Military Review

Breakthrough robots

Due to the modernization of the withdrawn equipment it is possible to drastically reduce the loss of troops in the offensive.

For ground forces, one of the most difficult and dangerous types of combat is an attack to break through a pre-fortified defense. An appropriate combat vehicle system and effective tactics for their use are needed. Modern motorized rifle subunits do not satisfy these conditions.

What is a fortified defense? For example, a motorized rifle platoon of the Russian army defends a zone of up to 400 meters along the front and up to 300 meters in depth. In the platoon stronghold, trenches are created for infantry fighting vehicles, tanks, Armored personnel carriers, guns, anti-tank forces, long-term firing points are being erected. The front edge of the defense creates a zone of continuous multi-layer fire, as well as anti-tank and anti-personnel minefields and wire fences.

Damage number and skill

The tactics of attack of a motorized rifle company depend primarily on the combat vehicle system, which is in service with the army. Currently, the Land Forces are armed with tanks (T-72, T-80, T-90) and infantry fighting vehicles (BMP-1, BMP-2, BMP-3).

In the current Combat Regulations of the Ground Forces, it is prescribed that a platoon stronghold should attack a company on the 500 meters as part of three motorized rifle platoons and a tank platoon, that is, three tanks and 10 BMPs, only 103 people and 13 combat vehicles. Other units can be attached to the company (anti-tank, engineering ...) There are a number of fundamental flaws:

1. The speed of a company in attack is determined by the capabilities of the soldiers advancing on foot, that is, five to seven kilometers per hour. Obviously, the faster the attack, the less the loss of the attackers.

2. Poor minefield overcoming. If the tanks have mine trawls, then they make three passes through which, with continuous multi-tiered fire, the defenders must go through the 63 man and the 10 BMP in turn. At the same time, the combat order of the company is disrupted, which inevitably leads to large losses in manpower and equipment.

3. The soldiers are armed with machine guns and anti-tank grenade launchers, of little use for fighting dots, tanks dug in the ground, infantry fighting vehicles, armored personnel carriers and soldiers hidden in full profile trenches. Whereas the attackers are essentially defensive targets for the defenders. BMPs that move behind motorized riflemen also have little chance of surviving an attack.

Although before and during the attack, the defense is subjected to artillery and mortar attacks, aviation and missile forces, the experience of past wars shows: it is not possible to completely suppress the defense.

"Armata" and "Kurganets" will not change anything. After adopting these machines for an attack with a fortified defense, as prescribed by the Battle Regulations, they will have the same drawbacks as the T-72, T-80, T-90 and BMP-2, BMP-3, which now stand. That is, motorized rifle companies, and in this case remain inefficient with the attack of a fortified defense.

The question arises: what kind of attack tactics are necessary for a successful breakthrough of the enemy’s fortified defense and what is the need for a combat vehicle system?

Robots in the forefront

In order to minimize human and material losses during an attack of a fortified defense, it is necessary to create robotic companies (PP), armed with tanks and infantry fighting vehicles, also remotely-controlled combat robots (DMRs) and assault vehicles (CMM).

Breakthrough robots

The simplest robotic military equipment is remotely controlled by the operator using a cable or radio channel.

An experimental robotic complex based on the T-72 was created in Russia, providing remote control of a tank at a distance of up to two kilometers. With the help of repeaters, the distance over which remote control is possible can be increased many times.

PP can be created relatively quickly. It is expedient to develop the CMM based on the modernization of T-72, T-80 on the Armata or T-90 platforms. To convert a tank into a CMM, you need to replace the combat compartment with a new, equipped 152-mm howitzer, 30-mm cannon, 7,62-mm machine gun, horizontal automatic loader. Howitzer barrel per ton is lighter than a millimeter 125 tank gun, the angle of elevation is up to 60 degrees. The tank howitzer can fire Msta for ammunition - high-explosive fragmentation projectiles (OFS) 3ОФ64, whose effectiveness is four times higher than that of the 125-mm tank IFC 3ОФ26. The 152-mm 3-O-13 cassette is all the more effective than the 125-mm tank OFS 3OF26 for splitting action on open targets. The “Krasnopol” guided missile hits targets with a probability of 0,8, while the expenditure of shells decreases by a factor of 10 – 15. The firing range is 13 kilometers, the velocity of the projectile is 500 meters per second.

In the upcoming robotic company there are, in addition to nine 125 caliber guns, millimeters, three 152-mm howitzers with high-explosive fragmentation guided missiles "Krasnopol". This allows you to conduct a contactless fight with the enemy at a distance of 13 kilometers, which provides a reliable defeat of both existing and prospective armored vehicles, as well as other targets, both from closed and from open positions.

For contactless combat, a company commander must have the necessary means that cannot be based solely on the GLONASS space navigation system because of its weak security - in case of a large-scale war, it is necessary to create local protected army reconnaissance, targeting, navigation, communications and control systems.

In the USSR there were no assault vehicles, which led to large losses of tanks and self-propelled guns in urban battles. For example, in Berlin in 1945, at least a thousand of our combat vehicles were destroyed. In Russia, there is also no similar technology. Hence, large losses of equipment in urban battles, for example, in Grozny in 1995, the 225 combat vehicles were shot down.

Echelons go on the attack

When using a system of four types of vehicles - OCR, CMM, tanks and infantry fighting vehicles, it is advisable to use the following attack tactics in three echelons when breaking through a fortified defense.

In the first, six MFA trawlers are attacked. Their main task is to make passages in minefields for combat vehicles with crews and conduct reconnaissance in battle. OUBRs stop at the front edge of the defense at a distance safe from breaking their ammunition, and destroy live firing points and infantry in the first trench from the scene.

In the second echelon, three tanks and three CMMs go over to the attack behind an OUBR at a distance of 0,2 – 2 kilometers. The distance depends on the firing time of the defense, and the longer it is, the greater must be the distance between the first and second echelons. After breaking through the tanks and the CMM in the platoon's stronghold, they suppress those firing points that survived the missile, artillery, mortar and bombing attacks on defense.

In the third echelon, seven infantry fighting vehicles are moving, the troops of which dismount at the edge of the defense under the guise of fire from an OAK, tanks and a CMM. The riflemen suppress the remaining manpower and prepare to repel a counterattack. Then a similar attack is carried out on the second line of defense, and so on.

Thus, six DUBRs (1-th echelon), three CMM and three tanks (2-th echelon) and seven BMP (3-th echelon) participate in the operation. In total, there is a person in the attacking company 82, which is 21 less than the payroll of the modern MSR, attacking in one echelon, but in three lines, as required by the Battle Regulations. The cost of a company’s new weapons with an OAK and a CMM is higher, but the casualties will be minimal, and the likelihood of defense breakthrough becomes maximum.

PP have no fundamental flaws. They attack three to four times faster, effectively overcome minefields, provide better protection for motorized infantry during an attack. In terms of firepower (the number of CFCs in a volley), the RR is seven times greater than the firepower of the MSR, it is able to fight on a distance of up to 13 kilometers.

Attacking units face the task of countering modern anti-tank weapons, as well as electronic warfare systems. To solve it, tanks, infantry fighting vehicles must have both individual and collective protection. Attacking companies must be reconnaissance-strike complex, included in a single tactical unit control system.

Not yet called robots

What if tomorrow is war, and the rifle units are unsuitable for breaking through a fortified defense? Let us consider the possible rational tactics of breaking through the fortified defense using the weapons currently used by the Ground Forces: T-72, T-80, T-90, and BMP-3, BMP-2 and BMP-1 tanks.

In this case, in the first echelon, six tanks with mine-sweepers attack the fortified defense, in the second echelon - six tanks, and in the third echelon - seven infantry fighting vehicles with motorized infantry. Further, the attack develops in the same way as in the case of PP. Before and during an attack on defense, mortar, rocket-artillery, and bombing strikes are inflicted, especially on strongholds near the first and second trenches. This option should be used to train the troops to effectively attack a fortified defense.

The troops, even before the creation of the DUBR and the CMM, must work out a combined attack in three echelons against the fortified defense, using the equipment available in service, which will ensure a continuous increase in combat capability. For this, it is necessary to make appropriate changes to the Ground Forces Combat Regulations.

The main disadvantage of using only tanks to break through fortified defense is that they are not sufficiently adapted to combat anti-tank weapons and are unsuitable in battles in the city and the mountains. A small angle of elevation of the gun does not allow firing from closed positions and on the upper floors of buildings in the mountains. Therefore, in order to break through a fortified defense, assault vehicles must be involved with tanks that have great firepower and are capable of fighting not only in the field, but also where the tactics of the battle must be different. In this case, soldiers, as a rule, dismount and they must be supported by assault vehicles.

Compare the composition and structure of the MSR and PP, which are directly involved in the attack. Both companies have 13 combat vehicles with crews, but there are an additional six robot tanks in the RR. The number of soldiers and officers involved in the attack, in the MSR and PP respectively 103 and 82 person. The firepower of the PP is seven times higher.

Let's compare the composition and structure for those parts of the motorized rifle and robotic brigades (RB), which participate in the attack on the fortified defense. In this case, the number of vehicles with crews is almost the same in the MSC and RB, but in Belarus there is an additional 54 tank robot, although there are more soldiers and officers in the 280 MSC.

At present, of those tanks that are in service with the Russian army, it is possible to form robotic brigades capable of penetrating a fortified defense. For example, to create 30 RB you need 2430 tanks: 810 must be upgraded into assault vehicles and converted into 1620 into robots. It is advisable to use the equipment removed from service, but retained combat capability. This is the fastest and cheapest way. Of course, a longer and more expensive way of creating assault brigades is possible - the development of new specialized vehicles for solving the above tasks.
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Alekseev-Orsk
    Alekseev-Orsk 23 September 2015 14: 41
    Interesting idea. But the main thing is that SkyNet does not get out of control, otherwise it will be "Terminator 5. Rise of tank power", because the first film began with this))))
    1. Now we are free
      Now we are free 23 September 2015 14: 48
      Not very pleased with the photo at the beginning of the article with Ukrainian and not Russian soldiers ... On the soldiers of "Dubka" - the old uniform of the Armed Forces of Ukraine ... The photo was taken even before the DB on "Donbass", since two stripes have not yet been applied to the BTR-80 "Pregnant" signifying his belonging to the troops of the Junta.

      Dear editors of VO, is it possible that on the Internet there were no photos with motorized rifles of the Russian army?
      1. afdjhbn67
        afdjhbn67 23 September 2015 15: 03
        Currently, of the tanks that are in service with the Russian army, it is possible to form robotic brigades capable of breaking through the fortified defense. For example, to create 30 RB 2430 tanks are needed: 810 to be upgraded to assault vehicles and 1620 to be converted into robots.

        the author tasted good .. reread the fantasy?
        1. pilot8878
          pilot8878 23 September 2015 18: 46
          Currently, of the tanks that are in service with the Russian army, it is possible to form robotic brigades capable of breaking through the fortified defense. For example, to create 30 RB 2430 tanks are needed: 810 to be upgraded to assault vehicles and 1620 to be converted into robots.

          "Where is the money, Zin?" (from)
          1. crazyrom
            crazyrom 23 September 2015 22: 27
            Where at the very beginning it is written 1) 2) 3) everything is easily solved by 1 the only Buratina.
      2. Uncle VasyaSayapin
        Uncle VasyaSayapin 23 September 2015 15: 09
        Also with Ksenia both hold on to the store. What kind of troops are these. Aero tombs?
      3. Nevsky_ZU
        Nevsky_ZU 23 September 2015 15: 36
        Quote: Now we are free
        Not very pleased with the photo at the beginning of the article with Ukrainian and not Russian soldiers ... On the soldiers of "Dubka" - the old uniform of the Armed Forces of Ukraine ... The photo was taken even before the DB on "Donbass", since two stripes have not yet been applied to the BTR-80 "Pregnant" signifying his belonging to the troops of the Junta.

        Absolutely agree, ours are better and more beautiful
        1. Throw
          Throw 23 September 2015 17: 42
          The idea of ​​robotization has been around for a long time, but smoothly on paper only. Plus some theses upside down.
          PP have no fundamental flaws. They attack three to four times faster, effectively overcome minefields, provide better protection for motorized infantry during an attack. In terms of firepower (the number of CFCs in a volley), the RR is seven times greater than the firepower of the MSR, it is able to fight on a distance of up to 13 kilometers.

          - There are a lot of fundamental flaws, the main one is the vulnerability of control channels. It will be sad if one electronic warfare machine or a projectile with a VMG "extinguish" the entire RR at the most interesting moment.
          -And where does "3-4 times faster" come from ?? Remote control cars move slowly, robots - a teaspoon per hour.
          - What is more effective in overcoming minefields? Spoken chtoli?
          -Krasnopol and its 13 kilometers- in order for them to hit the target you need to highlight, as I remember, seconds 15, which is long. And this should be done by the DRG, drones choke on military air defense.
      4. RUSS
        RUSS 23 September 2015 17: 28
        Quote: Now we are free
        Not very pleased with the photo at the beginning of the article with Ukrainian and not Russian soldiers ..

        Such bloopers just kill, how can one be so not careful to insert a picture of the armed forces of a neighboring state? fool
    2. varov14
      varov14 23 September 2015 16: 35
      First of all, you need to think about ordinary ordinary Ivan. The offensive zone just needs to be burned out and the corresponding shells are easier and cheaper to come up with, you should not spare the enemy, the war is not up to humanity, why not climb into someone else's territory.
  2. lopvlad
    lopvlad 23 September 2015 14: 42
    “Armata” and “Kurganets” will not change anything.

    Another storyteller who sleeps and sees the war of drones. As soon as the world begins to move en masse to combat robots, many will have equipment for their remote incapacitation.
    In a war against terrorist entities without a solid front line, these robots will suck out the entire state budget.
    1. tomket
      tomket 23 September 2015 15: 01
      Quote: lopvlad
      another storyteller who sleeps and sees a war of drones.

      There was already one such in 37. Tukhachevsky was called.
      1. avdkrd
        avdkrd 23 September 2015 20: 24
        Quote: tomket
        There was already one such in 37. Tukhachevsky was called.

        Tukhachevsky was beyond good and evil - 100 thousand tanks bursting into Europe ..... Although many breakthrough projects were supported by him, for example, the same RS which later became Katyusha, as far as I remember Taubin, who was decades ahead of the trend of "pocket artillery" with his automatic grenade launcher, recoilless guns - unfortunately not brought to mind, and much more.
        1. strannik1985
          strannik1985 24 September 2015 08: 08
          Taubin, decades ahead of the trend of "pocket artillery" with his automatic grenade launcher, recoilless guns - unfortunately not brought to mind, and much more.

          And if he was engaged in combat lasers, also a "breakthrough idea"?
          In total, in 1931-1935. factories produced more than 5000 land, sea and aviation guns of Kurchevsky, that is, from 30 to 50% of the number ordered. Military envoys received no more than 2000 guns from industry, and only about 1000 fell into the troops. However, the tools that entered the service were quickly written off or transferred to the training category. By November 1, 1936, there were 563 Kurchevsky guns in the army: 73 - 37 mm anti-tank guns of Kurchevsky, 85 - 76 mm self-propelled guns SPK and 405 - 76 mm battalion guns BOD.
          Well, in the fleet until 1938 there were several dozen 76-mm CPC boat guns.

          In 1939-1940 no more than a dozen SECs took part in the Winter War with Finland. As a result, one 76-mm SPK was on display at the Military Museum in Helsinki.

          And by June 22, 1941, the troops did not have a single Kurchevsky gun. And this despite the fact that before the war, our gunners tried to save everything that could be. For example, the fortified areas were armed with hundreds of 1877 guns.
          Shirokorad A. B. "Tukhachevsky's big bluff. How the Red Army was rearmed."
    2. razzhivin
      razzhivin 23 September 2015 16: 16
      In total, in the attacking company 82 of a person, which is 21 less than the current payroll

      in the described idea there is one CRITICALLY IMPORTANT principle for our country - the reduction in the number of troops ... the country is experiencing another cycle of demographic decline, and compared to potential opponents, Russia is no longer the USSR ...
      therefore, in my opinion, any decisions leading to the reduction of our troops (and potential losses) NEED TO BE CONSIDERED !!! negative
      Israel’s experience is not bad ... request
  3. The comment was deleted.
  4. GX1
    GX1 23 September 2015 15: 19
    The first attackers are practically suicide bombers
  5. S-cream
    S-cream 23 September 2015 16: 10
    The time of continuous fronts is over. No one will fence the lines of Stalin, Mannerheim, etc. Therefore, the tactics of use described in this text are nonsense. This does not negate the fact that such remote-controlled complexes and objects will not be used in special cases. However, it is not difficult to hammer the radio air with "white noise", so we will control the tanks via cable? Well, if in a battle the cable is broken, then the equipment will simply stand in the field, unable to do anything but be a large stationary target?
  6. Riv
    Riv 23 September 2015 16: 15
    The author, in my opinion, has a very distant idea of ​​tactics. The defense of a motorized rifle platoon described by him, firstly: it is not fortified, and secondly: it is “drawn” by an amateur who somehow mastered the chapter of the combat manual. And the attack ... 100500 radio-controlled tanks ... :))) Well, over there!

    For that matter - why does a radio-controlled tank need armor at all? It is weakly vulnerable to cumulative ammunition and heavy machine guns. A cumulative jet in an empty casing will not harm anyone. That is, you need a lightweight caterpillar platform (yes, a gun is also not needed!), Without active protection, a height of less than a meter, which can be driven into the enemy’s position and stupidly mix the trenches with the tracks. While the defense is having fun with it, the attacking infantry approaches.

    In general, there is no need to invent anything. The Germans used Goliath remotely controlled tankettes back in that war. The result was absolutely scanty.
  7. The comment was deleted.
  8. Altona
    Altona 23 September 2015 18: 58

    ISIS is sending another "robot" to the Syrian positions ...
    1. Slobber
      Slobber 23 September 2015 19: 28
      Teach the spirit part, to cry after a joint dua and send off to an explosion, such as "aravai, 72 sheep after death, alah-babakh-great" - sacred.
  9. strannik1985
    strannik1985 23 September 2015 19: 04
    That is, motorized rifle companies, in this case too, remain not operational when attacking a fortified defense.

    This is the conclusion. Oh, these stupid generals in the General Staff of the USSR and the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, it turns out that they did not know that the MSR was "incapable" when attacking a fortified defense.
    I wonder what are the shortcomings in the tactics of the "traditional" MSR when attacking a fortified zone?
  10. leon1204id
    leon1204id 23 September 2015 21: 16
    Star-stripes until they bomb 100 times and make sure that no one is already there, they will not step on the ground, and the pillbox or bunker for them is a real success, still bomb. wassat
  11. TOR2
    TOR2 23 September 2015 21: 41
    There is a lot of work in this direction and some breakthrough solutions will probably be created already in the process of using robotic systems.
    As for control systems, radio systems must also be duplicated by optical ones. In a classical optical network, a signal is transmitted by a narrowly directed light beam to a receiving photodiode at the other end of the network. The received light signal is demodulated and converted into a communication protocol. In our case, instead of a single IR LED, a matrix is ​​placed covering a certain area. So the photodetector can jump as much as you like. This is of course an extremely simplified version.
    In addition, all robotic systems will need to be able to transmit data along the chain in case direct communication is not possible. Modern data transmission systems can handle such traffic. And of course, if the military-industrial complex creates something more perfect, in the civilian sector it will go simply with a bang.
    1. Gloomstar
      Gloomstar 23 September 2015 23: 10
      Yeah, a little smoke and a photoresistor will help nothing, and you can’t use the aerosol to protect the robot anymore, what’s the bad way to control the wires, in extreme cases, if the line is broken, let it move back along the remembered route, 2 km for the wires is a very normal distance if the distance is bigger, there’s no sense in them at all, no matter how smart and manageable they are, and it’s more advisable to make a separate platform that will be smaller, easier, faster and cheaper, and it’s not so bad if they beat it, and even then we In the 21st century, it is doubtful that someone will give the order to advance to well-fortified positions without processing by artillery or from the air, and after processing, there is nothing special for the robot to do, because there will be spot work that is remotely difficult to perform
      1. TOR2
        TOR2 24 September 2015 10: 31
        Quote: GloomStar
        Yeah, a little smoke and a photoresistor will not help

        This is not the main, but an additional way of communication. If the good old wires withstand such an execution, then why not. It turns out the control system duplicated three times. Radio channel, wires, optics.
  12. Wolka
    Wolka 24 September 2015 05: 28
    the alignment is good, but all this is in theory, but modern combat is usually fleeting and excludes a frontal attack (like death), and the attack is carried out with high speed of maneuvering on the ground of the assault groups (herringbone), attack robots are possible and effective, but do not forget that the defenders can, in contrast, use electronic warfare means, which completely suppress all radio signals in the direction of the attackers' attacks, thus, attack robots become useless, it is human resources and fire support weapons that are controlled mechanically, as well as maneuver and speed ...
  13. TOR2
    TOR2 24 September 2015 10: 56
    Quote: Volka
    in contrast to use electronic warfare

    Yes, you need to be prepared for this already at the development stage. Duplication of communication systems, as discussed above. A communication module having narrowly directed antennas and capable of autonomously tuning them. EW countermeasures are the same as armor and projectile competition.
  14. An60
    An60 24 September 2015 15: 06
    "Until robots were called" - the author does not know the history! There was such an office in the USSR before the Great Patriotic War, "Ostekhbyuro" headed by V.I. Bekauri. Robot aircraft, robot boats, robot tanks, robot submarines ( !!!).
  15. Mikhail3
    Mikhail3 25 September 2015 00: 01
    Ohoho ... Who are we going to fight with? How was it in an old Soviet film about the army? "What are our teachings designed for? That the enemy is deaf, blind, and d.rak." Well, let's decide who our enemy will be, for whose sake we will have to launch a full-scale offensive.
    ISIS? That is, the current version of guerrilla warfare. How effective will this robot be against them? Almost no matter how much. They will not defend fortified points, they simply do not need it. They throw heavier trunks, having previously used up the ammunition of anti-tank weapons, and they will dissipate.
    Iraq? That is, a regular army of a country that is neither too strong nor too weak. Well, it seems, yes ... "in a fair fight you could have won. But where did you see him, an honest fight?" Well, let it not be a tank with a crew, but a robot. How will this increase attack speed? The movement speed of an armored combat unit is limited by the strength of its suspension. Tanks do not move faster across the battlefield, not because the crew will shake. But because the heavy armor will tear itself to pieces, break on bumps. And there is one more minor detail. Any robotic combat unit will not last even half a minute in the depths of enemy positions without support. They will burn it. Strictly speaking, because "the tanks are followed by the infantry, as the military regulations say."
    And something else. What is needed in order to defeat a high-tech army, which had swapped billions and billions into weapons? You just need to let her, this army, run. To ride. To shoot. Given the time between failures of modern high-tech weapons, you can even not shoot at them. In a couple of weeks, just moving, all this formidable machinery will be in the repair rooms with no chance of an early return to duty. The more complicated this is, the more tender it is. More vulnerable. The less this weapon lives ...

    A large war can be won only by simple weapons. Simple, unpretentious, powerful and not a robotic gram. In the hands of skilled, tough, highly motivated fighters. The site will be constantly attacked by robots. Because the robotization of our army is the most cherished dream of our potential adversary. The same Cold War tactic is to bury an adversary’s economy with mountains of incredibly expensive and completely unnecessary weapons. Well, our opponents reasonably hope to intercept combat control ...
  16. Mentat
    Mentat 25 September 2015 02: 15
    The author of the article and many of its readers do not understand the main reason for the robotization of troops - the preservation of manpower, the most valuable resource. There are other serious advantages in the future: a very significant reduction in economic costs, an increase in the pace and density of the battle, a multiple increase in the effectiveness of reconnaissance on the ground, and simplification of the withdrawal of databases outside their territory. However, these are distant prospects that are unattainable without a breakthrough in the field of autonomy of such systems.