Why the fighter "Leopards" and "Abrams" "Octopus-SDM1" will be the best in the world?

117
Why the fighter "Leopards" and "Abrams" "Octopus-SDM1" will be the best in the world?


Self-propelled anti-tank gun 2S25M "Octopus-SDM1", first demonstrated at the International military-technical forum "Army-2015", after intensive testing should enter the arsenal of the Russian airborne troops. But now military experts believe that this self-propelled gun, which can rightfully be attributed to the lungs tanks, is the best in the world and significantly surpasses the cars of a similar class available in foreign arsenals.



There are no more machines with such powerful weapons in the world - the 2C25М has an 1252М gun installed, capable of firing modern armor-piercing sub-caliber, cumulative, high-explosive projectiles, as well as ammunition with remote blasting on the trajectory. Such means of destruction are especially effective against enemy personnel, calculations of anti-tank guided missiles.



This greatly increases the chances of the Sprut-SDM1 to survive in battle. Specialists of the Volgograd machine-building company VgTZ emphasize that, in terms of firepower, the updated Sprut corresponds to the level of another Russian novelty - the main battle tank T-90MS. It should also be mentioned that 2С25М can use anti-tank weapons, thanks to which enemy equipment can be hit at maximum range to 5 km. Total in ammunition STP 40 shells, including 22 - in a mechanized ammunition.



If there was one PKTM machine gun paired with a gun on the old self-propelled self-propelled gun, then on a modernized machine, a remote-controlled machine gun with a caliber 7,62 mm was installed on the turret. As a result, the commander of the vehicle got the opportunity to independently hit the identified targets at the moment when the main armament is already in use by the gunner-operator. General ammunition machine guns - 2000 cartridges.



In addition to the firepower of the T-90MS, a similar level and fire control system, in simple terms, the 2C25М has the same sights as the Nizhny Tagil tank, fire control sights. This is considered to be one of the world's best gunner-operator Sosna-U, with television and thermal channels. As well as a panoramic sight commander of the control panel with similar channels. Both sights have the ability to automatically track the target. In case of damage to the main sights, there is a doubler sight, it is an optical-electronic one with a vertical line of aiming and autonomous power supply.



The combat vehicle has an information and control chassis system, which greatly facilitates the operation, the identification of malfunctions. The newest communication complex has frequency modulation and technical masking.

By units and parts of the chassis, as well as by the engine-transmission compartment, it is unified with the BMD-4M airborne combat vehicle. UTD-500 29-strong multi-fuel diesel develops power in 500 hp , thanks to which the 18-ton combat vehicle with a crew of three can move at speeds up to 70 km / h by land and at least 7 km / h by water. Moreover, the machine can overcome water obstacles in case of agitation up to 3 points.



The tank destroyer also has a highly efficient independent variable hydropneumatic suspension. Given the specificity of the use of this machine, as a rule, they will act from shelters and ambushes, the ability to "lie down" on the bottom of the ground is difficult to overestimate.



According to military experts, the Sprut-SDM1, in addition to the airborne units, can be used in parts of the marines, in the anti-tank units of the ground forces that have outdated anti-tank guns MT-12 "Rapier". Surely "Sprut –SDX1" will be purchased by representatives of foreign armed forces who need equipment of this type.
Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

117 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. avt
    +10
    27 June 2015 06: 55
    They got the dumbbells - "military experts" fool , which - "But already now military experts believe that this self-propelled gun, which can rightfully be attributed to light tanks, is the best in the world and significantly exceeds the machines of this class available in foreign arsenals." Now they are playing classics, and when the self-propelled guns are used for the first time as a tank, they will immediately squeal in chorus that the full guano is not armored. Here is how such an "expert" will open its mouth - the tank is supposedly light, so you have to hit it in the head with a club.
    1. +7
      27 June 2015 07: 03
      Quote: avt
      They got the dumbbells - "military experts"

      I will hear the best in the world, which has no analogues, nor excelled, able to overcome all modern and future promising missile defense systems, etc. etc. --- sofa experts.
      maybe the best can be - only for today, analogues - have everything, promising - for that they are promising, in order to do what is not possible today.
      generally
      1. +37
        27 June 2015 15: 26
        .. "constructive critics" must first undergo an internship as part of the MT-12 (2A29) "Rapier" loader on a sunny January day at a temperature of -20 C and a wind of 15 m / s in the Russian field .. so that after sitting down at the keyboard received " unforgettable impressions "from this pastime and the accumulated experience ensured the adequacy of the comments .. laughing hi
      2. +2
        27 June 2015 23: 21
        Quote: atalef
        analogues - have everything



        and what analogues do you have, tell me?
    2. Russian phoenix
      +13
      27 June 2015 07: 34
      Quote: avt
      Now they are playing classics, but when they first use the SPG as a tank, they immediately chorus that the full guano is not armored


      Allow me to "smear" the experts so hotly disliked by you?

      When (if), WRONG and NOT INTENDED use of SPGs leads to not very good results, will the military refer to these "wreck-experts"?

      Like they said something about tanks there, and we believed ...


      Don't you think it will look like a scandal broke out in 1995 with "useless tanks", which were burned when they were incorrectly used on the streets of Grozny?
      1. avt
        +1
        27 June 2015 07: 54
        Quote: Russian phoenix
        Don't you think it will look like a scandal broke out in 1995 with "useless tanks", which were burned when they were incorrectly used on the streets of Grozny?

        Well, following the results of the battles, Pasha, Mercedes, "sucking a glass, looking at the wrecked tanks displayed on the platform for parsing, flights," it seems, in Kubinka, and after listening to the comments again, the "experts" yelled - "That's it! No gas turbines! Only diesel engine! "
        Quote: Russian phoenix
        When (if) an ERROR and NOT APPOINTED application of self-propelled guns leads to not very good results,

        It will definitely lead when it is precisely such dual formulations that will initially be invested in the brain.
        Quote: Russian phoenix
        the military will refer to these "wreck-experts"?

        So what ? After traveling to exhibitions and watching videos with comments, did they not give out that the T-72/90 is just a T-34, but made today and in no way comparable to the "Leopard"?
        1. Russian phoenix
          +10
          27 June 2015 08: 02
          Quote: avt
          It will definitely lead when it is precisely such dual formulations that will initially be invested in the brain.


          And what about the General Staff? Though... what I foresee that you write that there, too, EXPERTS fellow laughing ...
          1. avt
            -2
            27 June 2015 08: 49
            Quote: Russian phoenix
            And what about the General Staff?

            And the name Makarov does not say anything? Well, in terms of the same armored vehicles?
            Quote: Russian phoenix
            I foresee that you write what is there, too, EXPERTS

            Foresight, as you see, was deceived - not by experts - by whole leaders, including the dead woman Popovkin.
            1. Russian phoenix
              +10
              27 June 2015 09: 12
              Quote: avt
              Foresight, as you see, deceived


              Nooooo! lol It was you who quickly got your bearings "downwind" laughing ...
            2. +13
              27 June 2015 16: 08
              Quote: avt
              Foresight, as you see, was deceived - not by experts - by whole leaders, including the dead woman Popovkin.

              .. and, I know other surnames .. Margelov, Shamanov .. I can imagine what kind of "howl" stood when Margelov defended BMD-1 .. well, about "Nona" in general, it's just not worth talking about .. a couple of today's "constructive critics "in GRAU, our airborne forces would not have had a 2S23" Nona ".. hi
    3. +21
      27 June 2015 08: 29
      Quote: avt
      Now they are playing classics, but when they first used SPGs as tanks,

      The only places where this vehicle can really play the role of a tank, in the sense that it can clear the way for the infantry with its fire or "cement" its defenses, and then only until the MBT approach, this is, of course, during the landing of air and sea troops and during the capture of a bridgehead forcing water barriers.
      So, I agree that this is of course an "ersatz tank", but sometimes it is better "a tit in the hand than a pie in the sky"
      1. avt
        -6
        27 June 2015 09: 12
        Quote: svp67
        The only places where this vehicle can really play the role of a tank, in the sense that it can clear the way for the infantry with its fire or "cement" its defenses, and then only until the MBT approaches.

        request Aha wassat And also a light tank "Gvozdika" can do the same ... wassat
        1. +11
          27 June 2015 14: 48
          Quote: avt
          And also a light tank "Gvozdika" can do the same ...

          And with a parachute jump ... carnation?
        2. +15
          27 June 2015 15: 57
          Quote: avt
          Aha And also a light tank "Gvozdika" can do the same ...

          .. yah ? .. with a caliber of 122 mm and the absence of a BPS in ammunition and the ability to overcome water obstacles up to 300 m at a speed of 4,5 km / h with a wave of no higher than 20 cm. and as it was said above with a parachute, it is "weak" .. this is a finger comparison with a "subject" .. 125 mm unified for ammunition with MBT and 122 mm semi-floating with cumulative .. hi .. With respect ! ..
        3. +2
          27 June 2015 23: 57
          Quote: avt
          And also a light tank "Gvozdika" can do the same ...

          Does she have a coaxial machine gun? No. It cannot mean ...
      2. +9
        27 June 2015 14: 43
        Quote: svp67
        The only places where this vehicle can really play the role of a tank, in the sense that it can clear the way for the infantry with its fire or "cement" its defenses, and then only until the MBT approach, this is, of course, during the landing of air and sea troops and during the capture of a bridgehead forcing water barriers.

        So is he the type for this and is intended?
    4. +2
      27 June 2015 11: 09
      Look into the eyes of the PR-manager who came up with this: "fighter of leopards and abrams", but it is better to send these tanks to "destroy" on this self-propelled gun ...
      Support for infantry and no more, IMHO!
    5. +1
      27 June 2015 14: 40
      Quote: avt
      They got the dumbbells - "military experts"

      And how, according to you, on what basis should the "severity" of the tanks be classified? Some non-couch experts believe that the level of protection. What would be your positive answer?
    6. +9
      27 June 2015 15: 58
      So it can return magpies ... By the way, a self-propelled gun - even with bulletproof armor - is better than a Rapier.
    7. -1
      28 June 2015 19: 26
      Absolutely useless kind of BT! Tell me what this is like for fighting the enemy's armored vehicles, well, well BUT why, then, is the standard BMD-4M capable of fighting with tanks better than the specialized "Sprut"? Don't believe me? We look at the numbers ..
      gun "octopus" 2A75 armor penetration of the most shells
      3UBK14 9M119 9X949 23,3 16,5 7,1 325…375/60°
      3UBK20 9M119M 9X949 24,3 17,2 7,1 325…375/60°
      the rest is much more modest ..
      And here are the characteristics of the ATGM BMD-4M
      - barrel ATGM 9M117 in the 3UBK10-3 round (shot using the 2A70 cannon as a launcher). The ATGM is guided by a 1K13-2 targeting device using a 1V539 ballistic computer and a 1D14 laser rangefinder. The modernized 9M117M "Arkan" ATGM is equipped with a tandem cumulative warhead and uses the 9M117 ATGM control system. Used in westrel 3UBK23-3.
      Ammunition - 8 ATGM 9M117
      Shot mass - 24.5 kg (3UBK23-3)
      range of action:
      - 4000 m (9М117)
      - 5500 m (9М117М)
      Penetration - 750 mm (9М117М, equivalent to homogeneous armor with dynamic protection)
      And what after this can be said in favor of the Octopus? What for do you need this expensive highly specialized disposable pepelats?
      1. +2
        29 June 2015 13: 34
        I think the rate of fire and the cost of production play an important role.
        ATGM - this is cool, but now dofiga means of countering ATGM.
        Yes, and their supply in the BPD is very limited, but the Sprut BC is an order of magnitude higher. And you will not interfere with the shell except active armor, so IMHO Octopus is more profitable.
  2. +11
    27 June 2015 07: 19
    2S25M mounted 125-mm gun 2A75M,
    Well, in general, the same 2A46, it seems, only the length of the crowbar, is not limited by the automatic loader what
    Quote: avt
    But now, military experts believe that this self-propelled gun, which can rightfully be attributed to light tanks,

    Yes, fine, cho! But if on a BMD, a drum from the Tu-160 is attached on top, it finally will be a strategic bandander wassat
    1. +4
      27 June 2015 14: 51
      Quote: perepilka
      she finally strategic banderer

      strategic ... drummer?
    2. 0
      27 June 2015 16: 04
      Yes, it is possible and vigorous ammunition per megatuna ... By the way, grow a sucker, but what is there for a drum from Tushka7
      1. +7
        27 June 2015 16: 22
        Quote: viktmell
        Yes, it is possible and vigorous ammunition per megatuna ... By the way, grow a sucker, but what is there for a drum from Tushka7

        .. revolving launcher for the KR .. on the principle of a revolving drum ..
      2. 0
        27 June 2015 16: 36
        Quote: viktmell
        and what is there for a drum from Carcass

        Souls do not tea, ask perepilka
      3. +3
        27 June 2015 20: 04
        Quote: viktmell
        and what is there for a drum from Tushka7
        2 pieces fellow
    3. +1
      28 June 2015 14: 36
      Quote: perepilka
      Well, in general, the same 2A46, it seems, only the length of the crowbar, is not limited by the automatic loader

      Not certainly in that way
      The main weapon of the SPTP 2S25 is the 125 mm 2A75 smoothbore gun, which is a modified version of the 2A46 tank gun and its modifications.

      . the issue of the recoil of the gun during firing was solved by increasing the recoil length to 740 mm, as well as the use of hydropneumatic chassis suspension mechanisms to absorb the residual recoil of the gun. The mass of the gun is 2350 kg.
  3. +17
    27 June 2015 07: 37
    Of course, it makes sense to install powerful combat modules on light platforms and protect everything with armor plate. It also protects against fragments of bullets and small-caliber artillery, but the tank will not protect it from serious damage. Thus, we obtain a significant amount of self-propelled guns, increasing (not expensively) the concentration of artillery by 1 sq km, and the possibility of transferring large barrels to the enemy rear and to the most vulnerable points. But it is not worth it to engage in cheers with patriotism and hatred. It is necessary to pass at least combined arms tests and work out the principles of application and verify the effectiveness.
    1. wanderer_032
      +5
      27 June 2015 08: 02
      Quote: D-Master
      Of course, it makes sense to install powerful combat modules on light platforms and protect everything with armor plate.


      That is why immediately bronecarton?
      And what if, as a means of enhancing protection, combined armor be put together with KDZ?
      For some reason, no one even thinks about this option.
      1. +13
        27 June 2015 16: 29
        Quote: wanderer_032
        Quote: D-Master
        Of course, it makes sense to install powerful combat modules on light platforms and protect everything with armor plate.


        That is why immediately bronecarton?
        And what if, as a means of enhancing protection, combined armor be put together with KDZ?
        For some reason, no one even thinks about this option.

        .. here it is just that "constructive commentators" are slightly "stuck in the past" the BTR 90 board has not taken 14,5 already .. Scientific Research Institute of Steel works, and does not sit on VO and scribbles comments .. laughing
      2. +3
        27 June 2015 22: 29
        I completely agree. It is too early to grind a normal machine. The tank lives on the battlefield for 15 or 20 minutes, and you parted here. Nor is a strong topic this Octopus.
    2. +1
      28 June 2015 14: 32
      Quote: D-Master
      It is necessary to pass at least combined arms tests and work out the principles of application and verify the effectiveness.

      yes, these tests passed 15 years ago
      In 2001, additional tests of self-propelled guns 2S25 were carried out. On January 9, 2006, by order of the Minister of Defense of the Russian Federation, the 2C25 self-propelled anti-tank gun was adopted by the Russian Army

      at first there was no money for production, then Serdyukov forbade buying. produced more than 30 cars.
    3. +2
      28 June 2015 19: 10
      Quote: D-Master
      and the tank won’t save from something serious

      And tell me why then tanks do 65 tons if their armor does not protect against anything?
      Quote: D-Master
      we get a significant amount of self-propelled guns, increasing (not expensive)

      And where did you get that is not expensive? We look at what is in the car, a tank cannon, tank SLA, similar ammunition .. And which of this is not expensive? Can I add an adjustable SPRUT suspension to this, think a cheap thing? The SLA, for example, the device is very expensive and what they promise to put on Octopus is not put on modernized T72b3 tanks for EXPENSIVE! You head then think about how much this pepelats will be designed for one-time use?
  4. wanderer_032
    +9
    27 June 2015 07: 54
    Self-propelled anti-tank gun looks like this Yes :



    "Sprut-SDM1" it Anti-tank self-propelled artillery mountabbreviated as tank destroyer.

    And the car was really cool. All that is needed to combat the enemy’s armored vehicles is available on this machine. Moreover, the most modern level.
    In addition, with the help of OFSs, such self-propelled guns are capable of not only fighting the enemy’s armored vehicles, but also supporting the motorized rifle units of the airborne forces, MP, and SV, if necessary.
    An important feature of this self-propelled gun is the ability to fire using these ammunition:

    ammunition with remote detonation on the trajectory. Such weapons are particularly effective against enemy manpower, anti-tank guided missile calculations

    It would be nice to make the exact same tank destroyer on a wheeled chassis.
    As much as possible unified on knots and units, either with available, or with perspective wheel armored personnel carriers.
    This would allow to increase the firepower and mobility of motorized rifle units armed with wheeled vehicles. (IMHO)
    1. +1
      27 June 2015 10: 04
      the wheeled chassis has one huge minus a high center of gravity.
    2. +14
      27 June 2015 10: 22
      This is not a "self-propelled", it is a "self-propelled" anti-tank gun
      1. wanderer_032
        +3
        27 June 2015 12: 51
        Quote: Spade
        This is not a "self-propelled", it is a "self-propelled" anti-tank gun


        In fact, this is a PT gun with a combined wheeled propulsion, to be specifically meticulous.
        Since this PT gun has the ability to move independently from one position to another using its own power plant and controls, and to move in tow with a tractor (a specialized art.transporter, military truck, tractor, etc.) .
    3. +2
      27 June 2015 15: 51
      Quote: wanderer_032
      Self-propelled anti-tank gun looks like this

      Often, due to incompetence, this type of weapon is called "self-propelled". Error. They are SELF-PROPELLING.
    4. The comment was deleted.
    5. gjv
      +1
      27 June 2015 17: 54
      Quote: wanderer_032
      "Sprut-SDM1" is an anti-tank self-propelled artillery installation, abbreviated as PT ACS.

      The reason the 2C25 self-propelled guns were originally classified as anti-tank guns was because the ordering department of development work was the GRAU, which did not have the authority to develop tanks. The main representatives of the previous generation of this class of equipment are light tanks PT-76B and Object 934.
    6. 0
      28 June 2015 14: 40
      Quote: wanderer_032
      It would be nice to make the exact same tank destroyer on a wheeled chassis.

      1. it will tip over if you do not limit the angle of rotation of the tower, and this is immediately a minus.
      2. The chassis will serve less than the caterpillar.

      Americans, even with a less powerful gun on a striker, are tormented.
  5. +2
    27 June 2015 08: 05
    I’m not very versed in Russian military science. Is this armored vehicle designed for direct fire combat?
    1. wanderer_032
      +4
      27 June 2015 08: 12
      Quote: Kaiten
      Is this armored vehicle designed for direct fire combat?


      Yes. Is something embarrassing?
      1. -3
        27 June 2015 10: 18
        Quote: wanderer_032
        Quote: Kaiten
        Is this armored vehicle designed for direct fire combat?


        Yes. Is something embarrassing?

        Do their artillery systems outperform those of Abrams and Leopard? Maybe someone can lay out comparative tables of range and accuracy for this system and Western tanks?
        1. wanderer_032
          +11
          27 June 2015 13: 08
          Quote: Kaiten
          Do their artillery systems outperform those of Abrams and Leopard?


          What are you talking about? There, one gun is worth everything. Moreover, the tank. Upgraded for this tank destroyer. The SLA is new, with digital equipment for stabilizing and aiming the gun at the target.
          And also with digital, multichannel optical devices for monitoring, aiming and automatic tracking of targets.

          In addition, this tank destroyer is air transportable and airborne, can independently overcome water barriers and fire afloat. In addition, this tank destroyer has a high cross in rough terrain and off-road conditions. It can be used in various climatic zones of the globe (from desert hot to arctic climate).

          And "Abrams" and "Leopard" can do that?



        2. gjv
          0
          27 June 2015 17: 57
          Quote: Kaiten
          range and accuracy

          BPS penetration at a range of 2 km 520 mm.
          1. 0
            28 June 2015 14: 46
            Quote: gjv
            BPS penetration at a range of 2 km 520 mm.

            there are also guided missiles that have a range of 5 km.
    2. Russian phoenix
      +5
      27 June 2015 08: 19
      Quote: Kaiten
      I’m not very versed in Russian military science. Is this armored vehicle designed for direct fire combat?


      Remind a bearded joke about an Israeli rifle (assault rifle) with a crooked barrel? wink lol
      1. +2
        27 June 2015 10: 20
        Quote: Russian phoenix
        Remind a bearded joke about an Israeli rifle (assault rifle) with a crooked barrel?

        Remember, I don’t remember this.
        1. Russian phoenix
          +1
          27 June 2015 10: 59
          Quote: Kaiten
          Remember, I don’t remember this.


          Not sure about a Jewish round-the-clock automatic? Then you are not a Jew ...

          REAL JEWS, the skill of firing from around the corner, absorb with mother's milk ...
          1. +9
            27 June 2015 11: 28
            a person asked a question ... and you immediately a Jew is not a Jew ... that without this is not impossible ??? and to be honest from the outside it looks something like this - the person wrote ... he answered crap about shooting from around the corner and about the fact that he is probably not a Jew, and this is not related to the topic .... and the whole person stopped writing ... ty on and here idiots have enough to talk about with them .... minus you padded jacket - lapotnik ...
            1. wanderer_032
              +13
              27 June 2015 13: 11
              Quote: aws4
              a person asked a question ... and you immediately a Jew is not a Jew


              Really zadolbali already with this "theme".
              Well, he is a Jew and what is it? Found edrit through the rocker, what to talk about.
              Already really annoying.
              1. +3
                27 June 2015 14: 57
                Quote: wanderer_032
                Really zadolbali already with this "theme".

                You do not understand, this is envy, a person simply envies that someone is Jewish, and he is NOT)
          2. +5
            27 June 2015 11: 29
            Quote: Russian phoenix

            Not sure about a Jewish round-the-clock automatic? Then you are not a Jew ...

            REAL JEWS, the skill of firing from around the corner, absorb with mother's milk ...

            Of course I heard about such weapons, but there is no joke about him.
            1. +1
              27 June 2015 21: 59
              Quote: Kaiten
              Of course I heard about such weapons, but there is no joke about him.
              Corner shot
              1. 0
                28 June 2015 07: 14
                Quote: WUA 518
                Corner shot


                And what is the joke?
          3. +5
            27 June 2015 11: 52
            In our USSR, a barrel for AK, or rather a nozzle on the barrel, for firing from around the corner, was developed and tested. What is wrong with saving the lives of soldiers?
            1. Russian phoenix
              +2
              27 June 2015 13: 59
              Quote: Free Wind
              In our USSR, a barrel for AK, or rather a nozzle on the barrel, for firing from around the corner, was developed and tested. What is wrong with saving the lives of soldiers?

              And even earlier, in Germany, for street battles with the Red Army ...

              There is nothing wrong with the desire to save lives, but I say, ANECDOT ...
            2. 0
              28 June 2015 17: 01
              Quote: Free Wind
              In our USSR, a barrel for AK, or rather a nozzle on a barrel, for firing from around the corner, was developed and tested ........


    3. avt
      +3
      27 June 2015 08: 51
      Quote: Kaiten
      I’m not very versed in Russian military science. Is this armored vehicle designed for direct fire combat?

      Yeah - four kilometers.
  6. -7
    27 June 2015 08: 34
    It looks kind of sickly for "the best in the world" !!!
  7. -11
    27 June 2015 08: 42
    IMHO expensive cardboard with a very limited range of applications - in the Airborne Forces and maybe the Marine Corps - where you can not shove a normal MBT due to its large mass. But for others, the situation does not need a nafig, neither in combined arms combat nor in counterguerrilla operations.
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. +20
      27 June 2015 10: 24
      Quote: CTABEP
      IMHO expensive cardboard with a very limited range of applications

      You are all evil laughing lol
      Leave our self-propelled gun alone laughing . In the centuries, there was a chance to get hold of a decent little fluff instead of low-power spitters, and then a mustache with criticism ... but try Abram or Leaperd to drag into the Arctic? And this one is possible! good At least on an ice floe, at least on a multi-dome deliver Yes
      And why are all the tasks of the Octopus necessarily reduced to tank duels? Roll out a train with equipment, b / p, fuel, checkpoint from a decent distance? "Shut up" some kind of crossroads, traffic junction? Dream and only laughing
      Once, in my youth, I visually showed one aviation commander what would happen at his airfield if, all the same, one of my platoons on BMDkhah broke through to take off laughing
      1. -5
        27 June 2015 12: 04
        Well, IMHO, if you don’t shoot at the tanks, then the complicated and expensive SLA with a 125mm cannon is not really needed - you now have the BMD-4M and Nona - there is enough firepower for all of the above. I don’t argue, this is an excellent argument for the Airborne Forces, because the only option is to get such a caliber, but for any other kind of troops, except maybe the Marines, it’s not a very necessary figovina, besides it’s obviously expensive.
        1. +8
          27 June 2015 12: 37
          Quote: CTABEP
          Well, IMHO, if you don’t shoot at the tanks, then the complicated and expensive FCS with a 125mm gun is not really needed

          And you try to look with a look specialist wide profile fellow laughing
          In a situation with the same airfield - I will set the task TO ARTILLERS !!!
          Of course, to sit and wait at the airport, until they scent the scent, they will not lol and try to scatter Yes
          I will set the task to fill up the airplane-two at taxiing and take-off, to tear apart the communications center, KDP and fuel and lubricants depot with refuellers ... with a modern, complex and expensive FCS, they will carry out such a task, and from afar. After that - to the reserve, to prevent possible help
          And my infantry will go about their usual business - some will tie up the guard in battle, the rest will burn crawling airplanes, destroy BP storage
          1. +1
            27 June 2015 14: 09
            Not a specialist himself - is the OMS of the same BMD-4 much inferior to the Sprutov one? It seems like the same 100-mm HE can hit at 4 + km, with TURS by 5. Of course, the power of the projectile is one and a half times less, but there are more of them, and they are constantly in the company. I do not question their need for the Airborne Forces, but I would like to comment from an experienced person :). Vsezh "Octopuses" will be a separate division in the brigade's staff, and again they will be assigned to the company / battalion commander for a while, or am I wrong?

            PS that is not a post without praising the car - just a bunch of minuses :).
            1. +7
              27 June 2015 14: 31
              Quote: CTABEP
              Is the SLA of the same BMD-4 much inferior to Sprutovskaya?

              As Anton Pavlovich Chekhov said - "... You, Kashtanka, are an insect creature and nothing else. You are like a carpenter against a carpenter against a man ..." laughing
              An artilleryman with his training will always be higher than a BMDhi gunner.
            2. +1
              28 June 2015 15: 26
              Quote: CTABEP
              It seems that she can hit the same 100-mm RP at 4 + km, with TURs at 5. Of course, the projectile power is one and a half times less, but there are more holes, and they are constantly in the company

              1.BMD-4 tanks are rather weak, not the same gun + lower firing accuracy. Octopus is precisely the PT for the Airborne Forces. Having smaller dimensions and can "sink to the ground", which means that the visibility is lower, it can carry out at least 2 shots from an ambush before being detected, which means minus 2 enemy tanks at least. Explain further or will it come by itself?
              Quote: CTABEP
              that is not a post without praising the car - just a bunch of minuses :).

              the disadvantages are not for the lack of "praise", but for the fact that you write without understanding what the conversation is about, not understanding what technique we are talking about.
        2. AUL
          +4
          27 June 2015 17: 39
          CTABEP, and so it was created specifically for the Airborne Forces and Marines! What are you breaking through the open gate?
      2. wanderer_032
        +6
        27 June 2015 13: 27
        Quote: CONNECTING ROD VDVshny
        Once, in my youth, I visually showed one aviation commander what would happen at his airfield if, all the same, one of my platoons on BMDkhah broke through to take off
        wink

        It would be expensive to see how the "nimble fleas" with "Bakhchi" and the modernized "Octopus" would iron the N airbase on the move. laughing

        For the first time, SAS used jeeps as an assault vehicle during a raid on Bagush airfield on July 7, 1942. The reason for this was that for technical reasons, only half of the 40 "Lewis bombs" planted under the planes exploded. While the enemy was understanding the situation, Stirling's crew resolutely moved along the runway, sending heavy fire from machine guns on intact aircraft. Seeing this, the crews of the other two "jeeps" followed the example of the commander, shooting everything around. The result of the raid exceeded all expectations - 37 aircraft were destroyed. This method of attack, making maximum use of high speed and the effect of surprise, produced an extremely demoralizing effect on the enemy. Not a single soldier or pilot of the “axis” countries could feel safe in the area where the SAS groups operated - each city or village behind the front line could become the target of a sudden night attack. Jeeps unexpectedly broke through security posts, rained down a flurry of lead on the enemy soldiers who were at a loss, quickly disappeared in the dark, after which Lewis mines began to burst.
        http://www.libtxt.ru/chitat/nenahov_yuriy/20024-Spetsnaz_vo_vtoroy_mirovoy_voyne
        /15.html

        Considering the weapons installed on the BMD-4M and PT ACS "Sprut-SD-1M", this would be even more:



        laughing
        1. +2
          27 June 2015 22: 40
          Quote: wanderer_032
          It would be expensive to see how the "nimble fleas" with "Bakhchi" and the modernized "Octopus" would iron the N airbase on the move.

          There is no reason to visit. laughing We’d cover a clearing, so no, let’s iron laughing
      3. +5
        27 June 2015 22: 12
        Quote: CONNECTING ROD VDVshny
        Once, in my youth, I visually showed one aviation commander what would happen at his airfield if, all the same, one of my platoons on BMDkhah broke through to take off

        Heard laughing As one of my friends in the Pskov paratrooper said: The paratroopers are the same pilots, but for some reason they jump from the plane laughing
  8. The comment was deleted.
    1. +7
      27 June 2015 12: 08
      Quote from rudolf
      as for the anti-tank units of the ground forces, the question is debatable of course, but the marines would tear such a machine with their hands.

      YES rudolff, the marines need air, you can’t get much on an armored personnel carrier ..

      BMP-3 F I "Sprut SD" for more than 20 years, neither of which is needed .... nope, another ACS "Vienna" and then a complete set good ...
      1. 0
        27 June 2015 14: 20
        and, well, WOULD duplicate all this on a wheeled platform ...

        modular armored vehicle "Boomeran" how seaworthy will it be ??? and will there be a special upgrade for the marines ...


        YES, combat module 125-mm gun 2А75М, installed in an uninhabited tower ((DBM)))

        3 BBM D-project for marines with 120 mm gun in DBM ((ejector only, out of place))
        клик


        author: http: //forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php? f = 23 & t = 174604 & start = 1425
      2. -1
        27 June 2015 16: 44
        In my opinion, the most optimal machine for the airborne landing forces, having cross-country ability / firepower / armor at the MBT level was made by the Americans - the M8 Buford Light Tank, with 105-120mm downs, AZ, a powerful additional hinged reservation with DZ elements and the possibility of landing. Why I’m not accepted for service, I can’t say, but in my opinion powerful armor is more important for airborne assault vehicles, i.e. survivability than buoyancy.
        1. 0
          27 June 2015 19: 32
          Quote: Ay-yay-yay
          I can’t say, but in my opinion powerful armor is more important for airborne landing equipment, i.e. survivability than buoyancy.

          buoyancy - seaworthiness is needed primarily by marines ..

          I read in a slip about the M8 Buford Light Tank, it turns out to be an excellent armored car, was made ....
          1. +4
            27 June 2015 19: 49
            and the rivers will force the landing, how will the engineering troops wait?
            1. 0
              29 June 2015 21: 21
              To do this, they drop such equipment, say, for a fortified reservoir, precisely in order to hold the bridgehead and allow the engineering military to prepare their floating bridges. Purely my opinion, I do not pretend to the truth .., but, in my opinion, it is better to have heavily armored MBTs, infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers capable of withstanding most anti-tank weapons and holding anti-tank mines without any problems, especially firing large-caliber automatic guns up to 100mm and to them, after that, professional, well-organized, equipped with all the necessary engineering military personnel that are capable of constructing crossings in a short time, than they can have well-armed, not requiring military engineering floating equipment, but whose armor is easily stitched with automatic guns and breaks from a series of exploding shells and light anti-tank mines. That is, I am afraid that with the help of BMP1-3, BMD1-4, Ven, Non, etc. from this family you can’t get a lot against the modern army armed with anti-tank systems and automatic cannons of large calibers and with automatic tracking, anti-material rifles, especially heavy MBT and armored personnel carriers. All this equipment was created for a throw to the English Channel and, in my opinion, don’t upgrade it, but it will not survive for a long time against an adversary with a modern army of the NATO level.
        2. 0
          28 June 2015 15: 49
          Quote: Ay-yay-yay
          In my opinion, the most optimal machine for the airborne landing forces, having cross-country ability / firepower / armor at the MBT level was made by the Americans - the M8 Buford Light Tank, with 105-120mm downs, AZ, a powerful additional hinged reservation with DZ elements and the possibility of landing. Why I’m not accepted for service, I can’t say, but in my opinion powerful armor is more important for airborne assault vehicles, i.e. survivability than buoyancy.

          1. price - a light tank designed only for the Airborne Forces that does not have unification in the hull with other vehicles and is produced in limited quantities.
          we have unification-BMP-3, BMD-4m, Octopus-SD
          2. Duck what kind of gun? it means that they could not achieve the desired characteristics, and therefore the final "fluff" is not known.
          But it is definitely weaker than our tank.
          3. Does not know how to swim to overcome rivers on a march of throws and to capture bridgeheads.
          Nasha-knows how
          4. We have active protection.
          5. hinged armor - drop with it can not, which means we remove it.
          6. not adopted

          Duck than she is the best? where is the evidence? Emotions are not them, the love of all Amerovsky is the same.
  9. Cadet
    -5
    27 June 2015 09: 00
    For example, Bradley, when used in Iraq (desert storm), burned a lot of t72, based on this, experts think and say about "no analogue in the world", but there is BUT what kind of obt will let this tin can for direct fire? After all, let's be honest, the modernized Abrams and Leo, and even more so the Challenger in electronics and target detection, well, at least "slightly" surpass ...
    1. +8
      27 June 2015 10: 06
      Are you sure about that? A competent ambush and you are already fed. An example of Vietnam, oh, how far from perfect PT-76s there annoy the "light elves", and the heavy Abrams is the place to drown there
      1. +2
        27 June 2015 16: 55
        Quote: bmv04636
        Competent ambush and you are already drunk.



        A competent ambush on a T-72, without an APU, with a working engine, against thermal imagers and all kinds of eyes from an ordinary infantryman, drones of all classes, to AWACS and satellites, is hardly possible. By the way, Leo 2, with the ability to fight with a completely disabled engine and electronics, in the "Stab Ein" mode was just created for ambushes on deployed offensives, or columns of Soviet equipment.
        1. +2
          28 June 2015 15: 53
          Quote: Ay-yay-yay
          A competent ambush on the T-72, without APU, with a working engine, against thermal imagers and all kinds of eyes from the ordinary infantryman, drones of all classes, to AWACS and satellites, is unlikely to be done

          complete nonsense. Who told you that everything will be so? That Avaks will not be shot down with the S-400, drones with shells, etc.? The approach is purely American.
          1. 0
            29 June 2015 20: 41
            I didn’t graze cows with you and didn’t be rude, and some strange analogies about my "American" approach. The approach should be as effective as possible, and if someone's approach and experience best suits the tasks set, then you have to be an idiot so as not to adopt it, especially if the traditional approach or experience does not correspond to modern realities and, say, carries more victims than it could and should be. And what is nonsense, you do not agree with something specific, so if you please respond specifically! I doubt you have a military education, so curb your ambition! If the Avaks are shot down, then there will be no need for ambushes, then the entire enemy air force is defeated. And what about Pantsyr going to shoot down a UAV flying at an altitude of 10-20 km and scanning at 30 km? Then Bukom ..
            1. +1
              8 July 2015 01: 39
              Quote: Ay-yay-yay
              I doubt that you have a military education, so die your ambition!

              EDUCATION DIPLOMA DOESN'T ALWAYS SPEAK ABOUT REAL KNOWLEDGE AND SKILLS. This is repeatedly proven by life. And on the account of the chase, we had a department at the institute, fortunately for those who have already plowed their 2 years, not mandatory. By the way, in the army I had to learn starling to work on technology, the commander of a neighboring platoon. while not in their specialty.
    2. +7
      27 June 2015 14: 30
      Quote: Kadet
      For example, Bradley, when used in Iraq (desert storm), burned a lot of T72,

      EMNIP most of the Iraqi T-72 died from aviation. The part was burned by the Iraqis themselves at the end of the BC and fuel and units were shot by Abrams .. So we should not speak about the qualities of the tank, but about the literacy of their use ..
      1. Cadet
        -6
        27 June 2015 15: 21
        You still remember the battle of Borodino ....
    3. +6
      27 June 2015 14: 43
      Quote: Kadet
      For example, Bradley, when applied in Iraq (desert storm), burned quite a few

      And what did they "burn" these T-72s, in more detail, plz? 25mm automatic cannon, probably .. laughing

      About Tow - just do not, huh? BMP against the tank .. while the tank is on the defensive .. o-fi-get ..

      Sneakers do not tell, and minus you
      1. Cadet
        -5
        27 June 2015 15: 24
        Just these very ones, who are "funny", deliriously walked behind the Abrams, and met these very best warriors of donkey lovers.
        1. +7
          27 June 2015 15: 28
          Quote: Kadet
          Bradley went a little behind the Abrams

          Yeah .. Abrams is ahead, Bradley is behind Abrams. And then to meet them - T-72 ..

          Abrams catches the woof, and Bradley, right there, extinguishes the T-72 from the 25 graph paper.

          At the same time, both Abrams and Bradley remain alive .. oh .. under the table .. I won’t even put a minus ..

          Thank you, have fun .. that's real laughing
          1. +1
            27 June 2015 16: 59
            Bradley extinguished the T-72 with its TOV ATGMs, at night, also due to outdated optics on the Iraqi T-72. Well, the line of 25-30mm shells on the turret of any tank is unlikely to always pass without a trace for the ikoelectronic body kit of the turret.
            1. +2
              27 June 2015 21: 58
              Quote: Ay-yay-yay
              Bradley extinguished the T-72 with its TOV ATGMs, at night, also due to outdated optics on the Iraqi T-72. Well, the line of 25-30mm shells on the turret of any tank is unlikely to always pass without a trace for the ikoelectronic body kit of the turret.

              Thanks. I understand. I served on Xnumx once feel

              Somewhere else they wrote about a thermal imager, which is on Bradley and, of course, is absent as a class on Iraqi T-72.

              It’s just that I commented on the following:

              Quote: Kadet
              raved and walked a little behind the Abrams, and met these very best warriors osolubov

              - nothing is said here about the night
              - during the day the thermal imager is a tank in the trench, but in the desert in the heat - it will see .. hardly ..
              - getting into such a tank is not easy, even if you notice
              - "outdated optics" during the day .. the piano does not play .. well, or almost does not play.

              It was on this (purely hypothetical) situation that my comment was.

              hi
              1. 0
                29 June 2015 20: 52
                Yes, that's right, they wrote about the day. But the fact is that according to the stories of the participants themselves, it was thanks to thermal imagers that, despite the weather conditions, dusty, sandy winds, they were able to successfully wet Iraqi equipment at a distance of 3 km. And by the way, some moments of the fighting are known during the day, when the enemy saw and started firing at the Yankees in time, which the Yankees won in the dry thanks to more advanced optics and the LMS of their tanks and infantry fighting vehicles. For example, the story of the Bradley crew, which ran into its BMP, at some intersection of two Iraqi BMP-1s. Those even the first started firing, but both shots, despite a short distance (I don’t remember exactly about 300-500m), passed by, and the Yankees in response to one ATGM, the other from their 25mm soaked. In that situation, the higher professionalism and composure of the Americans, and most likely the inexperience and nervousness of the Iraqi crews, most likely affected.
          2. +1
            27 June 2015 18: 57
            If Bradley bursts of fragmentation high explosives into the T 72 tank, then the tank will definitely flare up.
    4. +1
      27 June 2015 15: 23
      Quote: Kadet
      For example, Bradley, when applied in Iraq (desert storm), burned quite a few t72

      Well, like ... Bradley’s infantry escort, as well as the Sprut-SD, the infantry will detect one FIG earlier than the self-propelled tank, the right of the first shot will NOT be for the tank if it is without infantry escort.
    5. Dam
      +6
      27 June 2015 16: 03
      Delirium carry please? Read the statistics. Neither Bradley nor Abramsy from 72 entered into direct clashes, they did not risk approaching 5 km. Aviation also worked for the money that Saddam generals bought for. See what ISIS is doing with the vaunted Abrams
      1. +1
        27 June 2015 17: 04
        Quote: Damm
        Neither Bradley nor Abramsy from 72 entered into direct clashes, they did not risk approaching 5 km. Aviation also worked for the money that Saddam generals bought for.



        Do you have confirmation of all these nonsense?))) And another question, and what does ISIS do with all these Abrams? Stupidly burns from the inside out for propaganda, since he does not know how to manage them. And the cowardly Iraqi army stupidly abandoned the tanks.
  10. +16
    27 June 2015 10: 03
    The self-propelled gun was completely pecked. But if you let go and leave on the author's conscience all "unparalleled in the world" and "light tank", then the bottom line is quite normal weapon. Powerful, agile and comfortable indeed. Not a tank, of course. But for their tasks, quite.
    During the Patriotic War, the Germans very effectively used self-propelled guns to fight against tanks. And it was from ambushes. It is unlikely that someone seriously laid the function of fighting tanks in direct confrontation for this "device".
    As for the defense - it is, of course, not the strongest, but it is. The gun is powerful, mobile. Floating. That's the thing for landing. While the enemy will pull up the MBT to combat the landing, it can make a lot of noise. Yes, and you can quickly concentrate an artillery strike on a small area. With a quick change of position, so as not to fall under a counter-battery attack.
    Artillery has always been considered the "God of War". Serious war. Now in the Donbass, artillery also does not graze the rear. As for me - a normal weapon. IMHO.
    1. +2
      27 June 2015 11: 35
      Quote: ikrut
      During the Patriotic War, the Germans very effectively used self-propelled guns to fight against tanks. And it was from ambushes. It is unlikely that someone seriously laid the function of fighting tanks in direct confrontation for this "device".

      Since then, the means of conducting tank combat have changed somewhat. This system is primarily intended for fighting tanks. Using her as an ambush anti-tank gun makes her a system of one or two shots. Return will arrive almost immediately.
      1. +5
        27 June 2015 15: 28
        Quote: Kaiten
        Since then, the means of conducting tank combat have changed somewhat.

        How so?
        Quote: Kaiten
        This system is primarily intended for fighting tanks.

        Tanks with tanks - do not fight. And if they are at war, then the generals somewhere have messed around.
        Quote: Kaiten
        Return will arrive almost immediately.

        Gdeb to find such an enemy - so as not to shoot back? In Palestine - yes, there is no way you can beat Merkava with stones.
        1. +3
          27 June 2015 17: 10
          Quote: Setrac
          Tanks with tanks - do not fight. And if they are at war, then the generals somewhere have messed around.



          Oh, oh ?!))) You list, so, as a keepsake, how many battles over the past 10 years have been with the use of tanks by both sides? A tank is a very important melee unit on the battlefield, I would say it is the same gun, only a large one. Since the presence of MBT greatly facilitates the attack / defense of this or that battlefield, both sides try to have these machines in stock.
          1. +4
            27 June 2015 19: 20
            Quote: Ay-yay-yay
            Oh, oh ?!))) You list, so, as a keepsake, how many battles over the past 10 years have been with the use of tanks by both sides?

            If in some battle tanks were forced to fight tanks - this does not mean that it should be so.
      2. +1
        28 June 2015 16: 07
        Quote: Kaiten
        Using her as an ambush anti-tank gun makes her a system of one or two shots. Return will arrive almost immediately.

        and who will throw the return line? far from always.
    2. 0
      28 June 2015 16: 06
      Quote: ikrut
      Not a tank, of course

      Well, for some reason, a light tank, absolutely consistent with the classification.
  11. +11
    27 June 2015 11: 39
    What are you guys? for a long time did not enter VoT? SPG is ARTA! And nothing more. And this is a tank destroyer! ANTI-TANK! SU-85-100-122-152 in your opinion what? But the SU-76 didn’t have a roof ... Estimate ... And what? She walked along with the tanks, though behind them, shooting into the gaps between them.
    And then, they put a good weapon on the BMDeha and half screamed "cardboard" "art" ... Learn the materiel ..
    It can jump, it can swim, maybe ...... you will add it yourself.
  12. +6
    27 June 2015 12: 03
    The machine is not bad, and in its segment the right one, But the title of the article is frankly enraging. What is a tank destroyer? This is a machine to support the landing, and the task of the landing is to festival at the rear of the enemy. Uriapatriotic, less advertising headlines write.
    1. wanderer_032
      +1
      27 June 2015 13: 36
      Quote: Free Wind
      What is a tank destroyer?


      That's right in a way.
      This is a fighter of everything that moves when our troops are in raids on the rear of the enemy "festival". Enchanting "festival" I would say. laughing
  13. -3
    27 June 2015 13: 45
    so this is not just a self-propelled gun, but an "aircraft carrier killer"
    1. wanderer_032
      +5
      27 June 2015 14: 16
      Quote: clansman
      so this is not just a self-propelled gun, but an "aircraft carrier killer"


      It is quite possible that an aircraft carrier can also be destroyed if it is moored to the wall or on the raid in the affected area of ​​this tank destroyer.
      Given that her rate of fire is not weak, such a machine can smash the deck superstructure of any large ship into the trash in a couple of minutes. And if the crew is highly qualified, then even less.
    2. Dam
      +1
      27 June 2015 16: 07
      Do you have a keyboard pad stuck? You poke your killer aircraft carriers in every topic.
  14. -7
    27 June 2015 14: 36
    Quote: wanderer_032
    It is quite possible that an aircraft carrier can be destroyed if it is moored to the wall or on the roads raids in the affected area of ​​this tank destroyer

    Here I am on this that every slingshot made on the knee in Russia they like to call "the killer of aircraft carriers")). This greatly strengthens the morale due to the lack of its own aircraft carriers and the overall huge gap in the quality and quantity of conventional weapons.
    1. +5
      27 June 2015 15: 53
      [/ Quote]
      This greatly strengthens the morale due to the lack of own aircraft carriers and the overall huge lag in the quality and quantity of conventional weapons. [/ Quote]
      If possible - a little more detail and at least a little with figures about "the lack of their own aircraft carriers" and "a huge gap in the quantity and quality of conventional weapons." And then the impression is about some inadequacy of either the text or its author. Sorry.
      1. +1
        27 June 2015 17: 11
        From clansman - this is, at least, the second comment for today (since a similar one has already come across) specifically about "aircraft carrier killers", and neither the fleet at all, nor the aircraft carriers have anything to do with the article. Something they hooked him. Let them write and comment - after all, the soul was ill with a person, either for our fleet, or for the neighbor. wink
    2. 0
      27 June 2015 22: 09
      Quote: clansman
      Here I am, because they like to call each slingshot made on a knee in Russia

      Another delirium sofa
    3. 0
      28 June 2015 23: 40
      That's right...

      The aircraft carriers with the appearance of the Yak-141 (from which those on which you are faping copied the F-35) are now special and we need.
  15. 0
    27 June 2015 14: 37
    The tower has an interesting shape.
    1. +1
      28 June 2015 16: 13
      Quote: Rubber duck
      The tower has an interesting shape.

      The usual form for increasing bounces from small-caliber shells from the NATO BMP.
  16. +6
    27 June 2015 14: 45
    Hello to all honest people! Allow on behalf of All to summarize the comments of this article.
    1. The author of the article is an idiot (very mildly so to speak smile ) and in technology maybe really does not understand.
    2. This contraption is a test apparatus. Very necessary for the Airborne Forces and the MP, and for the ground forces it is necessary (in some harsh, cold, mountainous, humid jungles and desert areas).
    3. In short - give two. laughing
    1. -3
      27 June 2015 15: 32
      Quote: Pauls_77
      Yes, and for the ground forces it is necessary

      for the ground forces, this module (Octopus) is better to put on Kurganets or on the T-15.
      Strengthen the armor of the tower, put on the T-15 - in general, the test tank succeed.
      1. Russian phoenix
        0
        27 June 2015 15: 54
        Quote: Setrac
        Strengthen the armor of the tower, put on the T-15 - in general, the test tank succeed.


        Twenty-five again ... Tank ...
        Said the self-propelled guns, S A U !
        1. +2
          27 June 2015 16: 37
          Quote: Russian phoenix
          Twenty-five again ... Tank ...
          It is said the SPG, AU!

          Self-propelled guns, tank - a controversial issue in the classification of armored vehicles.
      2. 0
        28 June 2015 16: 21
        1. Kurganets is not yet, it has not passed state tests, and it has much larger dimensions, a shed and not an "ambush tank". at the same time, the Octopus has been in the army since 2006, it has long been run in.
        2. if you put such a tower on the T-15, then it will be a worsened T-90: a cardboard tower, a commander and a gunner in the tower and not an armored capsule, the dimensions are larger, the defense systems against anti-tank missiles have disappeared ...
        1. 0
          28 June 2015 17: 14
          Quote: 4-th Paradise
          if you put such a tower on the T-15, then it will be a deteriorated T-90: a cardboard tower, a commander and a gunner in the tower and not an armored capsule

          Well, blyablin, what kind of kindergarten? T-15 "decl" is heavier, and the tower can be strengthened. And the T-14 is clearly not enough for everyone, it is too high-tech, expensive, 2600 units are clearly not enough for our army.
          1. 0
            8 July 2015 01: 59
            Quote: Setrac
            Well, blyablin, what kind of kindergarten? T-15 "decl" is heavier, and the tower can be strengthened.

            1. How do you know which tower the T-14 has? She is covered with a casing on top.
            2. With an increase in armor, the size will increase, and significantly. But this does not guarantee an increase in security.
            Do you know that the frontal armor of the T-72 - T-90 has voids on the sides of the gun? Exploded armor. This is not the case in the Octopus tower. The T-72 tower narrows to the stern, this increases the likelihood of a reakoshet when hit from the side. Etc. .
            3. Do you repeat about the place for the landing?
  17. snc
    0
    27 June 2015 15: 21
    A bunch of Chrysanthemum + Vienna completely will be more effective as a PT tool and as art support, and if they are also upgraded ... Built on the same chassis.
  18. +4
    27 June 2015 15: 45
    Quote: Kaiten
    Since then, the means of conducting tank combat have changed somewhat. This system is primarily intended for fighting tanks. Using her as an ambush anti-tank gun makes her a system of one or two shots. Return will arrive almost immediately.

    This system is intended, INCLUDED, for firing at enemy armored means, but not only. What is at least the same "assortment" of weapons used? Means of combat change regularly. Even during one battle, and not just since the Patriotic War. But the principles of combat have remained practically unchanged since the time of Sun Tzu. And how many shots to make from an ambush depends on the situation and on the task of the ambush. Sometimes one shot is enough. Well, no one has canceled the return line since the time of archers. I am sure that those in ambush also guess about its capabilities, just like you and me.
  19. -1
    27 June 2015 17: 00
    Good technique, as I have already mentioned. Now I would like to note the following: in the third article in the press (twice on "VO") about "Octopus", and at least twice on TV repeated (each friend, of course, licked) I observe the following: "... 500 hp engine develops 500 hp ...". It pleases, of course, but what is the achievement? And how much should he develop?
    Citizens journalists - be: a) literate; b) honest; c) truthful; d) do not steal cliches and stamps from each other; e) stick a tongue twister into your materials less "unprecedented analogues"for she has already nagged.
  20. 0
    27 June 2015 18: 59
    Good afternoon!
    I would like to ask a question.
    In the program, the training ground struck me as the scene of transmitting Target Designations to the Octopus on the walkie-talkie.

    Does the newest Octopus system have a digital target acquisition and guidance system?

    Very interesting opinion of experts
  21. -1
    27 June 2015 19: 59
    Quote: Inok10
    Quote: avt
    Foresight, as you see, was deceived - not by experts - by whole leaders, including the dead woman Popovkin.

    .. and, I know other surnames .. Margelov, Shamanov .. I can imagine what kind of "howl" stood when Margelov defended BMD-1 .. well, about "Nona" in general, it's just not worth talking about .. a couple of today's "constructive critics "in GRAU, our airborne forces would not have had a 2S23" Nona ".. hi


    At the time of Ochakov and the conquest of the Crimea, the main task of the Airborne Forces was a strategic airborne defense from 150 km (in the case of a nuclear-free conflict, even more in a nuclear one) into the depth of the enemy's defense and then, the airborne force was strengthened by the MSD (with the appearance of the AN-22, one of six tank battalions of the division). Already in Afghanistan, the Airborne Forces had to be transplanted from the BMD to the T-62 and BMP-2. Now they announced the creation of tank battalions as part of the Airborne Forces, in the American 18th Airborne Forces there are 3 mechanized division-249 Abrams tanks. Now, there is neither a sufficient number of military vehicles, nor groups similar to the motorized mechanized army of the SA, there are anti-tank systems in every compartment, RPGs, anti-tank reactive (including for the M-203) can have any soldier - inattention to the protection of the ACS is somewhat alarming, all the more most of the "Sprut" functions are covered by the BMD-4, Nona weapons complex.
  22. 0
    27 June 2015 20: 52
    The latest communication complex has frequency modulation and technical masking.
    Quite an ambiguous phrase. Frequency modulation is simply a mode of operation at VHF frequencies. Used since the time of the king of peas at all VHF radio stations. There is nothing new in it. Technical masking is one of the operating modes of the radio station of the Aqueduct complex. This complex is now used on all equipment. It’s not correct to present all this as something unprecedented.
  23. 0
    28 June 2015 10: 51
    If the gun is so powerful, why not install it
    on the T-90 and Armata?
    1. 0
      28 June 2015 12: 48
      Quote: voyaka uh
      If the gun is so powerful, why not install it
      on the T-90 and Armata?

      The gun was developed on the basis of the tank 125mm 2A46 and differs from it only in a much longer recoil in order to reduce the load on the light body.

      On Armata stands 125mm 2A82, which is much more powerful
    2. +1
      28 June 2015 12: 50
      because that's why the gun is more powerful on the T-14, that's all and
  24. +1
    28 June 2015 16: 20
    For MP, it’s just an excellent technique, it opens up new possibilities for landing.
  25. 0
    28 June 2015 20: 10
    Well, um. The best is in the army!
  26. -2
    29 June 2015 19: 48
    What for is a cardboard miracle? Range like a tank, firepower like a tank, and armor cardboard. Where is the advantage over the opponent?
    It would be better if they made a new nona based on bmd-4m.
  27. +1
    6 July 2015 23: 08
    Have seen a comp game and give advice! As in the joke about the rail and the chainsaw ... Light self-propelled guns are support for the infantry in the offensive and its stability in defense. She needs to act for infantry orders. Then more than one Stryker will blaze on the horizon ... Well, so it is clear to everyone that a tank will destroy a light self-propelled gun in an oncoming battle. But you need to remember the story and look at it periodically. Remember the 41 year and the Sturmgeschutz Panzerwaffe ... Wehrmacht fire support was at its best. And then our SU-76! If you use it foolishly as a tank, it burned like a candle, and if you use it wisely, there was no price for it. It all depends on the management and interaction of the combat arms. Skillfully and beat the witch! Not everywhere tanks will be poked ....
  28. 0
    8 July 2015 15: 53
    "There are no other machines in the world with such a powerful 125 mm gun" .... Super. Apparently only "Armata" with a new 152 mm cannon will surpass this device. It's a pity not a word about super armor. I wonder how long until complete destruction will be able to fire while lying on the bottom 5 km away. from the enemy on the "Abrams" this dream of the Airborne Forces and the Marine Corps?

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar people (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned), Kirill Budanov (included to the Rosfinmonitoring list of terrorists and extremists)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev Lev; Ponomarev Ilya; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; Mikhail Kasyanov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"