy of attention?
          8500 km was sprayed, did they have something there, the paradise trip was that, apart from the puncture of tires on the spikes of camel grass, they didn’t see anything else, not to mention the frankly poor means of communication and the absence of any goals for the guns?
          1. cosmos111
            cosmos111 16 May 2015 16: 08
            +6
            Quote: vladkavkaz
            the absence of any objectives for the guns?

            probably it is ...
            wheeled tank, which is specially created for modern maneuverable warfare is an armored fighting vehicle, Sandok-Ostrel "Ruikat ...
            I won’t write the history of creation ...

            most importantly, why did the army of South Africa need it ???
            In that war, military clashes with the use of heavy equipment were quite frequent. Angolans and Cubans actively used T-54/55 tanks, against which the Ratel armored personnel carriers, armed with 90-mm cannons with low pressure in the barrel bore, were effective.
            but against the more modern T-62, it was useless ...
            South African ground forces were armed with several hundred "Centurions", their 105-mm cannons were capable of penetrating the armor of a T-62 tank ...
            but in conditions of semi-deserts, as well as the use by the Republic of South Africa of the raid nature of military operations, tanks were not widely used + mine danger, roads and dangerous directions were actively mined by the Angolans ...
            for a march hundreds of kilometers far more suitable were wheeled vehicles + logistics / support vehicles ...
            but perestroika broke out across South Africa and the war ended .. now the army is armed with about 170 units ...

            modernized "Rooikata" 105 mm L-7 + AZ and KAZ, from Saab LEDS ...
            клик
            1. marshes
              marshes 16 May 2015 16: 14
              +3
              Quote: cosmos111
              "Ruikat ...

              Now the Chinese are stamping the 105 mm PTZ-09.
    4. vodolaz
      vodolaz 16 May 2015 08: 02
      +7
      interestingly, I didn’t even know that we had such developments. Well, God forbid, to get to the point. Again, there are obvious advantages: powerful weapons, mobility, cheaper operation. The main thing is not to throw them against heavy tanks in the forehead.
    5. sergeybulkin
      sergeybulkin 16 May 2015 10: 02
      +4
      Wheel equipment is not only more mobile (faster, less weight), but also much cheaper and easier to manufacture, more resource. Caterpillars wear out very quickly, replacement is very time-consuming, and they are not cheap! The wheeled vehicles in this sense are solid pluses, if for the sake of putting the T-14s on wheels, it would develop not all 80 km / h but all 120 and would run more at times. The only weak point of the wheel is the tire itself ...
      1. wanderer_032
        wanderer_032 16 May 2015 10: 26
        +4
        Quote: sergeybulkin
        The only weak point of the wheel is the tire itself ...


        So changing even two wheels is much easier and takes less time than fixing a torn track, which, after installation, must also be properly tensioned.

        In addition, when undermining the mines, the BTRam often detached one or two wheels, while the car remained on the move and independently reached the base. If the tracked vehicle is blown up, then you won’t leave anywhere until you put the track (and maybe not only it). Only on a dime can you revolve around yourself.

        And small penetrations and punctures do not matter. With the swap turned on, you get where you need to. Or at least you can crawl out of the zone of fire / defeat. And with a torn goose no.
        1. Lopatov
          Lopatov 16 May 2015 10: 57
          +10
          Quote: wanderer_032
          So changing even two wheels is much easier and takes less time than fixing a torn track, which, after installation, must also be properly tensioned.


          Given the much less vulnerability of the tracks, the wheels will need to be changed more often than repairing damaged tracks.
          1. vladkavkaz
            vladkavkaz 16 May 2015 11: 39
            +2
            Shovels (
            Again, an unsubstantiated statement, BMP in the Chechen Republic, on plowing, was disguised at times, armored personnel carrier wow, slightly torn, but lane off-road, the wheels did not fall off.
            In case of combat damage, the BMP was immobilized and destroyed having lost its course; the same Czech Republic, the armored personnel carrier crawled away even on absolutely all the shot wheels.
            1. Lopatov
              Lopatov 16 May 2015 11: 58
              +6
              Quote: vladkavkaz
              Again, an unsubstantiated statement, BMP in the Chechen Republic, on plowing, was disguised at times, armored personnel carrier wow, slightly torn, but lane off-road, the wheels did not fall off.

              Yeah. And why then the valiant warriors of 503 SMEs were forced to transfer to Mozdok MT-LB?

              Quote: vladkavkaz
              In case of combat damage, the BMP was immobilized and destroyed having lost its course; the same Czech Republic, the armored personnel carrier crawled away even on absolutely all the shot wheels.

              Yes, that's just the damage to the wheels a hundred times easier than goose.

              Well, the BMP-check the tension and do not spin in place where you can attach a bunch of rubbish to the goose, and there will be no "shoes".
      2. Ze Kot
        Ze Kot 16 May 2015 23: 33
        +2
        How many pairs and wheels do you need for such a mass? And to withstand the return?
        1. Setrac
          Setrac 16 May 2015 23: 36
          +1
          Quote: The Cat
          How many pairs and wheels do you need for such a mass? And to withstand the return?

          Eighteen wheels of justice? smile
      3. Per se.
        Per se. 17 May 2015 21: 54
        +1
        Quote: sergeybulkin
        Wheel equipment is not only more mobile (faster, less weight), but also much cheaper and easier to manufacture, more resource. Caterpillars wear out very quickly, replacement is very time-consuming, and they are not cheap! The wheeled vehicles in this sense are solid pluses
        Yes, and all this has already happened, with "solid pluses", in the ideas of wheeled-tracked BT and thousands of armored vehicles. It is not always necessary to chase after cheapness, and it is useful to remember history. It is better when the tank remains a tracked tank, and if we talk about wheeled vehicles, it is wiser to use its advantages in a different way.
    6. Civil
      Civil 16 May 2015 11: 25
      0
      someone explain the combat use of such machines? How are they different from simple tanks or self-propelled guns?
      1. vladkavkaz
        vladkavkaz 16 May 2015 11: 40
        +4
        Civil
        Means of intelligence, high-quality fire reinforcement infantry.
    7. sent-onere
      sent-onere 16 May 2015 12: 49
      +5
      And also in the USSR they made a wheeled tank destroyer "Sting-C":
      1. wanderer_032
        wanderer_032 16 May 2015 15: 12
        +3
        Quote: sent-onere
        And also in the USSR they made a wheeled tank destroyer "Sting-C":


        So it is he in the photo to the article that is. And this is he in the museum of Kubinka.
    8. sent-onere
      sent-onere 16 May 2015 12: 50
      0
      Various assumptions about the weapon are made, but, most likely, the discussion will be about the 2А75 variant, which is used on the Sprut-SD on the 2С25. Thanks to him, the "tank" "Boomerang" in firepower will be equal to the modern T-90A. That, in principle, will be sufficient for the performance of all combat missions by medium combined-arms brigades.
    9. Baikonur
      Baikonur 16 May 2015 19: 40
      +2
      Quote: Rurikovich
      And what ... In the same Brazil, identical are in service, and in many places. Of course, in terms of security, such "tanks" lose, but they are much more mobile. But everyone has their own vision of the possibility of such a technique. Personally, I believe that if we were armed with such powerful light artillery systems, they would definitely not get lost and a worthy application would be found for them. hi

      It would be better if there were more such developments! And fewer words!
  2. a.hamster55
    a.hamster55 16 May 2015 07: 52
    +5
    And indeed you need to have a stock of unified, automated, uninhabited towers! To quickly change and put at least MTLb.
  3. AzBooks
    AzBooks 16 May 2015 07: 55
    +14
    If we consider Grabin's statement "a tank is a cart for a cannon" to be true, then a wheeled "tank" has the right to be. Especially in a dry climate and a developed network of paved roads, where there is an opportunity to take advantage of mobility.
    But when it comes to a battle with an equal in strength enemy who has real tanks and anti-tank weapons ...
    Here I have big doubts.
    Nevertheless, a wheeled tank is a highly specialized vehicle — actions on roads and in settlements against a knowingly weak enemy, i.e., a qualitative increase in anti-terrorist and peacekeeping forces with comparative cheapness.
    1. vladkavkaz
      vladkavkaz 16 May 2015 08: 03
      +5
      AzBooks
      I do not agree.
      The enemy was weak, gangs in the Chechen Republic in companies 1 and 2? I wouldn’t say. Would we have enough fire equipment in the infantry to confidently hit the target, outside the zone of its confident fire? I wouldn’t say it again, rather it was extremely lacking.
      Hard roads, and that our armored personnel carrier has poor maneuverability? Something I do not remember a case that in the Chechen Republic, I or the cars of my company got stuck on some kind of off-road, and even there in the autumn-winter period there is such "plasticine" that oh her, not the road and the swamp.
      Another question, actions in the mountainous and wooded area, there is a beam of MTLB, ATS -59, you can’t think of anything, neither armored personnel carriers, infantry fighting vehicles go there.
      So the wheelbase for support vehicles in motorized rifle parts on wheeled vehicles to the edge is necessary.
      1. AzBooks
        AzBooks 16 May 2015 09: 24
        +6
        Quote: vladkavkaz
        AzBooks
        I do not agree.

        Clear day! Why am I not surprised? laughing
        Quote: vladkavkaz
        Was the enemy weak, gangs in the Czech Republic in 1 and 2 companies?

        And I did not write about a "weak" enemy, I wrote about an enemy equal in strength and having tanks.
        Quote: vladkavkaz
        .What did we have enough weapons in the infantry to confidently hit the target, outside the zone of confident fire? I would not say it again, rather it was sorely missed.

        Well, firepower is always scarce. Just as always there is not enough power, performance, memory, time, money and resources in general.
        I think that you would not refuse a pair of T-72s, a pair of NONA SVK, and a Mi-24 and Su-25 link for direct support of your infantry unit. I, too, would be two hands "FOR", but all this has nothing to do with the topic of discussion.
        In general, the theme of a wheeled tank has already been chewed on
        (topwar.ru/14414-kentavr-protiv-bumeranga.html
        topwar.ru/14365-zachem-rossii-kentavry.html#comment
        topwar.ru/18169-priklyucheniya-italyancev-v-rossii.html#comment-id-549020
        topwar.ru/21066-preimuschestva-i-problemy-kolesnyh-tankov.html
        topwar.ru/14468-minoborony-rf-provodit-ispytaniya-dvuh-italyanskih-tyazhelyh-bro
        nemashin.html
        topwar.ru/20051-nuzhny-li-iveco-v-rossii.html
        topwar.ru/?newsid=41781)
        and I don’t want to start again.

        Quote: vladkavkaz
        Hard roads, and that our armored personnel carrier has poor maneuverability? Something I do not remember a case that in the Chechen Republic, I or the cars of my company got stuck on some kind of off-road, and even there in the autumn-winter period there is such "plasticine" that oh her, not the road and the swamp.


        You are confusing the "plasticine" of Chechnya with a real swamp in central Russia.
        Believe me, this is far from the same thing. In many places, for example, the Tver or Novgorod region, wheeled tanks cannot pass one after another for a couple of kilometers outside the paved roads.

        Quote: vladkavkaz
        So the wheelbase for support vehicles in motorized rifle parts on wheeled vehicles to the edge is necessary.

        Who is arguing? Everyone argues what it should be a car.
        1. vladkavkaz
          vladkavkaz 16 May 2015 10: 45
          +3
          AzBooks
          Mdya..thas the Czechs didn’t have tanks? Didn’t there Rapier, Ptur and everything else including Shilka Zu-23-2? You know a little poor material, they had enough of this in 1 company, plus excellent knowledge of the terrain and the engineering equipment of the positions.

          "Well, there is always not enough firepower. Just as there is always not enough power ..." - you can always find a way out, if you are interested, a way out was found when in his SME with chicken NSh and thinking just like a chicken, he took yes rested three SPG-9, three AGS from the gun, spitting on the screams about the staff and other crap, plus grabbing two more armored personnel carriers to a heap, with a support vehicle, not to mention 50 GP 25, which are not provided for by the state and five extra PCs , which, as we know, are not included in the MSR.

          "You are confusing the" plasticine "of Chechnya with a real swamp in central Russia.
          Believe me, this is far from the same thing. "- My dear man, who told you that the equipment will be trampled into the bottomless off-road, putting it under deliberate blow and destruction?
          And the dirt roads, or rather the directions to the Chechen Republic, the one who fought there knows that the tank sank down the tower into the ground, without any visible swamp, and the viscosity of this soil, natural clay, you wrap it in pieces and get stuck on the shoulder strap, and the armored personnel carrier .. nothing armored personnel carriers, per, on half-wheeled wheels, so you did not convince me, everyone who fought there will first remember the impassable dirt ..

          And at the expense of the dispute what kind of car should be, first of all, convenient for the crew, it’s convenient not to sleep, devour and mess, but in terms of the convenience of using weapons and hitting the enemy’s targets, plus protection and patency.

          As they say to you, you’ll figure out how to fight it, but we’re fighting to die in those cars, and I really wouldn’t want to die in a fancy super-duper dump-saw off unit, but not a fighting vehicle.
    2. wanderer_032
      wanderer_032 16 May 2015 08: 10
      +4
      Quote: AzBooks
      But when it comes to a battle with an equal in strength enemy who has real tanks and anti-tank weapons ...


      When it comes, then such a tank destroyer is much more likely to confront a duel with heavy enemy equipment, because her weapons allow us to perform such tasks to a greater extent than arming the same infantry fighting vehicles on tracks. Plus, such a wheeled vehicle can move much faster than any tracked vehicles. And this, in turn, allows them to be quickly and quickly transferred to threatened areas, much faster than tracked vehicles can approach that area.
      In addition, such vehicles are quieter on the go and under certain conditions can go unnoticed on the flank or rear of the enemy, and this is a very significant advantage in battle.
      1. Lopatov
        Lopatov 16 May 2015 10: 31
        +4
        Quote: wanderer_032
        When it comes, then such a tank destroyer is much more likely to confront a duel with heavy enemy equipment

        What does anyone have?


        Quote: wanderer_032
        In addition, such vehicles are quieter on the go and under certain conditions can go unnoticed on the flank or rear of the enemy, and this is a very significant advantage in battle.

        With modern intelligence?
        1. vladkavkaz
          vladkavkaz 16 May 2015 10: 57
          +2
          Shovels (

          “With modern reconnaissance means?” - With the use of modern means of suppressing enemy reconnaissance means, will it do?
          Or will you argue that any sophisticated reconnaissance technique at once changed absolutely all the principles of conducting combined arms combat?
          Enemy reconnaissance will be able to do a lot there, being under massive artillery strike?
          Well, for example, their electronic warfare means crushing enemy technical intelligence, for what?

          "What from whom?" - a competently used anti-tank artillery battery, even in a non-self-propelled version, will arrange a considerable catastrophe in the battle formations of an attacking one, and a mobile one, taking into account maneuver, is much more profitable than an anti-tank weapons type Rapier ..
          1. Lopatov
            Lopatov 16 May 2015 11: 18
            +3
            Yeah, which means the enemy by default has neither artillery, nor aviation, nor attack drones, ATGMs capable of firing from closed fire, there are no third-generation portable ATGMs, no remote mining systems.
            And the entire reconnaissance system is suppressed, from space starting, and to a third-class ordinary with binoculars ending ...

            Somehow it's too fantastic ...
            1. vladkavkaz
              vladkavkaz 16 May 2015 11: 45
              +3
              Shovels (1)
              Yes. And what?
              For each tricky thing, the enemy has his own method of defeat, judging even by a bit of information, we have something that is guaranteed to blind all electronic equipment of the entire palette of military equipment of the adversary.
              Once Hitler, by virtue of better organization of troops, had advantages, only he was not in Moscow, but Stalin in Berlin wounded his withers, and after that you left the trash from him near Magdeburg to the Elbe.
              The simplest example comes to you. A Western military is NOT TRAINED to work with a map, give them all a tablet and satellite guidance ..
      2. activator
        activator 16 May 2015 10: 41
        +2
        Quote: wanderer_032
        tasks to a greater extent than arming the same infantry fighting vehicles on tracks. Plus, such a wheeled vehicle can move much faster than any tracked vehicles. And this in turn allows them to quickly and efficiently

        I don’t agree about the speed we always had an BTR 80 on the BMP range, talking about 70 and I think that the reason is not only a more powerful bmp engine with equal weight. Plus the tracked vehicle is much more maneuverable than the wheeled one and as far as I know, shooting from wheeled vehicles with large calibres turning the tower to the side is fraught with overturning. Although there are undoubted advantages of the wheeled chassis, it is a greater resource and ability to move when several wheels are lost.
        1. vladkavkaz
          vladkavkaz 16 May 2015 10: 52
          +5
          activator
          Not surprising.
          The speed of an infantry fighting vehicle across the field and in the field is higher than that of an APC, but with regards to the same infantry fighting vehicle on asphalt ... suicides are jealous of those pirouettes who get up an infantry fighting vehicle on asphalt and the goat that gives out an infantry fighting vehicle in case of an emergency stop attempt, which cannot be said about the APC.
          In addition, the use of infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers, even according to the charter, is different, the difference is in the name of the vehicles ..
          1. activator
            activator 16 May 2015 12: 26
            +3
            Quote: vladkavkaz
            The speed of an infantry fighting vehicle across the field and in the field is higher than that of an APC, but with regards to the same infantry fighting vehicle on asphalt ... suicides are jealous of those pirouettes who get up an infantry fighting vehicle on asphalt and the goat that gives out an infantry fighting vehicle in case of an emergency stop attempt, which cannot be said about the APC.

            Yes, when I first saw what the drivers are doing in the park on BMP 2, my mouth opened, I really thought that it would turn upside down. But even if we take Europe, it is not asphalt-paved, but only the rest is dirt. And all the fighting will occur on the ground, not on asphalt, and even in the city despite the fact that there the asphalt of the advantages of wheeled vehicles are leveled, and the shortcomings will be critical, due to worse maneuverability, armor protection and with restrictions on side shooting. Therefore, if you create a wheeled tank you need a clear understanding and justification of its application, and not chasing fashion.
            1. vladkavkaz
              vladkavkaz 16 May 2015 12: 33
              +3
              activator
              In Europe, the road network is almost all in hard surface, if not asphalt, so concrete, if not concrete, so pavers.
              In addition, look at the volume of urban agglomerations in Europe, then you will not have to persuade yourself that they mustache there in the ground.
              Talking about the leveling of the advantages of wheeled vehicles, as well as some who are here yelling that they say tanks are unnecessary, is a little premature, but more simply not very smart.
              And the last, how many times to repeat, the question is not in a wheeled tank, but in a machine that increases the infantry fire capabilities and the power of intelligence units.
              1. activator
                activator 16 May 2015 13: 31
                +3
                Quote: vladkavkaz
                In Europe, the road network is almost all in hard surface, if not asphalt, so concrete, if not concrete, so pavers.

                When moving on a march in a column, yes, but when deployed in a battle formation, will vehicles have to get off the asphalt to the ground or do you want to say that there are asphalt concrete bridgeheads in Europe?
                Quote: vladkavkaz
                In addition, look at the volume of urban agglomerations in Europe, then you will not have to persuade yourself that they mustache there in the ground.
                To talk about the leveling of the advantages of wheeled vehicles, as well as some

                Quote: vladkavkaz
                In addition, look at the volume of urban agglomerations in Europe, then you will not have to persuade yourself that they mustache there in the ground.
                To talk about the leveling of the advantages of wheeled vehicles, as well as some

                I don’t understand how in urban conditions a wheeled vehicle is less maneuverable, less protected with less firepower than a caterpillar machine, respectively, more maneuverable, more protected and more firepower. It’s like a proverb says that while a thick one dries, a thin one dies. and reconnaissance requires completely different machines.
              2. Ruslan67
                Ruslan67 17 May 2015 03: 28
                +1
                Quote: vladkavkaz
                And last, how many times to repeat, a question

                I’m not tired of banging my head about the hollows of the hollow and ... wassat
                1. vladkavkaz
                  vladkavkaz 17 May 2015 11: 00
                  +3
                  Ruslan67
                  As they said in ORDZHVOKU, the road to Tarskoye (school training ground) is generally nothing, but the hollows, hollows and dol ... s are tired of it. good
                  1. Babr
                    Babr 17 May 2015 13: 30
                    +1
                    Quote: vladkavkaz
                    Ruslan67
                    As they said in ORDZHVOKU, the road to Tarskoye (school training ground) is generally nothing, but the hollows, hollows and dol ... s are tired of it. good

                    Passed by.
                    I was interested in the saying:
                    , but here the hollows, hollows and dol ... s are tired.
                    I agree, I went further
        2. wanderer_032
          wanderer_032 16 May 2015 14: 14
          +3
          Quote: activator
          as far as I know, firing large-caliber wheeled vehicles with the turret turning to the side is a little overturning




          We carefully watch and carefully listen completely.
          The most "juicy" moments of how to "flip" wink :
          1.0:00-0:01
          2.0:27
          3.5:23-5:25
          4.5:38
          5.9:13-9:14
          6.21:11-21:12
          7.21:30-21:31
        3. wanderer_032
          wanderer_032 16 May 2015 15: 27
          0
          Quote: activator
          we always had an armored personnel carrier 80 at the BMP training ground, talking about 70


          Yes, this is because you had such mech. Water on armored personnel carriers.
          The boys are snotty. If I put an adult uncle in 80, who turned the steering wheel for half a life in KAMAZ and let him get used to the car a little, he would have made your BMPs at a time.

          Both driving in a straight line and overcoming obstacles.

          Not to mention those who traveled to these armored personnel carriers in the war or factory testers.
          1. activator
            activator 17 May 2015 18: 25
            +1
            I agree about shooting to the side, not everything is so bad, but so far vague doubt is tormented especially after those moments where shooting from a six-barrel is carried out, where the cars literally sag although the suspension can be stiffer on vehicles with cannon weapons ... And we only have formulas 1 typed laughing
      3. Ze Kot
        Ze Kot 16 May 2015 23: 37
        +2
        Quote: wanderer_032
        When it comes, then such a tank destroyer is much more likely to confront a duel with heavy enemy equipment, because her weapons allow us to perform such tasks to a greater extent than arming the same infantry fighting vehicles on tracks.


        What duel are you talking about? "Tank destroyer" on a wheeled chassis with bulletproof armor against "heavy enemy equipment"? Do you understand what you said?

        And what kind of nutcase will put up BMP against the "heavy equipment of the enemy"?
    3. shonsu
      shonsu 16 May 2015 09: 10
      +7
      I agree. maybe the anti-terrorist direction of technology for fighting in the city. but there are no advantages on the battlefield.
      1. vladkavkaz
        vladkavkaz 16 May 2015 09: 12
        +1
        shonsu
        Yes?
        And to justify this assertion, weak?
        For your information, the battle in the city is one of the most difficult ..
      2. wanderer_032
        wanderer_032 16 May 2015 09: 37
        +3
        Quote: shonsu
        I agree. maybe the anti-terrorist direction of technology for fighting in the city. but there are no advantages on the battlefield.


        For urban battles just need a heavier and more protected equipment.
        Like "Kurgansev" and "Armat".

        And for operations in the operational space, it is lighter and more mobile.
  4. wanderer_032
    wanderer_032 16 May 2015 08: 01
    +1
    It is best to build a vehicle of this type in a new, specially designed (redesigned base) armored hull for it, but with the maximum unification of such components and assemblies as the engine and transmission with the Boomerang.
    This will reduce the total weight and overall height of the machine, which will give it additional stability when firing from the main armament, such as a 125 mm tank gun. And it will also significantly affect the ability to transport it with military transport aircraft.

    By lightening the total mass, it is possible to significantly enhance the armor protection (PMZ too) of this vehicle, compared to the basic armored personnel carrier. That will only be a plus for her. Going in the direction in which the Americans went by making the same vehicle (M-1128) based on the M-1126 Stryker armored personnel carrier is not a very good idea. With this option, it will no longer be possible to significantly increase the armor protection of the vehicle, because. there will be no constructive reserves for this.

    Such a wheeled tank destroyer would be very useful for those formations that move on wheels.
    The main advantage of this machine in comparison with the "Sprut-SD" is its higher mobility.
    The rest of the performance characteristics are approximately the same, with the exception of cross-country ability in particularly difficult terrain conditions, because. it will always be higher for tracked vehicles than for wheeled vehicles. Another significant advantage over the Sprut-SD is both the cost of serial production and the final cost per unit of equipment of this class, as well as the cost of a full cycle of operation. In tracked vehicles, whatever one may say, it turns out higher. Because tracked belts have a lower service life than tires, and the cost is higher even than specialized tires. In terms of fuel consumption, tracked vehicles are significantly inferior to wheeled vehicles, especially when driving in difficult off-road conditions.
    1. vladkavkaz
      vladkavkaz 16 May 2015 08: 08
      +2
      wanderer_032
      Why is the BTR-90 base bad?
      At least, even the picture shows that the location of the gun in the turret and the angle of the gun’s declination are much more successful than on the cuttlefish shown in the last picture. Is the BTR-90 construction reserve not enough to increase armor protection? In my opinion, enough , design overload is the same unnecessarily.
      1. wanderer_032
        wanderer_032 16 May 2015 08: 34
        +4
        Quote: vladkavkaz
        Why is the BTR-90 base bad?


        1. By installing a tower / module in the front of the machine, the front suspension of the machine is heavily loaded. This leads to excessive buildup during its movement and significantly affects the accuracy of firing both from short stops and on the move.
        And also this ultimately leads to the fact that there are breakdowns in the front suspension and transmission nodes.

        2. Due to the location of the tower / module during firing, strong vibrations and vibrations occur that affect the overhead of the tower / module, as well as the upper armored plates (roof) of the armored housing, which even on the BTR-80A led to the fact that welding the seams and the roof just started to come off. Also, in the most loaded places, cracks appeared in the sheets themselves, which spread from the shoulder straps to the edges. And this despite the fact that it was 30 mm 2A72.
        Imagine what will happen to these structural elements when firing from a 125-mm 2A46, in which the return is several times greater than that of 2A72. How long will such a machine last?



        Watch with 4: 18.

        Therefore, the armored hull itself should be lower, and the tower / module installed in the center of the hull, so that when firing, minimize the impact on both the upper sheets of the armored hull and on the vehicle’s suspension units. So that the load on them lies more evenly.

        It would also be nice to increase the wheelbase, compared to the base machine (so that the gun swings less when firing on the go). The width of the car I think is enough.
        1. vladkavkaz
          vladkavkaz 16 May 2015 08: 44
          +3
          wanderer_032
          With regards to the BTR80, then yes, the corps agrees there more thinly, and, accordingly, the problems you have indicated.
          But the BTR 90 is somewhat stronger, and what prevents it from being finalized? Does the car need to be able to transport troops, taking into account the cannon installation? So the side doors are not required, the hull stiffness increases, which means the tower can be placed in the center of the hull, if on BTR 82, they achieved the necessary stiffness, what prevents 90 from doing the same thing, especially since the BTR-90 class is not medium, but heavy?
          Suspension torsion bars, providing a smooth ride and the necessary rigidity while increasing the load on it, due to the weight of the turret and the recoil of the gun, to reinforce the torsion itself is not difficult.
          1. wanderer_032
            wanderer_032 16 May 2015 09: 22
            +1
            BTR-82 transitional workhorse.
            With the BTR-90, time is lost and it no longer fully meets modern requirements.
            A little more time will pass and it will not correspond at all.
            It had to be taken into service and update the park the day before yesterday.

            Today it is already necessary to deal seriously with the "Boomerang", its wheeled chassis is more promising.
            Why take a step back when you need to go forward?
            And constructive developments on the BTR-90 and "Krymsk" will come in handy in this.

            Based on what we can observe today, a serious step forward has been made in Boomerang. And for the armored hull and for protection and weapons.
            It is necessary to refine it, of course, but it is better to invest in it today than to put the BTR-90 into serial production. Because whatever one may say, but it will take time to reorient production to its production. I assume that today AMZ itself is not ready for this.
            In the meantime, "Boomerang" will be finished, the plant will have time to prepare for the release of new equipment.

            And wheeled vehicles are also better to design already focusing on "Boomerang", and not on "Rostok".

            By the way, I talked with one specialist who talked to the guys who were given the "Rostok" for military trials in the North Caucasus.
            So they told him in a new car that they were damp. They had problems with her.
            Just on the front suspension (both front axles), due to the reasons that the BTR-80A had at one time.
            1. vladkavkaz
              vladkavkaz 16 May 2015 10: 34
              0
              wanderer_032 (
              I agree. About 90 problems, I heard a lot. Experience still will not disappear, even if they will be applied on a new model.
        2. andrey-ivanov
          andrey-ivanov 16 May 2015 15: 28
          +4
          As far as I remember, the wheeled version of "Nona" - Nona-SVK (once again based on an armored personnel carrier), one of the significant drawbacks was a very high center of gravity of the vehicle and insufficient stability in this regard, which sharply limited the permissible roll angles when moving and driving fire. Also noted was the lack of rigidity of the roof of the armored personnel carrier for the installation of such a weapon on it. I think that the above is also true for the installation of more powerful and, therefore, heavy artillery systems.
          1. Lopatov
            Lopatov 16 May 2015 15: 35
            0
            There is such a thing. To change the sector had to re-orient the guns.
  5. Bayonet
    Bayonet 16 May 2015 08: 14
    +4
    Maybe they will continue the theme based on the latest "Boomerang"?
    1. Dimka off
      Dimka off 16 May 2015 11: 44
      +2
      Of course they will continue. Versatility allows you to put different modules there. Here we see a 30 mm module. And they can deliver the same as on the Atom BMP. And I think that they will work and, if necessary, put up a 125 mm gun like the Octopus.
    2. Setrac
      Setrac 16 May 2015 23: 12
      0
      Quote: Bayonet
      Maybe they will continue the theme based on the latest "Boomerang"?

      A wheeled tank does not need such a tall body.
  6. Boris55
    Boris55 16 May 2015 09: 21
    0
    You can ride on wheels in Europe, but in Russia there are not many roads ... especially in winter.
    1. vladkavkaz
      vladkavkaz 16 May 2015 09: 23
      +2
      Boris55
      Does this somehow limit the cross-country ability of the armored personnel carrier?
      1. Aleksey_K
        Aleksey_K 16 May 2015 11: 25
        +4
        Quote: vladkavkaz
        Boris55
        Does this somehow limit the cross-country ability of the armored personnel carrier?

        I will add that in some cases the permeability of wheeled combat vehicles is higher than that of a tank. And overcoming water barriers (deep and wide rivers) for armored personnel carriers or infantry fighting vehicles is not a problem at all. You plus from the tank.
        1. vladkavkaz
          vladkavkaz 16 May 2015 11: 28
          +1
          Aleksey_K
          Thank you.
    2. wanderer_032
      wanderer_032 16 May 2015 09: 29
      0
      Quote: Boris55
      You can ride on wheels in Europe, but in Russia there are not many roads ... especially in winter.


      To make an engineering vehicle that will be able to clear paths for columns on the basis of the same Boomerang does not pose any technical problems.

      The Americans made the following on the basis of the Stryker:









      Why do you think that our engineers will not be able to?
      1. Lopatov
        Lopatov 16 May 2015 10: 20
        +2
        Where did you find the "clearing machine" here?
        1. wanderer_032
          wanderer_032 16 May 2015 10: 51
          +2
          In the first photo, the M-1132 is equipped with a blade with a working metal comb at the bottom.
          The hydraulic hitch on the M-1132 allows you to turn the blade in any direction to the right / left or work it frontally. In addition, this hitch allows you to change and tilt the blade in the right direction.



          Such equipment allows you to clear column paths from snow drifts, level the road in the same way as a grader can do, fill up funnels, holes and trenches along the column, remove rubble from trees, etc. items.

          I confirm this responsibly as a machine operator and as a person who dealt with road-building equipment.
          1. wanderer_032
            wanderer_032 16 May 2015 11: 03
            +2
            And this is one of the examples that you can do with a similar hydraulic hitch and interchangeable working equipment:
          2. Lopatov
            Lopatov 16 May 2015 11: 05
            +4
            Quote: wanderer_032
            Such equipment allows you to clear column paths from snow drifts, level the road in the same way as a grader can do, fill up funnels, holes and trenches along the column, remove rubble from trees, etc. items.

            That is, to ensure that wheeled vehicles can pass where tracked vehicles can pass without prior preparation. Clear.
            1. wanderer_032
              wanderer_032 16 May 2015 11: 33
              +2
              Quote: Spade
              That is, to ensure that wheeled vehicles can pass where tracked vehicles can pass without prior preparation. Clear.


              For example, tracked vehicles without preliminary preparation (that is, clearing the driving path) for deep snow cover will also not pass, a tank, infantry fighting vehicle, BMD and self-propelled guns on tracked tracks, in deep snow, just as well sit on their belly as their wheeled counterparts. So do not carry nonsense.
              1. vladkavkaz
                vladkavkaz 16 May 2015 11: 52
                +3
                wanderer_032
                The Tara Training Center, 1992, the winter was extremely snowy, and in February the snow poured waist-deep, plus a thaw, the comcor arranged a show, the MCP was on the offensive, here my support tanker got tired .. 72 belts landed every 50 meters until Directions dashed off. My infantry certainly stupefied the same, floundering in this damn snow, but somehow dragged along, and the tank ... sat on its belly.))))
                1. wanderer_032
                  wanderer_032 16 May 2015 15: 31
                  +2
                  Quote: vladkavkaz
                  wanderer_032
                  The Tara Training Center, 1992, the winter was extremely snowy, and in February the snow poured waist-deep, plus a thaw, the comcor arranged a show, the MCP was on the offensive, here my support tanker got tired .. 72 belts landed every 50 meters until Directions dashed off. My infantry certainly stupefied the same, floundering in this damn snow, but somehow dragged along, and the tank ... sat on its belly.))))


                  I understand the joke of humor, but in what I wrote, there is also some truth.
              2. Lopatov
                Lopatov 16 May 2015 12: 01
                +3
                Demagogy.

                Are you trying to claim that wheeled armored personnel carriers have the same cross-country ability as tanks?
                1. vladkavkaz
                  vladkavkaz 16 May 2015 12: 20
                  +2
                  Lopatov
                  I want to tell you that you have an amateur look at some things.
                  Did I write that armored personnel carriers were present in those exercises?
                  You need to know that in the Caucasus there were mountain units, of which 19 msd was considered and the ZIL 131 was in service in the MCP, just for God's sake do not state that I wrote that Zil 131 was driving in a chain behind tanks ..
                  1. Lopatov
                    Lopatov 16 May 2015 12: 30
                    +2
                    Or maybe "dilettante's look" is good? The amateur asks the simplest question "why?"

                    Why invest big money in creating a miserable likeness of MBT?
                    1. Setrac
                      Setrac 16 May 2015 23: 14
                      +1
                      Quote: Spade
                      Why invest big money in creating a miserable likeness of MBT?

                      Apparently the gain in mobility, well, in price, too. All the same, the advantage in the trunks is more important than the advantage in the armor.
                      However, in cheap options you will have to abandon some expensive control and protection systems.
                    2. vladkavkaz
                      vladkavkaz 17 May 2015 11: 06
                      +3
                      Lopatov
                      A miserable semblance of MBT .. uh, the gun is not worse in power than that of MBT, armor penetration is the same, the price is three orders of magnitude lower. WHO told you that this machine should be used as MBT?
                      Have you really decided that Acacia, Carnation and Hyacinth can also be used as MBT, even though there are powerful guns there? But they are not used like that, except when the need rests, to engage in self-defense artillery and with an obvious result .
                      The Russian language they write to you, MACHINE high-quality reinforcement of motorized rifle units and possibly intelligence.
            2. kocclissi
              kocclissi 16 May 2015 13: 09
              0
              Alternatively:
    3. Aleksey_K
      Aleksey_K 16 May 2015 11: 22
      -3
      The tank also has patency limits. But the multi-wheeled car has an advantage. To disable it, you need to destroy the 3 wheels, and these are three shots. The tank has one hit in the caterpillar and the tank is immobilized.
      1. Lopatov
        Lopatov 16 May 2015 11: 28
        +2
        Undermining a 60-mm mortar or claymore mine will disable all four wheels on one side at the same time.
        1. wanderer_032
          wanderer_032 16 May 2015 11: 51
          0
          Quote: Spade
          Undermining a 60-mm mortar or claymore mine will disable all four wheels on one side at the same time.


          And on a tracked vehicle, it can kill a goose, pull out a sloth or a road roller along with a balancer. And truncated, the picture "sailed".
          1. Lopatov
            Lopatov 16 May 2015 12: 18
            +3
            Maybe interrupt. There's a possibility. And the wheels are turned into sloppies guaranteed.
        2. vladkavkaz
          vladkavkaz 16 May 2015 11: 56
          +2
          Lopatov
          And so? In that case, according to Claymore, they would have written that the entire board in the sieve and the crew who were wounded, who died, but from 60 mm mines, even on punched wheels, the armored personnel carrier will creep away.
          BBM Vodnik, 2003, a 152 mm high-explosive shell detonation, starboard sieve, utility vehicles, killed, the driver injured, the machine gunner intact, the car after the explosion, evacuated the KTL tow truck to Khankala, on its own, torn, but its wheels. Now somewhere on Kubinka, if not scrapped.
          At the same time, comparing Vodnik and BTR 80 is not quite proportional.
        3. Aleksey_K
          Aleksey_K 16 May 2015 14: 47
          0
          Quote: Spade
          Undermining a 60-mm mortar or claymore mine will disable all four wheels on one side at the same time.

          It's always a matter of chance. Combat vehicles are always tested for detonation with mines and shells. They would begin to produce wheeled armored personnel carriers, in which all wheels fail at the same time from one mine or shell. Only saboteurs would arm their armies with such machines. As far as I remember, the German fascist invaders were ahead of the USSR in this matter, I will not say that the Germans were fools, and WE, the "fools", after the war ripped up their armored personnel carriers.
          1. Aljavad
            Aljavad 17 May 2015 03: 08
            +3
            I will not say that the Germans were fools, and WE, the "fools", after the war ripped up their armored personnel carriers.


            We adopted the BTR idea even before the end of the war (Lend-Lease), they began to plant infantry in the BTRs later - when they began to produce a large number of vehicles. And we did not tear down German armored personnel carriers. No one. And BTR-40 and -152 are our developments. First of all, because on the basis of our own trucks. But the Germans didn’t do 4-hosnye. Here the Czechs for a long time still produced and used the Khanomag, as an OT-some kind of number there.
        4. Aljavad
          Aljavad 17 May 2015 02: 59
          +3
          Lopatov (1) Yesterday, 11:28 ↑
          Undermining a 60-mm mortar or claymore mine will disable all four wheels on one side at the same time.


          I don’t remember the source anymore, but I read about an APC that came out of battle on 3 (!) Wheels. Two on one side and one on the other. Yes. This is luck. But the caterpillar would not have a chance. But this does not mean that everything needs to be rearranged. MBT on wheels - I do not think that is a good solution. But the light tank / self-propelled guns / BRDM is quite a common idea, incl. to strengthen the border guards. And in general, I read the article and saw the boundless steppe from the Caucasus to Altai. And ISIS on distant approaches. And the experience of South Africa with their Ruykat will come in handy. And everyone who indiscriminately criticizes the very idea of ​​a wheeled tank, they continue to think about steel wedges and counter armored tank battles. I do not think that they are coming. Although I do not urge to refuse MBT. Everything has its place.
      2. Pissarro
        Pissarro 16 May 2015 13: 34
        0
        this is not three shots, but one OFS. And that's it, come laughing
      3. Ze Kot
        Ze Kot 16 May 2015 23: 44
        +3
        Quote: Алексей_К
        To disable it, you need to destroy 3 wheels, and this is three shots.


        Do you think that the enemy is so inadequate that he will shoot on wheels? Yes, for each separately? Yes, three more times? wink
    4. The comment was deleted.
    5. a.hamster55
      a.hamster55 16 May 2015 11: 36
      +2
      Road or off-road? And which of the commanders knows about departmental roads, for example, Gazprom? I think that the NS should once a quarter update the maps of at least its area while the Internet is working.
  7. Vladimir111
    Vladimir111 16 May 2015 10: 35
    +5
    "Shoot and run away undetected", that is, for inflicting quick unexpected strikes, the machine is just right.
  8. Lopatov
    Lopatov 16 May 2015 10: 53
    +9
    Very necessary car !!!
    Truth...
    - It is definitely worse than MBT by all criteria
    - It is worse than anti-tank systems and anti-tank systems in the fight against armored vehicles
    - When used as a means of supporting infantry, it is worse than even a self-propelled mortar, not to mention station wagons like the "Vienna"
    - It is not applicable in battles in settlements - there needs better cross-country ability and a much more powerful passive defense
    - It is not applicable in the mountains, forests and marshes
    - It is inapplicable in closed and semi-closed areas, especially when the enemy uses large-caliber machine guns, "antimaterial" rifles and modern anti-tank weapons

    What do we have left there? Steppes, and fighting only along the roads? But it makes sense to invest a lot of money in developing a machine with such a narrow specialization ...
    1. wanderer_032
      wanderer_032 16 May 2015 11: 25
      +2
      Quote: Spade
      Very necessary car !!!


      Truth...

      1.It is much cheaper in mass production than MBT
      2.SPTRK use only expensive guided missiles as their main ammunition, and such a system uses the entire range of ammunition that is suitable for a tank gun, including OFS and TOUR.
      3. These machines are not needed so that all sorts of backward "strategists" of the First World War on them in a frontal assault took fortified areas prepared for the defense of the city and other points of ours. And for actions in the operational space. Where extra armor is just a burden, not help.
      4. In Afghanistan, wheeled combat vehicles were widely used by SV, Airborne Forces, and PV motor-and-vehicle groups and showed themselves very well there. The same can be said of the hostilities in the North Caucasus.
      5. In conditions where there are many kinds of reservoirs and various kinds of water barriers, such a technique using its amphibious qualities has always shown positive results.
      In swampy terrain, you can drown anything, working conditions in the far north (Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Okrug), even civilian equipment of any type, this is confirmed (even the Vityaz all-terrain vehicles were drowned in the swamp).
      6. The modern approach to the security of these machines, which we can observe on the example of the VPK-9 "Boomerang" armored personnel carrier shown at the May 2015, 7829 parade, proves that such machines can be protected from large-caliber machine guns and even small-caliber guns.

      Quote: Spade
      What do we have left there?


      Nothing left. Except noodles on ears. laughing
      1. Lopatov
        Lopatov 16 May 2015 11: 49
        +5
        Quote: wanderer_032
        1.It is much cheaper in mass production than MBT

        Given the need for development from scratch and a small series ... Not a fact. In addition, we already have MBT.
        Quote: wanderer_032
        2.SPTRK use only expensive guided missiles as their main ammunition, and such a system uses the entire range of ammunition that is suitable for a tank gun, including OFS and TOUR.

        Who told you that a modern projectile costs little? Tie with the Soviet "one shell is like a pair of boots"
        Quote: wanderer_032
        3. These machines are not needed so that all sorts of backward "strategists" of the First World War on them in a frontal assault took fortified areas prepared for the defense of the city and other points of ours. And for actions in the operational space. Where extra armor is just a burden, not help.

        And what will they do "in the operational space"? We already have a vehicle purposefully created for such conditions - BMP-3. Superior to the hypothetical "wheeled tank" in everything. Especially when you consider the presence of such machines as "Vienna" and "Chrysanthemum-S" / "Cornet-T" based on it.
        Quote: wanderer_032
        4. In Afghanistan, wheeled combat vehicles were widely used by SV, Airborne Forces, and PV motor-and-vehicle groups and showed themselves very well there. The same can be said of the hostilities in the North Caucasus.

        Yeah. I remember going up from Dyshne-Vedeno to the mountains, "on a visit" to Kadyrov, I had to leave all the wheels below. And that was the right decision. It started raining, and even tanks began to get stuck.
        Quote: wanderer_032
        5. In conditions where there are many reservoirs and various kinds of water barriers, such a technique, using its amphibious qualities, has always shown positive results.

        For the BMP-2, even overcoming the river is much easier than for the BTR-80. I don’t even remember the wetlands, except MT-TWT.
        Quote: wanderer_032
        6. The modern approach to the security of these machines, which we can observe on the example of the VPK-9 "Boomerang" armored personnel carrier shown at the May 2015, 7829 parade, proves that such machines can be protected from large-caliber machine guns and even small-caliber guns.

        Maybe. Only the weight will be at the T-72 level after installing a 125-mm gun. With all the consequences.

        Quote: wanderer_032
        Nothing left. Except noodles on ears.

        Exactly!!!
        Noodles on the ears so that Deripaska put another penny in his "pocket" on the British Virgin Islands for a car that the army needs, like a dog's fifth leg.
        1. The comment was deleted.
        2. a.hamster55
          a.hamster55 16 May 2015 11: 56
          +4
          I will sell a shell - I will buy boots for my wife lol
        3. wanderer_032
          wanderer_032 16 May 2015 12: 31
          -1
          Quote: Spade
          In addition, we already have MBT.


          Of course, but there are no wheeled tank destroyers. At what speed will they be able to move in the MBT convoy consisting of, for example, brigades in which infantry are on wheeled armored personnel carriers, on paved roads on long marches, so as not to slow everyone down and gobble up the annual supply of diesel fuel at a time? And how many times do tankers have to drive to the rear to refuel them? Given that 1500 liters of diesel fuel, each tank eats for 450 km of highway traffic. And this is in the summer, and in the winter ...

          Quote: Spade
          Who told you that a modern projectile costs little? Tie with the Soviet "one shell is like a pair of boots"


          Yes, in any case, less than the cost of one ATGM. For the cost of one ATGM, you can put on / put on shoes, feed from the belly and pour front-line 100 grams for almost two weeks, a whole SME at least.

          Quote: Spade
          And what will they do "in the operational space"? We already have a vehicle purposefully created for such conditions - BMP-3. Superior to the hypothetical "wheeled tank" in everything. Especially when you consider the presence of such machines as "Vienna" and "Chrysanthemum-S" / "Cornet-T" based on it.


          And how many of them in the troops are real for today?
          Correctly. One-two and miscalculated. And why? Because it is troublesome and expensive to operate and maintain. Wheel cars in this regard are simpler, more reliable, less troublesome and less expensive.

          Quote: Spade
          Yeah. I remember going up from Dyshne-Vedeno to the mountains, "on a visit" to Kadyrov, I had to leave all the wheels below. And that was the right decision. It started raining, and even tanks began to get stuck.


          But what about grub, solarium and ammunition? Probably on tanks and infantry fighting vehicles ... laughing Or not, on the turntables of which it was possible to beg from the "grandfathers" -commanders, it's all the same as an ingot of gold.

          Quote: Spade
          For the BMP-2, even overcoming the river is much easier than for the BTR-80.


          The video speaks for itself.



          Quote: Spade
          Maybe. Only the weight will be at the T-72 level after installing a 125-mm gun. With all the consequences.


          Not more than 20-23 tons.

          Quote: Spade
          Noodles on the ears so that Deripaska put another penny in his "pocket" on the British Virgin Islands for a car that the army needs, like a dog's fifth leg.


          If you personally do not like Deripaska, then this is personally your problem. And military equipment as part of the MSBR is better to be uniform in its running characteristics. Otherwise, it turns out someone in the forest, someone for firewood.
          1. Lopatov
            Lopatov 16 May 2015 12: 51
            +4
            [quote = wanderer_032] Of course, but there are no wheeled tank destroyers. At what speed will they be able to move in the MBT convoy as part of, say, a brigade in which infantry on wheeled armored personnel carriers / quote]
            3 minutes a kilometer. Regardless of what type of coating is, what equipment is in the column, wheeled or tracked. If you exceed this standard, you get an "accordion"
            If you need to transfer tanks or self-propelled guns on public roads, then low-bed trawls are much more effective than creating a wunderwafe "wheeled tank", the only plus of which is fast movement along the highway.

            [quote = wanderer_032] Yes, in any case, less than the cost of one ATGM. For the cost of one ATGM, you can put on / put on shoes, feed from the belly and pour front-line 100 grams for almost two weeks, a whole SME at least. [/ Quote]
            Hello, we’ve arrived. And why did you decide that one shell is equal to one guided missile? Demagogy. Meanwhile, even at the stage of economic justification for the creation of adjustable shells, the developers proved that when firing at individual targets, guided munitions are economically more profitable than unguided ones.


            [quote = wanderer_032] And how many of them in the troops are real for today?
            Correctly. One-two and miscalculated. And why? Because it is troublesome and expensive to operate and maintain. Wheel cars in this regard are simpler, more reliable, less troublesome and less expensive. [/ Quote]
            Yeah ... "simpler and more reliable" laughing
            You forget that the BMP-3 is already there. And their production resumes.
            And the wheeled tank wunderwafel still needs to be created.

            [quote = wanderer_032] And what about the grub, solarium and ammunition? Probably on tanks and infantry fighting vehicles ... [/ quote]
            On motolig.

            [quote = wanderer_032] The video speaks for itself. [/ quote]
            The clip says nothing. A small ragman on one or on the other side, and the APC through the water barrier will not pass. But the BMP-2 can still wrestle.

            [quote = wanderer_032] Not more than 20-23 tons. [/ quote]
            While maintaining the level of protection?

            [quote = wanderer_032] If you personally do not like Deripaska, then this is personally your problem. [/ quote]
            And if the people of Deripaska are trying to impose on the army something that is not good for her, and at the same time they are actively fighting in the media with samples of weapons that the army really needs, then this is not only my problem.
            1. wanderer_032
              wanderer_032 16 May 2015 15: 05
              0
              Quote: Spade
              If it is necessary to transfer tanks or self-propelled guns on public roads, then low-bed trawls are much more effective than creating a wunderwafe "wheeled tank"


              -And from a trawl tank or self-propelled guns will be able to conduct full-fledged fire, if you have to join the battle on the go?
              “And besides, how many trawls do you need to make and tractors to them to carry all the heavy armor of each brigade MC?” And how much money do you need to invest there?
              It’s easier to make wheeled combat vehicles than to breed this mutahren.
              -In addition to the fact that tanks and self-propelled guns must be refueled, so are tractors too. Plus, for each tractor, the driver minimum, not counting the others.

              Quote: Spade
              On motolig.

              Yeah, tell me that the "motorcycle skaters" drove to the bases like trucks to stock up on food, fuel, shells and cartridges. And there from them on the spot "nalivniki" were bungled to pour diesel fuel and gasoline. The "motorcycle" has its own carrying capacity of 2 tons in total.
              And why so serious in one flight, 1 MT-LB can stand on itself?

              Quote: Spade
              The clip says nothing. A small ragman on one or on the other side, and the APC through the water barrier will not pass.

              Meli Emelya. I myself am one of the military specialties mech.vod wheel BTR is.
              I would even move on a gasoline 70-ke and swim where I want. Not to mention those 70s in this video. And if you have such hand-worn mech.water encountered all the time, then this is another matter. The car is not in business.

              During the conflict on Damansky Island, Vitaly Bubenin (this is the commander of the first "Alpha" who does not know) rescued a group of border guards who fell under the "batch" of the Chinese in 2 gasoline 60s. And there there were no good roads at that time, and the terrain there is completely swampy and there are also plenty of small rivers.
              Sit down or fail to spit, if you do not know where and how to get there.
              1-well the car was lost, the "batch" was very serious. But the 2nd survived, even with the punctured wheels, they were able to leave the affected area on the 1st engine. They say that with 60 bullets all the paint was torn off the 1st side like a sandblaster, in that battle ...

              Quote: Spade
              While maintaining the level of protection?

              Yes when saving. Combined armor and KDZ to help.


              Quote: Spade
              And if the people of Deripaska are trying to impose on the army what she does not want

              Yeah "Deripaska's people" made 60, 70, 80 both "mess" and "Rostok" when there was no smell of Deripaska at the AMZ at all. Do not fence in nonsense.
              1. Lopatov
                Lopatov 16 May 2015 15: 30
                +4
                Quote: wanderer_032
                And from a trawl tank or self-propelled guns will be able to conduct full-fledged fire, if you have to join the battle on the go?

                Hello, we've arrived ... Why? If there is a possibility of a collision with the enemy, then the subunits will go in pre-battle formations, in which all the imaginary "advantages" of wheeled tanks are completely lost, and their disadvantages in the form of poor maneuverability creep out.

                Quote: wanderer_032
                Yeah, also tell me that "motorcycle leagues" drove to the bases like trucks to stock up on food, fuel, shells and cartridges.

                Guessed it. Another TCP drove. Because the wheels got up deaf

                Quote: wanderer_032
                Yes when saving. Combined armor and KDZ to help.

                And tell Kali weasel about the "KDZ", stopping 12.7 armor-piercing bullets ...

                Quote: wanderer_032
                Yeah "Deripaska's people" made 60, 70, 80 both "mess" and "Rostok" when there was no smell of Deripaska at the AMZ at all. Do not fence in nonsense.

                Which of the following is a "wheeled tank"?
                1. wanderer_032
                  wanderer_032 16 May 2015 15: 44
                  -2
                  Quote: Spade
                  Hello, we arrived ... Why?


                  Because we are talking about lengthy marches.

                  Quote: Spade
                  More TCP drove


                  Somehow you have an interesting technique begins to appear, in the course of the play. Just like magic. Where did the PTSy come from and if there are no large reservoirs and wetlands there?

                  Quote: Spade
                  And tell Kali weasel about the "KDZ", stopping 12.7 armor-piercing bullets ...

                  KDZ is not for bullets, for bullets and other similar mucks combined armor.

                  Quote: Spade
                  Which of the following is a "wheeled tank"?


                  Nothing. But the BTR-80A was made during the Union. On the basis of the BRDM installed ATGM and air defense systems in the shaggy 60s and 70s (and what for if the wheels are worthless).
                  Have you ever heard of the Nona-SVK self-propelled guns?
                  Towers from BMP-2 and 3 were installed on "Rostok". And this was even before Deripaska bought AMZ.
                  1. Aleks tv
                    Aleks tv 16 May 2015 16: 49
                    +6
                    Quote: wanderer_032
                    Where did the PTSy come from and if there are no large reservoirs and wetlands there?

                    Sasha, hi.
                    hi
                    I confirm - there were TCP, they were very much appreciated as well as the IMR in the Czechs.
                    For this it was necessary to be very "friends" with the sappers, these are RARE machines))).
                    Basically, the PTS-M, it even takes less than the PTS-2, but it doesn’t burrow with its nose (there is no armor on the face) and its chassis is easier to maintain.

                    PTS just rushing forward and fse ... Chunky and pretty dinosaur.
                    Dad in one word.
                    smile
      2. Setrac
        Setrac 16 May 2015 23: 17
        0
        Quote: wanderer_032
        1.It is much cheaper in mass production than MBT

        Controversial thesis! Cheaper - by refusing control automation?
    2. vladkavkaz
      vladkavkaz 16 May 2015 11: 34
      -2
      Shovels (1)
      "- It is definitely worse than the MBT by all criteria" - NIKTO does not say that a wheeled armored fighting vehicle should be absolutely comparable to an MBT

      "- It is worse than ATGM and SPTRK in the fight against armored vehicles" -And who argues that the armored personnel carrier is capable of competing on equal terms with MBT?

      "- When used as a means of supporting the infantry, it is worse even than a self-propelled mortar, not to mention station wagons like the" Vienna "" - UNSUFFICIENT statement.

      "- It is inapplicable in battles in populated areas - better cross-country ability and much more powerful passive protection are needed" - Another, UNSUFFICIENT statement.
      "- It is inapplicable in mountains, forests and swampy areas" - AP The absolutely unsubstantiated and unwise opinion, the experience of the Chechen Republic, and even Afgan, does not confirm this thesis.

      "- It is inapplicable in closed and semi-enclosed terrain, especially when the enemy uses large-caliber machine guns," antimaterial "rifles and modern anti-tank weapons." another blooper, not a proof thesis.

      "What do we have left there? The steppes, and the fighting is only along the roads? Does it make sense to invest a lot of money in the development of a machine with such a narrow specialization ..." - We still have the Western TVD, UTVD, DV TVD, that's why we talk so loudly fairy tales for schoolchildren, don't.
      1. Lopatov
        Lopatov 16 May 2015 12: 14
        +6
        Quote: vladkavkaz
        When used as a means of supporting the infantry, it is worse than even a self-propelled mortar, not to mention station wagons like the "Vienna" "- UNSUFFICIENT statement.


        Absolutely evidence.

        A self-propelled mortar can do everything the same as a "wheeled tank", and in addition:
        - Able to hit unobserved targets
        - Able to fire without going into the affected area of ​​enemy weapons
        - Able to hit infantry in trenches and other engineering structures with cheap ammunition.
        - Able to hit targets in the depths of buildings, on the reverse slopes of heights, in ravines and other natural obstacles, and at a distance of up to 6 km.
        1. wanderer_032
          wanderer_032 16 May 2015 12: 37
          -1
          A self-propelled mortar cannot:

          -Effectively fight enemy armored vehicles in the line of sight, because. this "barbukhayku" any normal armor will blow into the trash, and on the move. Without entering the zone of destruction of portable PT-Wed in the infantry, which will cover it.
          1. Lopatov
            Lopatov 16 May 2015 13: 05
            +10
            Hello, we arrived ...

            And what about the 81-mm Merlin mine and the 120-mm Griffin mine with an active radar seeker?
            And what about the 120-mm Strix mine with IR seeker?
            And what about 120-mm mines with a semi-active laser seeker, for example, "Gran"?
            And what about Japanese 120-mm cluster mines with self-aiming combat elements?

            And that is characteristic, they all hit armored vehicles from above, in the most vulnerable spot ...
            1. wanderer_032
              wanderer_032 16 May 2015 14: 22
              -3
              Quote: Spade
              A 120-mm mines with a semi-active laser seeker, for example, "Gran"


              The "edge" complex was originally created to work with portable "tray" type mortars when firing from closed positions using special equipment. And nothing is known about other systems.

              In addition, I wrote that in a direct clash of chances at the mortar crew to hit a tank or some other armored vehicle are equal to zero.
              Because they will make minced meat faster (even from auxiliary weapons) than, they will be able to deploy / point their mortar and throw a mine in the barrel.
              1. Lopatov
                Lopatov 16 May 2015 15: 19
                +4
                Quote: wanderer_032
                The "edge" complex was originally created to work with portable "tray" type mortars when firing from closed positions using special equipment.

                It is difficult to ram a 120-mm "edge" into an 82-mm mortar

                Quote: wanderer_032
                In addition, I wrote that in a direct clash of chances at the mortar crew to hit a tank or some other armored vehicle are equal to zero.

                "Direct clash" is how? Tank to ransack all the ravines and other shelters in the rear of the enemy infantry? I don't think it's possible ...
                1. wanderer_032
                  wanderer_032 16 May 2015 15: 54
                  -1
                  Quote: Spade
                  "Direct clash" is how? Tank to ransack all the ravines and other shelters in the rear of the enemy infantry? I don't think it's possible ...


                  This is when the calculation of the mortar after the righteous labors of the adversary’s work, sits on a halt and is heavily busy with eating, and because of some thread of a piece of wood, an enemy’s box is traveling, the commander of which is fumbling with his surveillance device over the terrain, because he has wet pants don't run into a che-thread unexpectedly.
                  And then what a "surprise", in his device he sees a self-propelled mortar and a crew chewing near it.
                  Those, too, spotted him a little and threw spoons / pots running to their barbhayke. And what does the commander of an enemy box still wait until they get in, put a mortar in and cherish his box to burn his precious skin?
                  He already has wet pants, along with the crew. I think he won’t wait, he will be the first one hundred pounds.
                  And he will try to cherish so that from that barbhaika with a mortar the spare parts fly in different directions. And no one was left behind behind him when he went further forward.
          2. Setrac
            Setrac 16 May 2015 23: 26
            -1
            Quote: wanderer_032
            -Effectively deal with enemy armored vehicles in the line of sight, because. any normal armor will blow this "barbukhayku" into the trash, and on the move.

            Any wheeled tank will carry normal armor into the trash. Erats tanks do not serve as a replacement for MBTs, they serve to support the infantry and are more likely to be classified as assault weapons.
            The main advantage of such "tanks" is their low cost, they can saturate the battle formations of infantry (but not armored units), because it is already clear that "Armata" will not be produced a thousand a year, as tanks were produced in the USSR.
            In addition, the tank itself sees - it shoots itself, for the tank destroyer sees the infantry.
            1. vladkavkaz
              vladkavkaz 17 May 2015 10: 49
              +3
              setrac (
              From the silly western name given to you "wheeled tank"
              Yes, not a tank, but an infantry support weapon equipped with a gun. What doesn’t work?

              Ask any infantry battalion, in the small and medium business on the armored personnel carrier, whether he would like to have such vehicles subordinate to the company or not, in addition to the minbattery.
              You’re carrying some nonsense, just to chat the topic.
              If you follow your theories, along with Lopatov, then you will urgently remove absolutely all non-self-propelled guns from the troops, together with the ATGM on a lightly armored base there will be happiness.
              1. Setrac
                Setrac 18 May 2015 12: 44
                0
                Quote: vladkavkaz
                If you follow your theories, along with Lopatov, then you will urgently remove absolutely all non-self-propelled guns from the troops, together with the ATGM on a lightly armored base there will be happiness.

                On the contrary, I am for it, I want to say that the message that it is easy to destroy them does not mean that they should not be used, because the Su-76 was perfectly used during the war.
                Quote: vladkavkaz
                From the silly western name given to you "wheeled tank"

                There is no desire to argue about the terms.

                Apparently you read only the first line of my message.
        2. vladkavkaz
          vladkavkaz 17 May 2015 10: 45
          +1
          Shovels (1
          "A self-propelled mortar can do everything the same as a" wheeled tank ", and besides:" - Do you generally understand that a MINIMUM, even a self-propelled one is not a direct support combat vehicle for infantry on the line of contact?
          Have you at least the Manuals or something, you have looked at where the MB positions are located and how it is used, for even a self-propelled mortar, direct fire means a tighter kayuk, a front end broke through, no infantry.
          Why describe what is so clear from the instructions of the artillerymen, there may be civilians who do not understand this issue, but those who fought understand how and why, for what mortars are used.
          1. 320423
            320423 17 May 2015 17: 29
            +1
            if we are talking about Vienna, I fundamentally disagree with you:
            1.http: //toparmy.ru/rossijskaya-armiya/novoe-rossijskoe-vooruzhenie/sau-vena-2s3
            1-logicheskoe-razvitie-artsistemy-nona-foto.html - What is the power of the ACS “Vienna” 2C31. Depending on the combat situation, the gun can fire both as a classic gun, and as a howitzer, and as a mortar.
            2.http: //kollektsiya.ru/artilleriya/102-shturmovie-sau-vena-i-nona.html
            - One of the new developments of OJSC Motovilikhinskiye Zavody is SAU 2S31 Vienna, created on the basis of the BMP-3 infantry fighting vehicle. On the battlefield, a self-propelled gun should first of all support fire motorized rifle battalions moving on BMP-3
            - At the same time, the combat compartment of the Vienna is designed in such a way that it can be placed on other types of chassis - tracked or wheeled. Sometimes a floating armored personnel carrier BTR-80 can be used as a wheeled chassis.
            - The ammunition includes ready-made rifles on the leading belt of high-explosive shells OF-49 and OF-51, which act in the same way as high-explosive shells of caliber 152 and 155 mm; OF50 active-reactive projectile and cumulative projectile, penetrating armor plate over 1000 mm thick at a distance of up to 650 m. When firing from this gun, all 120 mm caliber ammunition of Soviet and foreign manufacture can be used. In addition, the "Vienna" ammunition is replenished with a new guided missile "Kitolov-2M", which is guided by a laser target designator.
            1. vladkavkaz
              vladkavkaz 17 May 2015 19: 22
              +2
              320423
              However, Vienna, no one, like Artillery self-propelled guns at one time in the war, will not let the infantry go ahead, WELL IT IS NOT her task, how does it not reach you?
              It will be in the rear of the attackers, at a decent distance from the front end, this is not an ARTSHTURM, not an SU-100 self-propelled guns with anti-shell armor, it’s just a mortar howitzer with the possibility of direct fire.

              "an active-rocket projectile OF50 and a cumulative projectile that penetrates an armor plate with a thickness of over 1000 mm at a distance of up to 650 m." - How do you imagine firing these shells at actively maneuvering armor targets on the battlefield? Well, then you have to realize that this expensive projectile , with illumination, if applicable, then on reconnoitered targets in the enemy's defense, and not in the course of an active battle with the movement of both our own and foreign units. How many of these shells are there in the BC of VIENNA? The same.
  9. fa2998
    fa2998 16 May 2015 11: 04
    +1
    Quote: MooH
    It is a little tall for an artillery platform. All the same, the mine chassis is not quite suitable for a tank destroyer. But a light howitzer or self-propelled mortar from it can and does.

    In order to make the development cheaper, our designers took the full-size armored personnel carrier as a base and attached a tower. The center of gravity is very high, they can be tipped. A special armored corps is needed, just above the wheels (after all, landing can not be carried) .By the way, saving in weight can be used up for protection. hi
  10. Aleksey_K
    Aleksey_K 16 May 2015 11: 13
    +3
    This is not a tank! Otherwise, all armored personnel carriers, infantry fighting vehicles, BMDs, self-propelled guns and combat vehicles are also tanks only with small-caliber guns, or with heavy machine guns, or with howitzers, or with anti-aircraft missile systems. At the dawn of tank building, tanks were armed only with machine guns. In the modern classification, around the world, tanks are not wheeled. Call it what you want, just not a tank! So a jeep with a heavy machine gun and light armor or even without armor is also a tank! Minus to the author.
    1. vladkavkaz
      vladkavkaz 16 May 2015 11: 36
      +1
      Aleksey_K
      You are right.
      Heavy BBM, it will be more true, but not a wheeled tank.
    2. wanderer_032
      wanderer_032 16 May 2015 11: 43
      -2
      Quote: Алексей_К
      In the modern classification, around the world, tanks are not wheeled.


      But what about the BT wheeled and tracked tanks and the prototype A-20?
      By the way, as a tanker, please decipher what the letter A means in the index of tank A-20. wink
      1. Tusv
        Tusv 16 May 2015 13: 36
        0
        Quote: wanderer_032
        But what about the BT wheeled and tracked tanks and the prototype A-20?

        Options A-20 (tracked-wheeled) and A-32 (18) (exclusively tracked) T-34 prototypes. Read Koshkin’s famous run from Kharkov to Moscow. They compared the A -20 vs A -32 and sent the wheeled one for revision, which everyone knew.
        Just think, to wheeled to shoot - it is necessary clearance on the belly. More than a second on an aimed shot. Will it succeed?
        1. wanderer_032
          wanderer_032 16 May 2015 14: 29
          -3
          Quote: Tusv
          Options A-20

          Quote: Tusv
          prototypes T-34


          Yeah and all the BT series tanks, too. Learn the mathematical part.

          And if you are such a grammar, then answer what does the letter A mean in the A-20 index, if all the other tanks were designated earlier and are indicated today by the letter T?
          1. cosmos111
            cosmos111 16 May 2015 15: 15
            +7
            good discussion good pleased ...
            I will express my thoughts ...

            1.wheel tank, still attached to a certain theater of war ((desert steppe)), for deep multi-day raids ((South African war in Angola)) ... in a positional / counterguerrilla and little maneuverable war it is useless ((Israel example) )))

            2. It is necessary to install the DBM, with the "Bakhcha" troichetka just as a means of fire support for the infantry ...

            3.Wheel platform modular "Boomerang", to create, under, wheeled tank, a specially new platform, it is simply not economically viable ...

            BTR-90M with BM Bahcha
            1. Aleks tv
              Aleks tv 16 May 2015 16: 53
              +2
              Quote: cosmos111
              BTR-90M with BM Bahcha

              Beauty)))
              Yes, based on 90 ...
              Eheh.

              Great, Andrey.
              hi
              1. cosmos111
                cosmos111 16 May 2015 18: 52
                +2
                Alexey hi with past ...
                BMP
                BTR-90 ,, excellent platform, rearrangement with lump input / output and excellent BTR / BMP + fire support vehicle ...
            2. EGOrkka
              EGOrkka 16 May 2015 18: 21
              +4
              By boomerang, melon will be much more interesting based on the same security.
          2. Tusv
            Tusv 17 May 2015 11: 25
            +1
            Quote: wanderer_032
            And if you are such a grammar, then answer what does the letter A mean in the A-20 index, if all the other tanks were designated earlier and are indicated today by the letter T?

            And why is the T-50 not a tank, but a T-4 finally "weaving".
            Imagine, under the letter "T" there was probably the only tank in development, with the proud name T-34
            http://topwar.ru/uploads/images/2015/453/zetd976.png
            For what "A" or product number is this, ask the developers.
            Well, so as not to argue with me. Here is an authoritative author for you.
            Mikhail Nikolaevich Svirin.
            And this is not legendary, but even so T-34
      2. Aleksey_K
        Aleksey_K 16 May 2015 15: 16
        +2
        Quote: wanderer_032
        A-20

        I have already said that the first tanks were generally machine gun. By this I wanted to say that at the dawn of tank building there was no exact definition. what is a tank and what is not a tank. The same applies to wheeled tanks in the USSR. Name at least one wheeled tank participating in the Second World War in 1945. This name died, because it's just a lightly armored car with a gun.
        And I can't say anything definite about the indexing "A". prototypes always had a non-military "T" marking. Most likely the letter "A" was assigned to the first Soviet tanks in development. It's almost the same in aviation. All Su fighters are named "T" in design.
        1. wanderer_032
          wanderer_032 16 May 2015 23: 02
          +4
          Quote: Алексей_К
          Name at least one wheeled tank that participated in the Second World War in 1945.


          Tanks BT-2, BT-5, BT-7 were used in the operation to liberate Manchuria in 1945.
          In the Far East, there were still plenty of them. Because the Japanese did not have such serious armored vehicles as the Germans, then the BT series tanks were in service with the entire Great Patriotic War.

          By the way, the BT index stands for High-Speed ​​Tank.
          And the letter "A" in the index of the designation of the A-20 tanks stands for Autostrada.
          Tanks of the BT and A-20 series were developed for conducting deep offensive operations on enemy territory, which fully corresponded to the military doctrine of the USSR in the 2nd half of the 30s of the 20th century. Which said that the main conduct of hostilities will be conducted by the USSR in the territory of the enemy, and not in the territory of the USSR.
          Remember the slogan "Beat the enemy on his territory!" So it was for this concept of war that the BT series tanks were built, and the A-20 was created to replace them. This vehicle differed from the BT series tanks by more advanced armor protection with sloped armor, which could withstand the armor-piercing shells of many anti-tank guns available at that time in the world.
          These machines had one thing in common. This is the chassis and transmission. When moving on a flat and dry surface, these tanks had to move on wheels, and when moving on off-road conditions, caterpillars were placed on them. Caterpillars served only as additional equipment, the main course of these machines was wheeled.
          Themselves, these light-class vehicles were created for warfare in the operational space. Using a wheel drive, these machines could develop enviable speed even for many modern combat vehicles. BT-5, for example, could move on wheels at a speed of more than 80 km / h. That, in turn, provided these machines in operational space with mobility unprecedented for those times and the operational capabilities of mechanized units of the USSR of that period.
          And therefore, we can say with confidence that the title "Tank of the English Channel" rightfully belongs not to the modern T-80, but to the BT and A-20 series tanks.
          For the breakthrough of fortified areas and defensive strips, as well as for the assault on especially fortified objects, other machines existed. These are the T-28 and T-35 multi-tower tanks, as well as the SMK breakthrough tank developed by him with anti-shell armor, which could simultaneously conduct artillery-machine-gun fire in different directions using their standard weapons, suppressing and destroying firing points identified during the battle the enemy.
          The machines that were supposed to provide direct support for the infantry, according to this military doctrine, were the well-known T-26s (by the way, among which were modifications armed with flamethrowers) and developed by him to replace the T-50 with inclined armor.
          To force water barriers by mechanized units, capture bridgeheads and conduct reconnaissance, there were T-37 and T-38 amphibious tanks on the opposite bank, as well as a more advanced lightweight T-40 light tank developed by him to replace it.

          The history of your country needs to be known, loved and respected. hi
          1. alecsis69
            alecsis69 17 May 2015 16: 43
            +1
            You accidentally didn’t read about motorway from Rezun? A-32 and A-34 exclusively tracked tanks - also freeway? A is the factory index. Two samples were developed in parallel with the maximum possible use of the same units: A-20 wheeled-tracked and A-32 tracked tanks. After eliminating the comments, the A-32 received the A-34 index, and after being adopted, it received the T-34 index. The wheeled-tracked version was not adopted for service and went down in history under the factory index.
        2. Setrac
          Setrac 16 May 2015 23: 32
          0
          Quote: Алексей_К
          Name at least one wheeled tank that participated in the Second World War in 1945.

          However, in the Second World War there were tanks that were inferior to modern wheeled vehicles in terms of protection.
    3. Setrac
      Setrac 16 May 2015 23: 30
      0
      Quote: Алексей_К
      This is not a tank!

      Question to the classification, because there is no single one.
  11. fktrcfylhn61
    fktrcfylhn61 16 May 2015 12: 43
    +3
    For a tool of such power to be really useful, this technique must be endowed with special capabilities! For example, aimed fire on the move. But this instance provides the opportunity to deal with heavily armored vehicles only from an ambush, that is, one, two shots from a force and a mass grave! Kamikaze there?
  12. Pissarro
    Pissarro 16 May 2015 13: 44
    +6
    A pointless waste of money. Those few specialized tasks that can be solved by a 1 percent better wheeled tank compared to a caterpillar are not worth the cost. All the prevailing attempts to create it ended up staging the product in the museum. It is worse in all respects. The only one to the battlefield is cheaper to throw it on the highway, then some problems. The passability is poor, the armor is less, the ammunition is less, shooting on the go is doubtful with a large caliber, the silhouette is higher. Do not put a fence in the garden, the armature platform must be operated to the maximum
  13. marshes
    marshes 16 May 2015 14: 42
    +2
    Who will tell you about the penetration of 105 mm guns, for example, the T-72-90?
    1. Forest
      Forest 18 May 2015 13: 13
      0
      Maybe 125-mmki? We have no 105 mm caliber.
  14. Wednesday
    Wednesday 16 May 2015 14: 58
    +3
    I remember the French AMX sold mainly for export to the 3rd country. Don't they look alike?
  15. marshes
    marshes 16 May 2015 15: 11
    +3
    And for Kazakhstan, I would go, you can "baigovat" across the steppe smile use semi-partisan tactics smile attack from a disguised position, followed by withdrawal, or a change of position ...
    The main thing is high mobility. Another thing on the wheeled chassis is to install something like a module from the BMPT, and a wheeled mortar ... smile
  16. Tankist_1980
    Tankist_1980 16 May 2015 15: 42
    +3
    Do not abandon the idea of ​​wheeled tanks. We have enough to take the base of the BTR80-82 mechvodov. Problems with spare parts at least. A wheeled tank is mobility. And in Europe, fascism wakes up again ...
  17. Aleks tv
    Aleks tv 16 May 2015 16: 23
    +11
    Unification - for that it is - unification.
    Is such a machine needed in the line of wheeled armored vehicles?
    And what types of combat vehicles should be based on wheeled vehicles?
    These are questions to the General Staff, State Academic Technical University, Grau and so on ... - i.e. What is a theater of war and what is the tactic of use?

    If we are to make a family on the basis of wheeled vehicles, then do it seriously, transferring everything to one base, from the simple transportation of our beloved personnel to the ZRAK.
    The article talks about a "wheeled tank". It's a bit, ahem ... not a tank, but an anti-tank SPG.
    Do you need it?
    If we stick a tower from NONA in one Boomerang, and in the other tower from Sprut-SD, we get two completely different cars, although both will be self-propelled guns.
    - The boomerang with the NONA module is a classic artifact support for the RIP barrel, which will most often work from closed firing positions. Her amazing result is obtained.
    - The boomerang with the Sprut-SD module is a direct infantry support combat vehicle using a SMOOTH barrel to work at a direct visibility range. And she can bullet as anti-tank ammunition, and OF.
    We have no such experience.
    Do you need such weapons for the fighters on the Boomerangs?
    Why not...
    Just ask the motorized riflemen on the armored personnel carrier - do they need such a "barrel" of direct fire support?
    Who will give up such firepower, which is right here - at hand.
    Protection of course she has crap, compared to the tank, well, Duc and Boomerang, she crap compared to the same tank.
    Each equipment has its own theater.
    We cannot do without wheeled military equipment, so let's give the "wheelers" and various weapons.

    And then they pray to NONA, since there is nothing more.

    If you need speed of wheels and the brigade on the Boomerangs was thrown to the granny on the horns, then let the guys have an armored personnel carrier and a vehicle with a small auto caliber, and smooth fluffs, and rifled trunks, and various scarecrows for enemy birds, plus an engineering and repair equipment.
    This I understand - the unification of the wheeled platform.

    Is it possible to stick it on one base?
    Almost ... the fact is that the armored personnel carrier, tank and self-propelled gun have their own "claims" to the line-up.
    How to solve this?
    Well, they did the same Armata and front-wheel drive and with dviglom in the stern ...)))
    Bravo to the designers for this.
    I respect them for so many years ... 40-50 forward from the deputy technicians, repairmen and mechanics.)))
    ..............

    And to put down Nuna fluff to 2A75 type chariots, that's for sure ...
    She has a rollback near 700, a rollback 2A46M is not for wheels, there are only 300 there, not enough.
    Lisaped has long been invented, so technically creating such a machine is not a problem.
    The problem is APPLICATION and TACTICS.
    Let the General Staff think - they have epaulets without gaps and wide stripes.)))
    Good luck to them.
    drinks
    1. wanderer_032
      wanderer_032 16 May 2015 23: 13
      +2
      Lesha BRAVO! good
      Quote: Aleks tv
      If we are to make a family on the basis of wheeled vehicles, then do it seriously, transferring everything to one base, from the simple transportation of our beloved personnel to the ZRAK.


      A whole day about this talydych, but they still won’t understand everything. Looks like a shitty storyteller from me.
      Oh well.
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. cosmos111
        cosmos111 17 May 2015 06: 13
        +3
        Quote: wanderer_032
        A whole day about this talydych, but they still won’t understand everything.

        Alexander, I’ve been talking about this for 2 years request

        modular wheel chassis, with the wheel formula 4x4,6x6,8x8,10x10, for all-armored personnel carriers, infantry fighting vehicles, KShM, electronic warfare, wheel tank, sanitary, etc....

        something similar is deployed in the Amerov brigades "Striker"
        AFV "Stryker"

        M1126 - Infantry Fighting Vehicle (ICV)
        M1127 - Reconnaissance Vehicle (RV)
        M1128 - Mobile Cannon System (MGS)
        M1129 - Mortar Conveyor (MS)
        M1130 - Commander Vehicle (CV)
        M1131 - Fire Support Vehicle (FSV)
        M1132 - Engineering Division Machine (ESV)
        M1133 - Medical Evacuation Machine (MEV)
        M1134 - Anti-tank guided missile system (TOU)
        M1135 - Weapon Intelligence Machine (RV NBC)
        all of these options on the 8X8 chassis ...

        the modular chassis with the wheel formula from 4X4,6X6, 8X8, 10X10 is built on the basis of adding the required number of axles, due to this it determines only the required volume and load, which is used to select the type of machine, this approach provides unification of logistics and maintenance of all chassis options to 10x10, with a single MTO, automatic transmission, suspension units ...
        1. cosmos111
          cosmos111 17 May 2015 07: 13
          +3
          something like this ...

          клик
    2. vladkavkaz
      vladkavkaz 17 May 2015 10: 53
      +1
      Aleks tv
      Phew, finally a cool answer for those who don’t understand what it is about in the class of infantry fire support vehicles, here, with the Wanderer, they rushed to talk about it.
  18. TsUS-Air Force
    TsUS-Air Force 16 May 2015 17: 19
    +3
    sizes more and more stealth less
  19. Glockxnumx
    Glockxnumx 16 May 2015 17: 21
    +4
    another option
    1. wanderer_032
      wanderer_032 18 May 2015 14: 45
      0
      This is definitely not about "Panar", which is in the photo.
      This is generally a great car was for its time, for those who knew how to use.
      He had TWO jobs for drivers and a reversible transmission, i.e. this machine could move at the same speed, forward, backward.
      Also, this machine has a very good cross on soft soils and excellent maneuverability.
      A 90-mm gun at that time could destroy almost any tank of that time.
      The same one stood on the light tank AMX-13 of the post-war period.
  20. Asadullah
    Asadullah 16 May 2015 18: 37
    +3
    Quote: wanderer_032
    Quote: Spade
    Very necessary car !!!


    Truth...

    1.It is much cheaper in mass production than MBT
    2.SPTRK use only expensive guided missiles as their main ammunition, and such a system uses the entire range of ammunition that is suitable for a tank gun, including OFS and TOUR.
    3. These machines are not needed so that all sorts of backward "strategists" of the First World War on them in a frontal assault took fortified areas prepared for the defense of the city and other points of ours. And for actions in the operational space. Where extra armor is just a burden, not help.
    4.In Afghanistan, wheeled combat vehicles were widely used by SV, Airborne Forces, and PV motor-and-vehicle groups and showed themselves very well there. The same can be said of the hostilities in the North Caucasus.
    5. In conditions where there are many kinds of reservoirs and various kinds of water barriers, such a technique using its amphibious qualities has always shown positive results.
    In swampy terrain, you can drown anything, working conditions in the far north (Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Okrug), even civilian equipment of any type, this is confirmed (even the Vityaz all-terrain vehicles were drowned in the swamp).
    6. The modern approach to the security of these machines, which we can observe on the example of the VPK-9 "Boomerang" armored personnel carrier shown at the May 2015, 7829 parade, proves that such machines can be protected from large-caliber machine guns and even small-caliber guns.

    Quote: Spade
    What do we have left there?


    Nothing left. Except noodles on ears. laughing


    Totally agree with you. I recall the three tanks attributed to us and startle, one and a half combat units, at best. Yes, it would be better if they were not, because they put the combat mission out of the fact that you have them. There would be such wheels ... as if useful and how many zinc would be unsealed ...
  21. Vladimir111
    Vladimir111 16 May 2015 19: 16
    +3
    In the photo "Panard" is French, in South-East Asia it was used very successfully.
  22. Ze Kot
    Ze Kot 17 May 2015 00: 00
    +2
    "Thanks to him, the" tank "" Boomerang "in terms of firepower will be equal to the modern T-90A. That, in principle, will be sufficient to carry out all combat missions by medium combined arms brigades."

    The main thing is that tank units should not begin to reduce under this business ...
  23. and why
    and why 17 May 2015 03: 08
    +2
    Not stable when shooting, then it will smear. There is no mobility, it gets bogged down in the dirt on any primer, you have to call the tank to pull it out. Pseudo-economy in operation - the suspension and wheels will not withstand the weight and gun shots. Weak booking will not allow you to fight with normal tanks, and at a price it will be more expensive than a pturs. And it is dangerous to set up against infantry, if they are not destroyed the first time, then they are immobilized for sure, after all, the wheel is not a caterpillar. Yuarovtsy made sudden cavalry raids on an unprepared enemy. If the Angolans were ready, even their obsolete tanks would defeat the Yuarovites. And if you put a smaller gun, then this is the BRDM, not intended for combat with enemy tanks.
    1. Setrac
      Setrac 18 May 2015 12: 51
      0
      Quote: why
      and at a price it will be more expensive than pturs.

      a shot from a cannon is orders of magnitude cheaper than a shot from a ATGM.
  24. Pencil
    Pencil 17 May 2015 10: 11
    +2
    I have nothing to do with tanks, but I believe that the purpose of the tracks is to increase the area of ​​the support and reduce the specific pressure on the off-road soil with an insanely overloaded armor and weaponry. Wheel tanks - it’s only to ride on the red square, or if the Germans allow it, then on the German autobahns. On wheels, with weak armor protection and a shitty gun, it will no longer be a tank, but something simpler.
  25. cosmos111
    cosmos111 17 May 2015 15: 36
    +2
    It is a pity, of course, that the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation hacked down the project of a "wheeled tank" of a fire support vehicle, from the branch: http://topwar.ru/75037-minoborony-rf-otkazyvaetsya-ot-idei-sozdaniya-kolesnogo-t

    anka.html

    I’ll dream of a terrier, thanks to the author for the excellent 3 D models, author from: http: //forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php? f = 6 & t = 174213

    lightweight crew on a wheeled chassis 8x8, project ...

    BTR

    infantry fighting vehicle (BMP)


    125 mm gun fire support vehicle

    120 mm mortar gun

    MLRS
    1. cosmos111
      cosmos111 17 May 2015 15: 47
      +1
      we continue, the structure of the BBM, light brigade ...

      ATGM machine

      BBM medical evacuation / care

      KShM.vyaz management

      anti-aircraft missile and cannon system (ZRPK)
      1. cosmos111
        cosmos111 17 May 2015 15: 57
        +2
        and on the pass ...

        artillery reconnaissance and fire control machine

        BBM radiochemical and bacteriological intelligence


        all BBMs, light brigades, on a single wheeled platform 8x8, all 11 BBMs ...
        there are 10 of them in the "Stayker" brigade ...
        perhaps the only thing missing is an engineering machine unit (ESV) ((no 3 D model)))
        ideally 12 units of BBM 8x8 !!!


        Once again, thanks to the author, for the excellent 3 D models, info from: http: //forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php? f = 6 & t = 174213
        1. vladkavkaz
          vladkavkaz 17 May 2015 20: 04
          +3
          cosmos111 (5
          In addition, front-line ammunition vehicles would not be in the way, as tented KAMAZ or Ural, with insulated arches with a bunch of BC in the back, do not particularly inspire the foreman of the unit.
          There are not enough MTP cars on the same base, from a tow truck to a tractor.

          And so, I look, I read and understand that the question of the car itself has spilled over into a dispute, it is needed, not needed, without taking into account -Whether the one who yells that the fire support car in the motorized rifle battalion is not needed asked the opinion of those who fought? and screaming that they do not need to absolutely give a damn about it, everyone is yelling now for Armata, boomerangs and so on, forgetting, BEFORE the mass series is still far away, and some stupid ones are already trying to push through the question of disposing of "obsolete T72, BMP -1,2, BTR 60,70,80, XNUMX, although the modernization of these machines and the use of the base for support vehicles (combat, technical, rear and other) where necessary.

          Even the BRDM-2, the "obsolescence" of which the "smartest-knowing" ones shout about after modernization, the diesel, running from the BTR-80, is a completely different machine than the reference model.
          But to cut it on the new, where as much as possible, but on the old ... it is easier, in the opinion of the effectively-defective ones, to write it off.

          Forget about the theater of operations, where BMP or armored personnel carrier is good, it’s bad, for example, MTLB, but in the marshes of the Far North, Karelia, Transbaikalia and the Far East, in the mountains of the Caucasus, MTLB is invaluable, especially in versions with heavy machine gun or cannon weapons.

          If, at the time, the combatants of the small and medium business, in the 1 and 2 companies in the Czech Republic, had cars like the indicated, heavy armored infantry fighting vehicle with a gun, many things would be different.

          In total, as a kind of resume, there are parts of the First Line, so to speak, everything is up-to-date there, there is a second line, there is an armored personnel carrier, infantry fighting vehicle, of the previous generation, there is a third line, there, modernized with storage on BHVT and service with assigned staff (preferably permanent -And this again, after the destruction of the mobility system, a problem) or with the service and training of soldiers on call.
          1. cosmos111
            cosmos111 17 May 2015 20: 34
            +1
            Quote: vladkavkaz
            In addition, front-line ammunition vehicles would not be in the way, as tented KAMAZ or Ural, with insulated arches with a bunch of BC in the back, do not particularly inspire the foreman of the unit.


            posted, I already on this topic .... as an example of "Ratel" Logistics 8x8 ... or an armored vehicle like "Buhmaster" Logistics


            all transportations (all BC, SHG, products, medicines))) only in containers .... and all green ...
            Quote: vladkavkaz
            If, at the time, the combatants of the small and medium business, in the 1 and 2 companies in the Czech Republic, had cars like the indicated, heavy armored infantry fighting vehicle with a gun, many things would be different.

            yes there were a lot of things there and that would reduce the patter at times ... starting with the UAV ...
            Quote: vladkavkaz
            The first line, everything is newest there, there is a second line, there is an armored personnel carrier, infantry fighting vehicles

            I hope that at least in a year or two it will be started mass production ...

            PS: it’s a pity, only that you don’t sit like you in MO and GS, but all sorts of effective roosters and Su ,, who care about the fact that as much as $$$ is dripped into their pockets ...
            1. cosmos111
              cosmos111 17 May 2015 21: 39
              0
              modification of the South African Ratel '- Ratel Logistics
              the standard Ratel’s wheel formula was increased to 8x8, the length of the car was increased to 8,739 m versus 7,212 m for other models ...
              engine - 10 cylinder turbo diesel ADE 423 T with a capacity of 430 l. s., a modified transmission is installed ..
              combat weight is 29; maximum speed is 86 km / h on the highway (standard Ratel has 105). range - 760 km on the highway or 14 hours on rough terrain (normal Ratel - 1000 km and 14 hours).
              tank volume increased 560 l against 430 for standard ..
              the crew consisted of 3 people: the commander, driver and gunner, at the disposal of which was the 12,7 mm machine gun and 600 cartridges ...
              the system was developed to supply motorized rifle units for 1-2 weeks at a distance of up to 2000 km ...
              For unloading and loading of 6 containers 1x1.2x1.2 m, a crane / winch with a permissible load of up to 4.6 t was used ....
              2000 liters of diesel fuel, 500 liters of water were transported in the machine’s body, on top were three spare wheels, a generator, spare parts, tools ....
              there was a hydraulic pump for filling the tanks, with its help it was possible to refuel the 2 cars at the same time, in case of breakage there were also manual pumps.
              in containers, it was possible to transport: ammunition, five-person tents, a shower, toilets, food, a refrigerator, 800 l of water, etc. ...
              info from: http: //shushpanzer-ru.livejournal.com/886809.html
              1. vladkavkaz
                vladkavkaz 17 May 2015 22: 05
                +2
                cosmos111
                Now, just something like this would not hurt to have SMEs in the rear, for each company.
                As one very knowledgeable person told me, the options were worked out on the basis of the BMP and MTLBU, but it seemed to some bureaucrats that this was all unnecessary .. As a result, we drove the combat vehicles to the rear for ammunition, refueling anyhow, if only the refueling machine didn’t cover ...
                But it is obvious from the experience of all these conflicts, in the SME, to have a ZKV battalion, at least three BREM units (H, K, depending on the type of equipment in the battalion, workshops for repairing AT and BT, RAV) with the platoon being assigned to subordinate to the ZKV, and not like now .. In WMO, it begs to apply only to combat vehicles to provide the company’s mouth with the type shown.
                But when will it be and will it be?
  26. 9lvariag
    9lvariag 17 May 2015 15: 47
    0
    Quote: Spade
    Quote: vladkavkaz
    Again, an unsubstantiated statement, BMP in the Chechen Republic, on plowing, was disguised at times, armored personnel carrier wow, slightly torn, but lane off-road, the wheels did not fall off.

    Yeah. And why then the valiant warriors of 503 SMEs were forced to transfer to Mozdok MT-LB?

    Quote: vladkavkaz
    In case of combat damage, the BMP was immobilized and destroyed having lost its course; the same Czech Republic, the armored personnel carrier crawled away even on absolutely all the shot wheels.

    Yes, that's just the damage to the wheels a hundred times easier than goose.

    Well, the BMP-check the tension and do not spin in place where you can attach a bunch of rubbish to the goose, and there will be no "shoes".

    During, I remember one comical case with archeology in the USSR. Then during plowing in the Luhansk region. tractor K-700 "Kirovets", punctured a wheel. It turned out that the wheel was pierced by a valuable and unique, ancient artifact from the times of Yaroslav the Wise!
    It was a ball with 4 forged spikes welded in the forge! And even after lying more than 500 years, this type of barrage has not lost its deadly essence!
    1. vladkavkaz
      vladkavkaz 17 May 2015 19: 36
      +2
      9lvariag
      "Aha. Why then the valiant soldiers of 503 SMRs were forced to transfer to the Mozdok MT-LB?" - THIS is called, comrade storyteller, the regiment was on the BTR-80.
      But with 693, whose units in Grozny suffered quite noticeable losses in technology, yes, they partially re-equipped on the BTR-80, personally in Chervlenoy I received a battalion of such vehicles from the SF from the withdrawing combined brigade of marines.
      And so, for the faint-hearted who are looking for any reason, just to try to get an opponent, I have to say the following - in the SKVO in the Arms Department there were no fools, seeing the effectiveness of the use of infantry fighting vehicles, armored personnel carriers in the mountains, they decided to rearm some units on MTLB.
      And in general, some people would crawl in that mud themselves, would realize that it walked well in the mountains, and that it wasn’t very good. Someone remind you that when Bamut was taken in a detachment detachment for transporting ammunition and other cargoes, even PTS was used for those impassable roads, MTLB, ATS -59, they felt confident there.

      "Well, the BMP is to check the tension and do not spin in place where you can attach a bunch of rubbish to a goose, and there will be no" shoes " tends to fly off, and as for your Kirovets with a punctured tire, Kirovets is not an armored personnel carrier, it does not have a self-priming system, so this armored personnel carrier would be a piece of iron, would be absolutely violet.
  27. kplayer
    kplayer 17 May 2015 16: 07
    +2
    Interesting discussion. All with the past ...
    Quote: shonsu
    ... for a fight in the city.

    Imagine how an 8x8-car is writhing, trying to turn around on a narrow city street (or mountain road), even if the street has taken on a lot of damage with insurmountable blockages (barricades), sticking out armature, etc.

    By the way, Spain, like Italy (AFV "Centaurus"), can hardly be called a country of forests, and South Africa itself ("Ruikat"), including Namibia and Angola, urbanized and mountainous-wooded areas are not their element, if only roads with 105/120-mm (!) Cannon patrol. Afghanistan, Tajikistan, steppe Chechnya, Middle Asia, Kazakhstan, then of course. But to offer the commanders of rifle companies and platoons analogs of "Ruikats" and "Centauri"? it is better to offer the T-90AM / CM, support for the 120-mm "Non" battery, the Su-25 or Mi-24 / -28 flight, including wheeled tanks also do not sit suicide bombers.
    It is clear why the "Stryker" brigades * (8, 1/4 of all combat brigades) were formed - air transportability by medium C-130H / J (about 400, 220 C-17, 64 C-5 in the Air Force KVP), their air transport airborne units of armored vehicles do not have. The Russian Army does not need transfers to overseas, overseas theaters VTAroute (about 100 IL-76), there is a railway transport within the country, with the exception of airborne formations and units. It is not clear the approach of the Dutch, who replaced the CV9035 BMP in one of their two mechanized brigades with the Boxer armored personnel carrier (MBT "Leo-2A6" was removed and sold altogether), or the Belgians, who replaced the last MBT "Leopard-1A5" (105- mm L7) on armored vehicles "Pirana-3S" DF90 (90 mm).

    * Here are the 155-mm light M777 howitzers, NOT in the airborne and air assault brigade divisions, which are equipped with 105-mm M119 systems.
    Quote: Aleks tv
    Unification - for that it is - unification.

    In my opinion, if we talk about the Boomerang variant (just look at the photo: http://military-photos.livejournal.com/466886.html ), then the gun turret of the failed 120-mm universal SAO 2S31 "Vienna" is optimal for it, instead of the small number of "Nona-SVK".
    Unification is crazy - an increase in the weight and dimensions of the BM, it is certainly possible, if you do not forget about the concept of the "Boomerang" 8x8, as floating bbm, here it is similar to the USMC LAV-25 AFV, but only light. BM with heavy weapons (tank gun of high ballistics) in heavy (tbr / msbr) combined-arms formations of the Russian Federation Forces is an unnecessary thing, there is an MBT, there is an SPU ATGM, an exception for airborne forces operating in isolation with the Sprut-SD 2S25, here the choice is limited by the possibilities and specificity. In my opinion, protection enhancement kits (DZ) were planned for the 2S25, which means that you should not limit yourself to equipping only the Airborne Forces.
    Traveling speed military columns on highways - up to 60-70 km / h (whether it is an army KAMAZ, UAZ, BTR-80 or T-80), "who is more?" This is not a test auto track. Separation from the column of 1-2-3 wheeled BRM for reconnaissance of the route - no questions asked. A far-fetched advantage from manufacturers, the power reserve is "+".
    "Boomerang" - three times Yes! wheeled tank on its base - No! All these fashionable "combat" systems such as MRAP, wheeled tanks, self-propelled guns on a truck platform *, are involved in conflicts in which even winners are not expected, I hope the Russian Army will be favorably distinguished.

    * In terms of weight and dimensions, the existence of the French Caesar artillery system, transported by the C-130 and A400M military-technical vehicles, which replaces not GCT ACS, but rather towed TR systems in RBU brigades, is quite justified.
    1. cosmos111
      cosmos111 17 May 2015 16: 45
      0
      Quote: kplayer
      "Boomerang" - three times Yes! wheeled tank on its base - No! All these fashionable "combat" systems such as MRAP, wheeled tanks, self-propelled guns on a truck platform *, are involved in conflicts in which even winners are not expected, I hope the Russian Army will be favorably distinguished.

      Carrying out Operation Desert Storm against Iraq in 1991, the United States, small-haired, did not have wheeled AFVs at all. All armored vehicles were on a goose ...
      BBM -8x8, only in the ILC, their NATO countries, only the French AMX-10 PAC-90 6x6 ...
      and suddenly such an interest in wheeled BBM, why would ???
      to use the "Boomerang" only as an armored personnel carrier / infantry fighting vehicle, at least not reasonable .... why then was a multi-purpose wheeled armored fighting vehicle created at all ???

      brigades of the "Stryker" type are simply necessary, for the forces of rapid deployment, including the Airborne Forces of 5-6 brigades, it will be quite sufficient ...
      BBM structure 8x8, I posted ((see above)))
      + export deliveries, with various BM ...
      1. cosmos111
        cosmos111 17 May 2015 18: 27
        +3
        Vickers Mark 11 6x6 Long Range Patrol Vehicle (deep patrol vehicle), for deep patrolling ... combines the firepower of a light tank, the mobility of an APC ...
        designed and built by Irlan Timoney, together with Vickers ...
        armament: 105 mm gun L-7 (36 shots) and coaxial machine gun with 7,62 mm caliber plus anti-aircraft machine gun 12,7 mm ....
        crew: 3 + 6 ...
        so that not only in South Africa developed similar armored vehicles ...

        Vickers Mark 11 6x6

      2. kplayer
        kplayer 17 May 2015 18: 34
        +1
        Quote: cosmos111
        to use the "Boomerang" only as an armored personnel carrier / infantry fighting vehicle, at least not reasonable .... why then was a multi-purpose wheeled armored fighting vehicle created at all ???

        Quote: kplayer
        ... if we do not forget about the concept of "Boomerang" 8x8, as floating bbm, here is similar to the BBM LAV-25 KMP USA, but only light.

        "Boomerang" is floating, by default it assumes the creation of a whole family of target armored vehicles, not only as armored personnel carriers / armored personnel carriers, I think that modifications of the floating LAV (mentioned as an example) KMP, not for export, Andrey, you know, there is no armored vehicle with 90/105-mm cannon, because will drown not even with 3-points of excitement, the scoundrels are content with M1A1 (available dec. boats).
        1. cosmos111
          cosmos111 17 May 2015 19: 19
          +2
          Quote: kplayer
          , you know, there is no BBM with the 90 / 105-mm gun, because won't drown even with 3-points of excitement

          Alexander knows that all 90 / 105-mm are not seaworthy ....

          but although there would be two brigades of wheeled armored infantry fighting vehicles, in the structure of the airborne forces / rapid deployment forces, it is necessary to have ...
          In addition to the BMD-4 and the armored personnel carrier, a shell in the Airborne Forces on the General Staff needs a self-propelled Sprut-B cannon and self-propelled guns Vienna to replace the outdated self-propelled guns NONA ...
          have the same calibers, in the airborne landing forces at the brigade level, both on the wheeled and on the GSh + support vehicles, KShM, medical assistance, anti-tank systems, etc.
          each TVD has its own chassis ...
          the seizure and retention of the bridgehead, raid operations, deep intelligence, peacekeeping, etc.

          PS: at least in 2-3 of the year, we will face ISIS / Taliban in Central Asia ...
          1. kplayer
            kplayer 17 May 2015 19: 49
            +2
            Quote: cosmos111
            Alexander knows that all 90 / 105-mm are not seaworthy ....

            Therefore, probably the Americans with the buoyancy of an army "striker" did not shout and bother.

            The only thing to add is that I personally like the South African "Ruikat" (-105), a specialized machine with a classic line-up, but ideal for its conditions and theater of operations (IMHO).
            1. cosmos111
              cosmos111 17 May 2015 21: 01
              0
              Quote: kplayer
              Ruikat (-105),

              "Rooikat" and armored personnel carriers are with aft entrance, MTO in the bow ...
          2. The comment was deleted.
          3. cosmos111
            cosmos111 17 May 2015 19: 51
            0
            Quote: cosmos111
            PS: at least in 2-3 of the year, we will face ISIS / Taliban in Central Asia ...

            and the most important thing!!! with an asymmetric war with the homeless, all armored vehicles must have MAXIMUM MINE PROTECTION, which was done on the MODULAR WHEEL CHASSIS "Bumperang" ...
            won will be in the first place mine / high explosive + ambush using RPGs ...

            on full-time, tracked armored vehicles of the Airborne Forces, there is nothing to do there ... the losses will be huge ...
            1. kplayer
              kplayer 17 May 2015 20: 14
              +2
              Quote: cosmos111
              on full-time, tracked armored vehicles of the Airborne Forces, there is nothing to do there ... the losses will be huge ...

              At least for the DShBr dowry is provided for armored vehicles, it is worth counting on an increase in helicopters.
              1. vladkavkaz
                vladkavkaz 17 May 2015 20: 23
                0
                kplayer(
                Have you fought with attached equipment?
                Do you really think that the commander of the DShBr will refuse to have his full-time equipment, for the sake of fantasies about the dowry?
                Mdya ... from the commander’s nightmare - ANY dowry technique and unknown dowry personnel.
                1. The comment was deleted.
                2. kplayer
                  kplayer 17 May 2015 21: 02
                  -2
                  Uncle, we study the features of the OSh VD and LH parts, I think, without reference, re-tramp.
                  Adyos!
                  1. vladkavkaz
                    vladkavkaz 17 May 2015 21: 08
                    -1
                    kplayer
                    Hamim? Why so?
                    Look snot do not choke while you will stomp in the reception.
                3. kplayer
                  kplayer 19 May 2015 21: 40
                  +2
                  Quote: vladkavkaz
                  Do you really think that the commander of the DShBr will refuse to have his full-time equipment, for the sake of fantasies about the dowry?
                  Mdya ... from the commander’s nightmare - ANY dowry technique and unknown dowry personnel.

                  Attached equipment and l / s (crews) have been used by the Airborne Forces since the days of Afgan *. It is another matter when combat coordination is not practiced with regular exercises. Somehow they manage overseas, temporarily including armored vehicles in the subdivisions for the period of OBD (including alert duty), or exercises. The same freaking Marines use LVTP-7 amphibians (crew of 3), not included in the staff of rifle battles and regiments of the MP, or MRAP-class armored personnel carriers (crew of 2). MRAPs were non-standard vehicles, they replaced the regular battalion "Bradley" and "Humvee" in the so-called. heavy and light brigades, respectively.

                  * For example, BMP-2D and BTR-70 56th oddbr, structural diagram:

                  Ideally, in the good times, the SA oddbbr included helicopter regiments (until 1988), 1 fire support and transport and landing assault regiment, no armored vehicles, but these were only 3 brigades: 11th (ZabVO), 13th (DalVO) and 21st (ZakVO). Most of the OshdBr (Sample 1979) had no full-time helicopters, and standard armored vehicles (31 BMD, 17 BTR-D) provided 1 (dshb) out of 4 (3 pdb) battles. Since 1987, this armored vehicle was withdrawn from the ODSBR and transferred to the airborne infantry regiment.
                  1. vladkavkaz
                    vladkavkaz 19 May 2015 21: 55
                    +1
                    kplayer (2
                    “It's another matter when combat coherence is not practiced by regular exercises.” - That's what we are talking about.
                    So ambition, the thing itself is not bad, but in moderation and with good sense, with feeling and with the arrangement.
            2. The comment was deleted.
      3. The comment was deleted.
  28. Voin_Vadimka
    Voin_Vadimka 17 May 2015 16: 49
    0
    We have enough new armored personnel carriers and armatures.
  29. REZMovec
    REZMovec 17 May 2015 17: 57
    +1
    Quote: wanderer_032
    Quote: activator
    as far as I know, firing large-caliber wheeled vehicles with the turret turning to the side is a little overturning




    We carefully watch and carefully listen completely.
    The most "juicy" moments of how to "flip" wink :
    1.0:00-0:01
    2.0:27
    3.5:23-5:25
    4.5:38
    5.9:13-9:14
    6.21:11-21:12
    7.21:30-21:31

    It was smooth on paper, but they forgot about the ravines - now the amers have a lot of questions about the "Striker" ...
  30. 2nd 12th
    2nd 12th 17 May 2015 21: 21
    +1
    I read a bit of controversy about a wheeled tank. I did not understand, where are we going to fight?
    On the APC patency (without a tank gun and not at all in the swamp)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AqzKebfXB98
    In the 50-60s, a competition was held for the choice of propulsion for a new promising BMP (later BMP-1). The competition was attended by cars with different types of propulsors, namely wheeled, wheeled-tracked (there is one in the photo above), tracked-wheeled and tracked.
    We chose the tracked one. Because of the cross-country ability. And if the "wheels" with their cross-country ability, still load with a large-caliber cannon? Will it turn over on a slope? Will he climb the hill? On a soggy country road in a rut will not sit?
    In my opinion, if we assume that we will never have to fight, but will only need to "demonstrate" our power - a wheeled tank is the very thing that is needed. The operating cost is an order of magnitude lower than that of the tracks. And it's not worth talking about the mileage ... (it's not for nothing that the tracks have moto / hour instead of km). So where will you have to fight (if God forbid)?
  31. Forest
    Forest 18 May 2015 13: 23
    +1
    A wheeled tank is needed, but, I think, not with a standard 125-mmka, but with a gun such as Nona, where the TOURs will play the anti-tank role. To deliver such vehicles to the Airborne Forces, Marines, and maneuver groups. But replacing the 60-ionic MBT tracks with wheels is not logical. Stuck on the first curb. The same applies to all vehicles weighing over 30 tons. With a small mass, the wheels give a gain in mass. In short, you need to have all kinds of equipment. After all, it’s not only to drive bandits across the steppes.
  32. bright
    bright 18 May 2015 14: 06
    +1
    Opponents of light wheeled tanks.
    Explain why in our strip there is a place for the use of BTR-80 (82) and BRDM?
    Judging by your arguments, they can only drive on roads.
    An armored personnel carrier weighs 13,5 tons versus 2C14 Sting-S 12,5 tons.

    Judging by the directories, wheeled tanks roam from 12 to 28 tons. No need to align all under one template.
  33. pan4ik85
    pan4ik85 25 May 2015 20: 20
    0
    Good evening hi
    An interesting dispute has arisen between vladkavkaz and Lopatov, both are right in their own way, the advanced parts need support.
    A WHEEL tank is not needed - since it has absolutely no protection. Need a wheeled assault sau, for the direct support of the advancing units. Its objectives -1) Fire support from closed fire positions, mounted fire; 2) Direct fire, suppression of enemy firing points (the forehead should hold an RPG shot (minimum)); 3) Fight against lightly armored targets; 4) Fight against MBT (as a last resort). The base for such self-propelled guns is understandable, based on the BTR. Weapon - here everyone disagreed, the tank gun is not needed here, because We look at the tasks above, best howitzer or three. Options - Bahcha, Nona, Vienna - even Vienna with 30 mm is better, 152 mm is even better, but here a rollback question. If you limit the range to 10-12 km, then the rollback issue can be solved, less range, less power. The main thing is that the shell destroys typical bunkers and bunkers, in the city, it surely breaks through reinforced concrete and brick buildings. Empirically, I think it can be found out.
  34. pan4ik85
    pan4ik85 25 May 2015 20: 29
    0
    And the body of the armored personnel carrier must be redone and strengthened, if necessary support is attached, there is nothing complicated about it!