Military Review

How to re-airborne?

86
Airborne Phenomenon


Already in the World War (World War 2), the parties had large airborne units. At that time, the airborne units had the opportunity to fight on equal (or almost equal) against rifle divisions. Here is the staff of the rifle division of the Red Army in August 1941 year:
4. The rifle divisions shall be composed as follows:
People - 11.447 people.
Horses - 2.698 goal.
Rifles - 8.844
Hand Guns - 162
PPSH - 162
Machine Guns - 108
37-mm or 25-mm anti-aircraft guns - 6
45-mm cannons - 18
12,7-mm anti-aircraft machine guns - 9
or 25-mm anti-aircraft guns - 4
76-mm Regiment Cannons - 12
76-mm divisional cannons - 16
Howitzer 122-mm - 8
Mortars 50-mm - 81
Mortars 82-mm - 54
Mortars 120-mm - 18
Passenger cars - 4
Truck Vehicles - 192
Car Special - 5
Tractors - 15

However, during the 50s and 60s, rifle divisions received a qualitative strengthening. They surpassed the whole in their combat capabilities (that is, in combat effectiveness) tank Army of the Great Patriotic War. Motorized rifle divisions (with normal training of personnel) turned into a powerful military complex capable of solving the widest range of combat missions.

We will not analyze in detail. We can only say that one battalion of a motorized rifle division was comparable in firepower with a whole division of the August 41 model. Some tanks and self-propelled guns in a motorized rifle division are larger than 300!

Particularly intensified "auxiliary" division services. Rear, anti-aircraft missile, reconnaissance, engineer, etc.

And what about Airborne? The specificity of parachute landing from airplanes has become a decisive and almost insurmountable obstacle to the arming of the airborne infantry. Marines almost did not lag behind in the armament of motorized riflemen. Fleet is fleet. The ship takes on board in 1000 (a thousand) times the load and weapons. By the time the Airborne Forces received the legendary Margelov, the paratroopers were armed almost exclusively with light weapons. Without tanks, practically without artillery, with very weak support services.

Considering the above, as well as a lot of other unpleasant specifics of airborne landing, even taking into account the experience of the Patriotic War, when the Germans simply pushed the large Allied landing party in the Netherlands with tanks and artillery, Margelov faced a difficult task. The main emphasis he made on the psychological training of personnel of the Airborne Forces.

Changed and tactics. From almost infantry to speed, sabotage. Leap is a waste.

In 1969, they adopted the BMD-1, a high-speed and multi-gun model.

But the main thing was psychological preparation. Vests and berets appeared. Increased health requirements for conscripts in the Airborne Forces. Began to train to use any available means as a weapon. Who served in the Airborne Forces, not once heard the words: “You are suicide bombers. You are calculated for two hours of battle! ”Since the stock of ammunition is designed for two hours of intense offensive combat. Then - butts and boots. Who than can.

Began to teach hand-to-hand combat and unleash the landing party brand in the media. Around the beginning of the seventies, border guards used the greatest respect for children (and indeed civilians). And it is clear why. But the daring, well-fed, trained paratroopers began to come and fight with their hands and feet began to arrive at the demob. Yes, and in the form, beautiful like a hussar. They moved the border guards. A television and film were to help them.

Soldiers come to the demob without weapons. Tankers without tanks. Sailors without battleships. And if ten paratroopers could beat ten tankers almost always or ten gunners, it caused respect.

So the airborne phenomenon began to arise. The logic was simple. If they are stronger than anyone in civilian life, then they are all the more powerful on the battlefield too. The leadership of the army supported this phenomenon, since the acceptable level of combat capability of the airborne forces was kept solely on the belief in their own strength.

Anyway to drastically improve the armament of the Airborne Forces did not work out, despite numerous experimentation. For example, attempts to dump cars with crews. The fact is that after landing, the crews searched for their cars on their walkie-talkies. With one jamming, it was possible to completely disorganize the discarded division.

By the way. Parachute landing was not used in Afghanistan. Except for one tricky case when a massive landing party was depicted, and the gear was stuffed with stones and sticks. Dushmans were glad that not a single shuravi would reach the earth alive. Meanwhile, the reconnaissance aircraft transferred to the artillerymen the exact coordinates of all the firing positions of the dushmans. After the artillery worked, ours just went to the pass. There was no one to resist.

Recently there was information that our Minister of Defense hastily formed two armies. One tank and one combined arms. In addition, there are plenty of signs that a full-scale war is possible with a regular army of a strong country, or with a coalition army from several countries. And at the same time, in their armed forces, the current divisions of the Airborne Forces are not able to hold defenses at the front, or to attack (at the front) the front edge of the enemy defenses.

In one of the Strugatskys' stories there is such a phrase: “The imperial armor moves would pass through them and would not even notice that there is someone here. Walkers ... ”Walkers are not walkers, but in the Airborne Division, the 10 (ten) times less anti-tank weapons in service than in the motorized rifle division. And most importantly! These funds are much weaker and lighter than motorized infantry anti-tank weapons, since they are adapted for parachute landing. Many will argue that the airborne divisions have a different purpose. It's right. In the USSR Army, the Airborne Divisions were intended for transient abdominal operations. However, in those days, the Airborne Forces accounted for barely one (1) percentage of the total land forces of the country. Now almost a fifth.
In addition, military-political circumstances have changed greatly. And there appeared a conviction that there would never be a parachute landing of an entire division. Too risky and adventurous is an operation in the context of a looming full-scale war.

Do we really have to admit that all the accumulated courage and boldness inherent in the paratrooper will go to pieces because the airborne forces are armed too lightly?

I think it's time to abandon the useless dogma of a full parachute landing of the airborne divisions. And to re-equip the Airborne Forces in the state of motorized rifle divisions That is to equip the airborne forces with the most serious weapon. Only with a little specifics. Then we get really strong connections in the world.

And that stupid and insulting can turn out. The landing force will be seated in “cardboard” vehicles, and the infantry will be in impenetrable infantry fighting vehicles based on the Armat tank.

PS There is some understanding of the problem. Testing machines "Sprut". There was information that a tank battalion (31 tank) would be assigned to each airborne division. However, tanks are not subject to parachute landing. And tanks "Armata" are not subject to landing categorically.

The article only indicated the problem. A detailed analysis of this issue requires a large format that does not fit into one article. The author thinks that a discussion of this issue in the Military Review will be useful.
Author:
86 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Good cat
    Good cat 7 November 2015 08: 22 New
    -5
    Chaotic article. How is it that paratroopers are dumped along with the cars, and then they are searched for by radio?
    1. 222222
      222222 7 November 2015 12: 02 New
      +6
      Good cat RU Today, 08:22 New
      Confused article. @
      How to rearm Airborne? @
      ..in the heading of the article QUESTION ???
      1. give everything. Whatever they require. ALL !!!
      2..3. 4 ... see paragraph 1 ...
    2. SOLGA
      SOLGA 7 November 2015 12: 05 New
      0
      will have to merge the Airborne with the Marine Corps)
      1. the most important
        the most important 7 November 2015 13: 15 New
        +8
        And what prevents arming the Airborne Division according to the norms of the motorized rifle division + special equipment ??? Lack of tanks ??? so there is time to rivet the piece of iron in the right amount. And then use this division, depending on the need, as a motorized rifle or amphibious assault. Along this path, the Internal Troops should be reformatted. Even riot police must in time of war become a battalion of motorized infantry. And where are the parts of the territorial defense that are deployed during the day? Partisans are a complete anachronism. The military units (of territorial defense) must be fully staffed with professional training, trained in combat and ready to arrive for deployment within two hours and conduct full-time training deployment two to three times a year. Even if you pay a small salary to the personnel for their constant readiness to arrive in the unit, it is still much cheaper than maintaining the units in constant combat readiness. This will make it possible to increase the number of ground forces two to three times during the day if necessary.
        1. sharp-lad
          sharp-lad 7 November 2015 22: 32 New
          +4
          You offer the Swiss version! A very reasonable and effective concept for the construction of an army reserve.
          I recall one media report: when a very elderly (about 80) Swiss citizen received a summons ordering her to come to the assembly point with her tractor, she paid extra to her employee, who delivered the tractor with the called lady to the indicated address !!! And not a word of complaint! The order was executed accurately and on time.
        2. Dart2027
          Dart2027 7 November 2015 23: 59 New
          +3
          Quote: the most important
          And what prevents arming the Airborne Division according to the norms of the motorized rifle division

          Because their technique must be adapted for airborne landing. And this imposes serious limitations.
    3. The comment was deleted.
    4. ammunition
      7 November 2015 13: 48 New
      +8
      Quote: Good cat
      Chaotic article.


      Right. The article turned out to be chaotic. sad I feel very unwell in recent months.
      ----------
      Quote: Good cat
      How is it that paratroopers are dumped along with the cars, and then they are searched for by radio?


      Cars and crews are dropped separately. Crews (after landing) search for their cars on tiny walkie-talkies on their chests. In the manner of "hunting foxes". After that, the crews free their car from the platform from which the car was dropped. And only then, they take their places.
      -----------------
      I must admit that I know the staff and the specifics of the Airborne Division 30-th ago.
      And I just suppose that now nothing has changed radically.
      I took up the article for all the reasons. There are a lot of them.
      For example - How many BMDs left Afghanistan? And how do they light up from a short line of MDZ cartridges?
      If you see a forester with a PC, then he took this PC from someone not from his division. Etc.
      ---------
      But let's analyze only one question in the commentary. The question is "for the artillery."
      Why did you choose the subsection about artillery? Because the clashes in Ukraine showed that artillery plays the main violin even in a local confrontation.
      -------------
      The commander of a motorized rifle company (as part of the MSD), among other things, has a complete set of artillery support in touch. Mortars, howitzers .. up to heavy MLRS. Moreover, interaction with gunners is established at constant tactical and command post exercises.
      The company commander of the Airborne Forces (after the abandonment) has support for only a limited number of 120 mortars. With a limited supply of ammunition.
      Artillery Regiment in the Airborne Forces ( 30 years ago ) was armed only with cannon artillery of small calibers. Now began to take into service in the Airborne Forces and howitzers. However, howitzers are adapted for parachute landing, that is, lightweight and small-caliber. Again, with a limited supply of shots.
      --------------
      In a word - There is a problem. How to combine high mobility with serious weapons?
      Maybe something complex?
      --------------
      So I hope that someone will express interesting and fresh ideas.
      1. python2a
        python2a 7 November 2015 14: 26 New
        0
        Adopt ekranoplanes.
      2. Franzum
        Franzum 7 November 2015 19: 47 New
        0
        We had 30 years ago the landing party had self-propelled guns-120 which did not land.
      3. boris-1230
        boris-1230 8 November 2015 01: 35 New
        0
        however, howitzers adapted for parachute landing, that is, lightweight and small-caliber. Again, with a limited supply of shots.

        So the Sprut self-propelled gun has a caliber of 120mm. Or am I wrong? hi
        1. ammunition
          8 November 2015 08: 10 New
          +1
          Quote: boris-1230
          So the Sprut self-propelled gun has a caliber of 120mm. Or am I wrong?

          The Octopus adopted for service is a light (and amphibious) tank.
          Caliber - 125. As I understand it, to replace the PT-76. First of all, it will go to the marine corps.
          The Octopus has a gun, like a howitzer, it cannot work.
          --------------
          Octopus is good. fellow although it’s not even a T-72.
    5. brr1
      brr1 7 November 2015 13: 51 New
      +9
      A marker transmitter is fixed on each machine, and the crew has search receivers PP-255, if the memory does not fail. This PCB has a built-in directional antenna on a ferromagnetic core. The crew has 2 such receivers. So after landing, you put on your headphones and start looking for directions from where the signal from the Marker Transmitter comes from. And so you are looking for your car.
  2. Torquemada
    Torquemada 7 November 2015 08: 40 New
    0
    I will not speak about the army of the Russian Federation, but in Belarus the ratio of the number of special operations forces (MTR) and ground forces is 6 to 000, respectively (Wikipedia data).
    At the same time, "MTRs are designed to perform reconnaissance, special and organizational tasks both temporarily captured by the enemy and on their own territory. ... They assume actions by small units in combination with active reconnaissance, ..., secrecy of action" (excerpt from textbook (!) on pre-conscription training).
    Thus, we have 15 thousand ground forces and 6 thousand saboteurs of varying degrees of training. I think the same approach in Russia. But I can hardly imagine a saboteur in a tank.
    1. I love Motherland
      I love Motherland 7 November 2015 11: 42 New
      +1
      And who said that landing is saboteurs? From a saboteur as a rooster from a ballerina. Ordinary soldiers only with a drunken show off on August 2 in the pool. Where there was no foot of an infantry van, there is nothing to talk about hostilities. The infantry is the main one in the war.
      1. 222222
        222222 7 November 2015 12: 08 New
        +7
        I love the Motherland RU Today, 11:42 ↑
        ... on the battlefield .. there are no main ones ... all are important .. and the cook with porridge is even more important ..! 1
      2. erg
        erg 7 November 2015 14: 18 New
        +6
        So the airborne forces are the infantry. According to the old army classification, it refers to light infantry. It’s light, not because it has lightweight equipment, etc., but because it performs specific tasks on the battlefield and accordingly differs in tactics from ordinary infantry. For example, it differs by faster maneuvers, speed of movement, etc. In the old days, tasks similar to those of the Airborne Forces were carried out by huntsmen.
    2. gladcu2
      gladcu2 9 November 2015 01: 12 New
      +1
      Torquemada

      You are the only one who started talking about the concept of the use of landing troops.

      The form of supply and organization of the landing troops in the form of a division assumes itself as a form combining the specifics of the troops. But in no case does it recognize and equalize the Airborne Forces with infantry units.

      All airborne vehicles are designed for a semi-guerrilla sabotage war against the weakly armed and not ready for serious resistance to the enemy.

      The use of the Airborne Forces in combined-arms operations is the destruction of a valuable specially prepared human resource.

      The use of the Airborne Forces by the Soviet Union in Afghan operations is justified by the fact that one hundred well-trained soldiers used standard weapons against the enemy with small arms. And that was quite enough.

      Question to the author.

      Don’t you understand the concept of using the Airborne Forces?

      Perhaps my question is rhetorical. Since judging by the article you are well acquainted with the topic.
  3. Zoldat_A
    Zoldat_A 7 November 2015 08: 41 New
    +8
    People, a soldier, his courage, endurance, the ability to survive and win in any conditions are what have always distinguished the Airborne Forces and what makes the Airborne Forces unique troops. For two hours of ammunition, you say, and then with teeth and boots? So for that the enemy of the landing is afraid that he can with his teeth and boots when others do not know what to fight with. That's what they teach specifically.

    And no one ever said to anyone: "You are death row!" A dead soldier cannot destroy the enemy, and therefore is useless. The main task of the landing is to remain alive where others would have been killed five times, and to destroy the enemy. Survive and fight. The only way.

    I have a feeling that the author of an article for the Airborne Forces is like me for a ballet ... But I’m used to not talking about what I don’t understand. It is better to remain silent than to stupidly freeze. Bad article.
    1. ROD VDVshny
      ROD VDVshny 7 November 2015 09: 48 New
      +2
      Quote: Zoldat_A
      I have a feeling that the author of an article for the Airborne Forces is like me for a ballet ...

      You are right.
      "Those who served in the Airborne Forces have heard the words:" You are suicide bombers. You are designed for two hours of combat! "
      fool fool fool
      1. I love Motherland
        I love Motherland 7 November 2015 11: 44 New
        +3
        I serve in the 2 Tatsin Panzer Division in Mongolia in Choibalsan. We were also told that we are for two hours ....
        1. sharp-lad
          sharp-lad 7 November 2015 22: 46 New
          0
          This is the whole division, a separate tank - about five minutes and then if you're lucky !!! belay
        2. sharp-lad
          sharp-lad 7 November 2015 22: 46 New
          0
          This is the whole division, a separate tank - about five minutes and then if you're lucky !!! belay
          1. aspid19
            aspid19 7 November 2015 22: 56 New
            +1
            That is, after two weeks of fighting, all our tanks will end? If you're lucky? I thought that we have 20.000 tanks.
            1. Zoldat_A
              Zoldat_A 8 November 2015 06: 42 New
              +1
              Quote: aspid19
              That is, after two weeks of fighting, all our tanks will end? If you're lucky? I thought that we have 20.000 tanks.

              According to the author of the article, the Airborne Forces will end even earlier. As soon as the ammunition load ends or the enemy fires at the "cardboard box" for the first time. But the fuck is his hat full!
        3. Denis DV
          Denis DV 8 November 2015 16: 30 New
          0
          And we were told that for five minutes of battle bully
    2. michell
      michell 8 November 2015 11: 32 New
      +4
      Quote: Zoldat_A
      I have a feeling that the author of an article for the Airborne Forces is like me for a ballet ...


      A similar impression. The author calls for strengthening the armament of the Airborne Forces, declares that he is familiar with the tactics of the Airborne Forces. I did not serve in the Airborne Forces, but, as far as I understand, the task of the Airborne Forces is not to conduct combat in the combat formations of the first echelon of troops - these are not infantry or tankers. As far as I know the concept of using the Airborne Forces in Soviet times - landing forces should be thrown into the enemy's near rear right before the start of the offensive of combined-arms armies, their purpose is to capture and hold key communication points - bridges, railway stations, until the main forces (those same tanks and artillery) approach. airfields, or conducting sabotage measures in relation to these objects. Based on these tasks, the armament of the Airborne Forces is sufficient - the units for the protection of communication centers are armed no more seriously than the paratroopers, and the paratrooper's advantage in hand-to-hand combat (taking into account the surprise factor) will play a decisive role. Or, when the airfield is seized, the landing division is thrown out by parachute, captures the airfield, to which the combined arms division is being transferred by the landing method by the VTA aircraft - with the very same tanks and artillery. So, in my humble opinion, "Armata" in the Airborne Forces is too much ...
    3. The comment was deleted.
  4. Horly
    Horly 7 November 2015 09: 19 New
    +4
    I still do not understand the answer to the question asked in the title of the article - how exactly does the author of the article propose to rearm the Airborne Forces? And most importantly - what tasks should be set for them? From the text I understood what to bring to the level of motorized infantry formations. The question is how to use them then? By the way, regarding the use - Ukraine has already demonstrated how to use such formations as motorized infantry - as a result, the troops began to be called "air grave" among the people, since it was the stupid use of battalion tactical groups as the nucleus in defense breakthroughs that led to huge losses. So it makes sense to create troops in accordance with the tasks in the required quantity, although here there is really a bias - to create airborne divisions, while leaving the brigades with motorized riflemen is, to put it mildly, idiocy
  5. rudolff
    rudolff 7 November 2015 10: 10 New
    13
    The ammunition wrote at the end of the article that it only indicated the problem. And this problem has been around for decades. In all recent conflicts, wars, the airborne forces for their intended purpose were used extremely rarely, and never with parachute landing. In most cases, like ordinary motorized infantry. But lightly armed. In Afghanistan, they had to be transplanted to BMP-2, tanks were attached to Chechnya. So the problem is old. As in my amateurish opinion, at least air assault units should be re-equipped with equipment according to motorized rifle nomenclature. For purely airborne units, the question is open.
    1. remy
      remy 7 November 2015 13: 48 New
      +3
      as an option, for the Airborne needed heavy convertiplanes ...
      as an option, do not drop the Armata, it can simply be brought and dropped off by helicopter
      6 rotors x 60000 kgf = 360000 kgf = 360 tons
      - aircraft mass of approximately 150 tons (with local booking)
      - fuel 50 tons
      - 60 tons reserve for the possible loss of 1 rotor
      = payload of 100 tons - 2 T-14/15 or 4 BMP Kurganets tanks

      . a kind of divisional heavy landing squadron of 6 heavy convertiplanes
      - 2 air assault turntables (see figure) will transfer 2 soldiers in assault outfit Ratnik and BK = 150 paratroopers (600 regiment type) in XNUMX approaches
      - 4 transport turntables will be transferred in 2 calls: 16 T-14/15 or 32 BMP Kurganets tanks
      Americans by the way in this direction have been working for a long time!
      1. avia1991
        avia1991 8 November 2015 01: 26 New
        +3
        Quote: remy
        aircraft mass of approximately 150 tons (with local reservation)
        - fuel 50 tons
        - 60 tons reserve for the possible loss of 1 rotor
        = payload 100 tons

        Sorry - absolutely unrealistic.
        The aircraft (!) An-124 "Ruslan" has a standard carrying capacity of 120 tons, and 150 tons - in the reloading version. At the same time, the takeoff weight is about 400 tons! That is, the ratio of the payload to the mass of the empty aircraft is about 1 to 2. For a tiltrotor, this ratio does not rise higher than 1 to 3, due to the design features that make the machine heavier. The Americans for 40 years were engaged in the creation of a tiltrotor before the Osprey V-22 appeared, but there it is only about auxiliary tasks - for example, to transport 24 paratroopers, or about 5 tons of cargo.
        So about any 100 tons of cargo, with its own weight of 150 tons, while there is no question request So far, these are only virtual projects of the military .. although they, I think, are more likely to receive anti-gravity cargo platforms wink
        1. afdjhbn67
          afdjhbn67 8 November 2015 01: 31 New
          +1
          Quote: avia1991
          So far, these are only virtual projects of the military .. although they, I think, are more likely to receive anti-gravity cargo platforms

          But what a beautiful picture ... they were modest - you can have a fezulage more authentic, but more screws .. wassat
          1. avia1991
            avia1991 8 November 2015 02: 19 New
            0
            Quote: afdjhbn67
            . They were modest - you can have a fezulage more authentic, and more screws.

            laughing ! No, objectively speaking, such a design is quite viable from the aerodynamic point of view: the cocurrent jets of the propellers are spaced apart from each other, and wing mechanization, which reduces the "blowing effect" during vertical takeoff, is also present. The distribution of propellers allows to ensure high directional stability during takeoff, and to reduce the loads on the fuselage during the flight .. so what if this device will only be transported by its own control electronics ?! wassat
            Very complex construction, actually request Although - with the modern development of composites, in the presence of high-speed on-board computers, partial robotization of control, it is, in principle, possible to create such a thing. Question: will it be economically justified? .. hi
    2. gladcu2
      gladcu2 9 November 2015 01: 20 New
      0
      Rudolf

      There is no problem at all. So there was no conflict in which the scope of the Airborne Forces corresponded to the concept.

      The Airborne Forces were used only as elite, well-trained soldiers in combined-arms operations. Therefore, they were given heavy weapons.

      It is obvious. What's the question?

      Oh, remembered. The capture of the airfield in Czechoslovakia. Quick relocation.
  6. Pimply
    Pimply 7 November 2015 10: 12 New
    +3
    At the moment, the Russian Airborne Forces is an analogue of the Marine Corps in the United States. But with a significant difference in armaments - not in favor of the Airborne Forces
    1. gladcu2
      gladcu2 9 November 2015 01: 27 New
      0
      Pimply

      You said absolutely pointless nonsense.

      Destination Airborne is not in the seizure of well-trained bridgeheads. What is included in the tasks of the USMC. Therefore, they have heavy weapons.

      The Airborne Forces is a sabotage semi-guerrilla war in the rear of the enemy. Slight forces against a weakly armed enemy.
      1. strannik1985
        strannik1985 9 November 2015 08: 11 New
        +1
        It seems that you are confusing the Airborne Forces and Special Forces of the GRU. For the actions described by you, you do not need divisional staff, airborne artillery, armored infantry fighting vehicles and other things. Moreover, you do not need the status of a reserve of the Supreme High Command and the number of employees for 45 people.
  7. Angro Magno
    Angro Magno 7 November 2015 10: 21 New
    +5
    In a modern war with the modern air defense forces, airborne division is a suicide. Transport workers simply do not reach the point of release. Here the author is right.
    It remains either the use of units no higher than the battalion, and then under special conditions. Or a deep breakthrough to the rear overland and on powerful equipment and a raid. But it will be completely different troops.
    In general, while the development of landing forces has been in a tactical impasse. Need a technological breakthrough.
    1. bandabas
      bandabas 7 November 2015 11: 22 New
      +1
      This became clear back in World War II. The Americans managed to get hooked on this rake in 2.
  8. rudolff
    rudolff 7 November 2015 10: 44 New
    11
    Well, this is not that a tactical impasse ... Turning an airborne into airborne troops (in the manner of the Belarussian) is like stepping on a song in the throat. All that remains is to replace the blue berets with baseball caps, and the vests with green shirts. Who’s got a hand to do this ?! Although ... It is already obvious to everyone that with the advent of MANPADS, given the height of the ejection, it is guaranteed to suppress air defense in the landing area. But one IL-76 is a whole company! Unjustified risk. No one after the Second World War is at risk. Only subdivisions of intelligence and special forces, God himself commanded them. So the problem of rethinking the use of airborne forces in future conflicts and, as a consequence of their rearmament, is long overdue.
    1. max702
      max702 7 November 2015 12: 08 New
      +5
      That's right, a tactical impasse, all the last 70 years have been preparing for World War 3 according to the standards of World War II .. As you know, "Generals are preparing for the last war .." The technological leap put an end to mass airborne assault, almost every infantryman has MANPADS, and even our It’s hard to believe the air force to clear the sky from enemy aircraft (looking at the quantitative component), and light armored vehicles were again written off with anti-tank systems, which the potential enemy put a very strong emphasis on in the light of the doctrine of repelling "tank hordes", again, let's not forget about the means communications and command and control of the troops that have made a huge leap forward in the last 70 years for the same potential enemy, and how should the Airborne Forces act in light of this? When are all tactical trump cards multiplied by zero? Again with personal valor and heroism? But is that enough? I love numbers, so let's count, we flew on the mission 100%, air losses on approach will be at least 50%, while landing another 15-20%, they landed .. while they were gathering, grouping, the enemy command received information about who and where (funds communications and reconnaissance will allow it) and the remaining 30% will be ironed out by aviation, and then by artillery .. In surprise and invisibility at the present time, when any information with video and coordinates can be transmitted through any mobile phone via ordinary telephone networks I DO NOT BELIEVE! Opponents will say that all this will be drowned out by electronic warfare and so on ... BUT it's all on paper as always. So, in reality, the combat mission will be performed by 5-7% of the force .. And tell me, with all the investments that have been made in this task, will they be able, despite all the preparation, the fortitude and other 5-7% to complete it? I'm afraid not, the very first clash with a unit of a similar size will put an end to it due to the low combat power (specificity of the Airborne Forces) in comparison with the likely enemy. Yes, heroism is a great thing and works wonders, but I think heroism is a consequence of someone's idiocy .. What to do with this, the concept of mass landings has become a thing of the past with the advent of modern air defense and has become too expensive, compare the costs of training and equipping a paratrooper of the times WWII and now? What to do? Leave the parachute training of the MTR and reconnaissance, the funds that are spent on it in the Airborne Forces will be used to increase firepower and stability, all the same, the landing force in 99% will be used as infantry, so give them the right tools at last! And the moral and psychological component that the Airborne Forces get from jumping can be replaced with something else, or it is just impossible to leave the very minimum ..
  9. La-5
    La-5 7 November 2015 10: 48 New
    +5
    Why make a motorized infantry regiment from an airborne regiment? Then all the branches and types of troops must be redone! Each has its own task and role in the war and weapons should correspond to this task.
  10. 31rus
    31rus 7 November 2015 10: 52 New
    +2
    Yes you dear, what kind of country we have, gender of the world and mobility is very important and it is the Airborne Forces that solve this problem. It is the Airborne Forces that are capable of operating with weapons in any area, in any theater of military operations, fight on the "Armata" in the mountains, in the forest territory, seize the bridgehead on the move, and a lot of things. I consider it correct and timely to strengthen and further develop the airborne
  11. 31rus
    31rus 7 November 2015 10: 52 New
    0
    Yes you dear, what kind of country we have, gender of the world and mobility is very important and it is the Airborne Forces that solve this problem. It is the Airborne Forces that are capable of operating with weapons in any area, in any theater of military operations, fight on the "Armata" in the mountains, in the forest territory, seize the bridgehead on the move, and a lot of things. I consider it correct and timely to strengthen and further develop the airborne
  12. Egevich
    Egevich 7 November 2015 11: 22 New
    +3
    "generals are always preparing for the last war" ... times change, but dogmas remain for a long time ...
    the essence of the combat use of the Airborne Forces is tactical, and the rest is infantry ... but this tactic is outdated in general ... like the tactics of using special forces units ... the world has changed, as well as the methods and methods of conducting offensive and defensive operations .. The tasks of full rearmament are not feasible in modern conditions for a simple reason - this requires a rethinking of the nature of hostilities and an awareness of the need to change the entire structure of the army ... and this is a question for strategists, and not for readers of the forum ...
    and in general - a happy holiday! Happy Day of the military parade on Red Square in the city of Moscow to mark the twenty-fourth anniversary of the Great October Socialist Revolution in 1941!

  13. moskowit
    moskowit 7 November 2015 11: 33 New
    +4
    "... Recently it was reported that our Minister of Defense hastily formed two armies. One tank and one combined-arms. In addition, there are many signs that a full-scale war is possible with the regular army of a strong country, or with a coalition army from several countries ... "

    Suppose, but unlikely ... And how then will Serdyukov's "castrated" brigades conduct military operations? We urgently need to return to the restoration of motorized rifle and tank divisions! The motorized rifle division was an optimal and versatile unit with the highest combat capabilities.
  14. Monarchist25
    Monarchist25 7 November 2015 13: 03 New
    +2
    Quote: max702
    That's right, a tactical impasse, all the last 70 years have been preparing for World War 3 according to the standards of World War II .. As you know, "Generals are preparing for the last war .." The technological leap put an end to mass airborne assault, almost every infantryman has MANPADS, and even our It’s hard to believe the air force to clear the sky from enemy aircraft (looking at the quantitative component), and light armored vehicles were again written off with anti-tank systems, which the potential enemy put a very strong emphasis on in the light of the doctrine of repelling "tank hordes", again, let's not forget about the means communications and command and control of the troops that have made a huge leap forward in the last 70 years for the same potential enemy, and how should the Airborne Forces act in light of this? When are all tactical trump cards multiplied by zero? Again with personal valor and heroism? But is that enough? I love numbers, so let's count, we flew on the mission 100%, air losses on approach will be at least 50%, while landing another 15-20%, they landed .. while they were gathering, grouping, the enemy command received information about who and where (funds communications and reconnaissance will allow it) and the remaining 30% will be ironed out by aviation, and then by artillery .. In surprise and invisibility at the present time, when any information with video and coordinates can be transmitted through any mobile phone via ordinary telephone networks I DO NOT BELIEVE! Opponents will say that all this will be drowned out by electronic warfare and so on ... BUT it's all on paper as always. So, in reality, the combat mission will be performed by 5-7% of the force .. And tell me, with all the investments that have been made in this task, will they be able, despite all the preparation, the fortitude and other 5-7% to complete it? I'm afraid not, the very first clash with a unit of a similar size will put an end to it due to the low combat power (specificity of the Airborne Forces) in comparison with the likely enemy. Yes, heroism is a great thing and works wonders, but I think heroism is a consequence of someone's idiocy .. What to do with this, the concept of mass landings has become a thing of the past with the advent of modern air defense and has become too expensive, compare the costs of training and equipping a paratrooper of the times WWII and now? What to do? Leave the parachute training of the MTR and reconnaissance, the funds that are spent on it in the Airborne Forces will be used to increase firepower and stability, all the same, the landing force in 99% will be used as infantry, so give them the right tools at last! And the moral and psychological component that the Airborne Forces get from jumping can be replaced with something else, or it is just impossible to leave the very minimum ..

    Dear, do you have anything to do with the Airborne Forces? It seems to me that no, otherwise they would not say that. To cancel jumping ... This is akin to killing the very essence of the troops. It remains only to exchange berets for caps, and vests for T-shirts, and just right. Get the same motorized infantry, only without the airborne spirit and mobility.
    I believe that the tactics of landing large subunits and formations should be removed from the airborne forces' combat regulations long ago, leaving the tactics of landing small sabotage groups and reconnaissance subunits, preferably with parachutes of the "Crossbow" type. It is possible to add more firepower, but the main thing is that it should not be at the expense of mobility. But jumps cannot be canceled in any case.
    1. ammunition
      7 November 2015 13: 58 New
      0
      Quote: Monarchist25
      Get the same motorized infantry, only without a landing spirit

      Here is the point. For many decades, a powerful "egregore" of the Airborne Forces has been developed.
      And you can’t lose him.
      It remains only to arm the Airborne Forces more seriously.
      So we think. smile
      1. strannik1985
        strannik1985 7 November 2015 21: 57 New
        +3
        Generally speaking, delivery is not limited to parachute landing, for example, in December 1979, the landing force consisting of 103 airborne and 345 airborne regiments was delivered by landing method to Kabul (103 airborne and 317,350,357 air regiments) and Bagram (345 air raids). In 54 hours, 7700 people were transferred, 369 BMD-1,20 ASU-85,79 armored personnel carriers, 36 guns, 350 vehicles (894 vehicles in total), 1062 tons of cargo.
        Any major use of SA was accompanied by airborne landing gear with landing troops — Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Afghanistan, & q
        uot; exercises "on the border with China in 1979 (the airborne division was transferred from the Moscow Military District to a distance of 5500 km in two days).
        The relevance of the landing assault has not been lost so far, the Airborne Forces is an excellent tool for actions in the role of quick reaction forces. But for conducting a landing landing, you may need a parachute landing — to capture an airfield to receive BTA aircraft (you won’t transfer helicopters from one end of the country to the other BTA, special forces may not cope, so only parachutes remain, at least for part of the fighters and military equipment). specific BM, weapons, so the airborne forces and vests (the relative weakness of weapons is offset by enhanced combat training and partly fighting spirit).
        Yes, in an ordinary or local conflict, TakVD from helicopters is much more relevant, but this is another tool with its own problems, for example, in the indicated respected k_ply 11,13 and 21 brigades, there were 135 helicopters in each (44 Mi-24,67 Mi-8,24, 6 Mi-XNUMX), brigades were combined-arms tactical formations and were part of the SV, and not the Airborne Forces.
    2. max702
      max702 8 November 2015 11: 40 New
      0
      Quote: Monarchist25
      But jumps cannot be canceled in any case.

      So it is, but you have to pay for everything, here is the fee for jumps that carry the "spirit of the Airborne Forces" they pay with weak weapons. And I haven't found the numbers yet, but I would like to look at the percentage of costs that go to parachute training in the total costs of this type of troops? It seems that the figure will be 35-40% .. I was talking about that, and can these forces and means be spent on strengthening the firepower of the troops if one devil is fighting like an infantry? If mobility is necessary, Duc assign the turntables to them, maybe redistributing these funds! Equip their equipment with removable body armor, both active and passive, but there is never any money for that! Although this is really needed by the troops and will be used in contrast to the mythical parachute landings!
  15. Siberian1965
    Siberian1965 7 November 2015 13: 25 New
    +4
    The article is controversial. How are grenade launchers for landing different from infantry? In one, the author touched on the topic, but it seems he did not understand or did not want to understand, and this is the main thing - raising the spirit of the winners. This spirit is a skeleton, and meat, weapons, is a matter of gain. In the sense that the theory of the development of technology itself suggests that weapons will have less and less weight, if we talk about the possibility of landing and all the more and more striking properties.
  16. k_ply
    k_ply 7 November 2015 13: 31 New
    +5
    Since rudolff touched the airborne mobility of the Airborne Forces, a good article, perhaps familiar to many:
    http://desantura.ru/articles/25705/
    Air and airmobile landing, or parachute and landing landing methods are not mutually exclusive for the Airborne Forces, although it is worth noting here that it is an expensive pleasure to mass use helicopters for various purposes, the Union could afford to have 3 truly airmobile formations in the period 1973-1988, 11th ( ZABVO), 13th (FarVO) and 21st (ZakVO) oddsbr. The problems with airborne transfer and landing (BTA) are also mentioned in the article, which, on the contrary, is not observed over the ocean (about the BTA fleet and helicopters), almost all infantry formations are airborne, the Striker mechanized brigades are completely airborne with medium S-130 military transport vehicles. Specifically, in the airborne units (5 brigades) for Americans with armored vehicles and heavy weapons, things are much worse than ours, 54 aluminum M551 Sheridan were withdrawn from 82nd airborne in 1996, and alternative M8 AGSs were not received although BAE Systems continues to offer a modified version of it (http://www.army-guide.com/eng/article/article_2798.html). As before, overseas paratroopers continue to rely on the traditional saturation of the airborne (and airborne assault) airborne assault units with you, self-propelled anti-tank guns BGM-71 TOW on HMMWV 4x4 vehicles, and portable anti-tank missiles FGM-148 "Javelin" (instead of FGM -77 "Dragon"), and for the support of 105-mm towed howitzer guns M119 (English L118), and conventional weapons of light formations, 60-mm and 81-mm mortars, 40-mm AG Mk19, MANPADS, disposable RPGs and etc.
  17. Hikar
    Hikar 7 November 2015 14: 16 New
    0
    Well, since we are an evil empire, I propose to remake the airborne forces into imperial stormtroopers wassat and music appropriate for the type of individual assault combat engineer brigades of the WWII
  18. Monarchist25
    Monarchist25 7 November 2015 14: 23 New
    +3
    Quote: Hnikar
    Well, since we are an evil empire, I propose to remake the airborne forces into imperial stormtroopers wassat and music appropriate for the type of individual assault combat engineer brigades of the WWII

    We are not the "Evil Empire". We are a very evil Empire. )
  19. alicante11
    alicante11 7 November 2015 14: 41 New
    +4
    And I do not see any particular problems. There are means of amplification, parts of the RGC. Who prevents to give them to the Airborne divisions during operations not related to landing? Yes, maybe BMD-shki will be inferior to infantry fighting vehicles, but the tank battalion can always be given to the Airborne Division as a reinforcement. And the tank battalion will not be superfluous, even if the paratroopers fly away without it. In the end, it will be possible to integrate it into a newly formed unit as a combat-ready prepared core. The same with artillery and PTS and with parts of the supply. The downside of the reinforcement parts is the lack of coherence of actions that are inherent in permanent connections. But this issue is also solved by conducting joint exercises, especially if these parts of the reinforcement are purposefully created specifically to support the parts of the Airborne Forces.
  20. bovig
    bovig 7 November 2015 14: 44 New
    +7
    I served in the communications forces in Budapest and our team was designed for 40 minutes of work from the moment of deployment and establishment of communications. The same amount of time was allotted to leave the place of permanent deployment on alarm + the time for the march to the deployment area + 20 minutes before the start of communication on the deployment of radio communications. Total, several hours, maybe more than two ...))))) On this, our task was considered completed! It’s high time for military service amateurs to understand that ALL ADVANCED Squads, regardless of the type of troops, are designed for the first two hours of repelling an attack! On this, their combat mission is considered completed ... Further, if survived, proceed according to your own plan!
    All with a holiday in honor of which a military parade is held and in honor of which it was held earlier! I always remember with pride that I was a participant in the military parade in Tashkent in 1985.
  21. zadorin1974
    zadorin1974 7 November 2015 14: 51 New
    +6
    The topic is touched on correctly. Modern weapons reduce the landing of units from a company and above into execution. Pzrk are up to 4 km in height (or even more). This means that in order not to lose the plane, you must jump higher (then long ones, for which you need other equipment and skills that you can’t teach everyone, but what’s the problem with the equipment? You won’t teach it lingering) or like a dash. I’m just enraged by the statements that the Airborne Forces are an elite, white bone, what about motorized gunners or tankers, dust from under the nails? What, did the BB in Chechnya fight worse, or did the guys from motor vehicles in Afghanistan die less? Correctly Max 702 wrote - it's time to rethink the tactics of application. Yes and stop making fairy-tale heroes from the airborne forces — conduct normal exercises in any unit — any soldier will make a Russian warrior, and not only from the advertised paratroopers (at the assembly points of the Airborne Forces they scoop out the very first ones, the rest are really good for us). But if you really want normal airmobile units, give the same infantry squadron the MI -8 and a squadron of attack helicopters (no difference: KA-52, MI-35, MI-28) with subordination only to the brigade. Here we get the most mobile, combat-ready and reliable (no bosses can take the sides in the midst of events for left-wing affairs )
  22. TARAS BULBA
    TARAS BULBA 7 November 2015 16: 02 New
    0
    Quote: Pimply
    At the moment, the Russian Airborne Forces is an analogue of the Marine Corps in the United States. But with a significant difference in armaments - not in favor of the Airborne Forces


    only Marines in the United States 200 thousand and 88 thousand paratroopers ...
  23. tracer
    tracer 7 November 2015 17: 22 New
    +2
    Quote: TARAS BULBA
    only Marines in the United States 200 thousand and 88 thousand paratroopers ...

    But nothing that in America has a population of 350 million?

  24. tracer
    tracer 7 November 2015 17: 36 New
    -4
    Quote: tracer
    Give the same DShB a squadron of MI-8 and a squadron of attack helicopters (no difference: KA-52, MI-35, MI-28) with submission only to the brigade.

    So you are a brilliant strategist ..! How fresh !!! To paratroopers and Mi8 to help .. !!! Here is the topic. Romance !!! And Ka 52 !!!
    Following your points, you can also give out drones. Yes, for sure, for each drone. And organize swarm attacks. Each on a drift and scribbling from machine guns in a cap with earflaps. Well, fresh !!!
    Immediately you can see the people in the "Topic" rummaging. It's even scary to argue. That's what the pros and "love" for.
    1. zadorin1974
      zadorin1974 7 November 2015 19: 45 New
      +2
      To the tracer-Firstly, before trying to insult a person for expressing an opinion, try to offer your point of view. Secondly, when it comes to combat personal aircraft (by the way, the Yankers have already begun to develop). Thirdly, justify rejecting my point of view as not is it true or is it difficult for your VET? So far, your statements are at the level of tram rudeness.
  25. TARAS BULBA
    TARAS BULBA 7 November 2015 18: 57 New
    +1
    Quote: tracer
    Quote: TARAS BULBA
    only Marines in the United States 200 thousand and 88 thousand paratroopers ...

    But nothing that in America has a population of 350 million?



    Well, where does the population ??? And in China, for a billion, we are in full swing, and then how much should it be 3-4 times more? And their airborne 330 thousand +40 marines are all for China. But the size of our territory ... who will be able to respond faster and cover these distances from the beginning of the conflict or only to the airborne forces before it. And we have?
  26. Raider
    Raider 7 November 2015 19: 26 New
    +3
    If a surgeon needs a scalpel, it doesn't have to be a saw. Depending on the type of operation, various types of troops have been created, solving their tasks in the designated direction, in case of problems - solving them in combination with others. Judging by the author and the opinion of others, the Airborne Forces play a decisive role in all conflicts. Of course, these troops have been tasked with rapid response, but in a direct skirmish they will lose to a full-fledged army unit. Media and cinema have played a positive role in creating the image. Of course, the role of other troops remained in the shadows, those who cover, finish off, transport, provide, etc. But any country needs a hero. Who is the best fit? The issue of equipment (conscripts of the first health group, provision, arming with new models, training, etc.) has been given to the Airborne Forces, as one of the colleagues correctly notes. Of course, if a unit of ground forces undergoes training in accordance with the charter and training is carried out in full, having a commander who does not hesitate before the name of the enemy, they will give a worthy rebuff, despite the growth below 175 and deviations from the standard of health. The task of the Airborne Forces is to capture and hold until the main forces arrive. Their strength is in surprise, speed. If you attach heavy weapons, then the idea of ​​the Airborne Forces themselves dies. Then it is necessary to divide the conscripts into categories "A" and "B", some in the rapid reaction troops, without any airborne forces, marines, special forces, etc., others "worse" - playing secondary roles? After all, such a conversation was already about the brigades. Introduce into the brigade from tanks to artillery, tighten the selection, such a unit can independently conduct any type of operation, i.e. all types and types of troops in the brigade, I understand this tending? But is this closer to a full-fledged army division? But this is probably suitable for local wars, and what if suddenly large-scale? Everyone will say, there will be no such wars. Is the war in Syria local or what? The Airborne Division would solve all the problems? They would give tanks, heavy weapons, etc. on their light BMDs, etc. they would not have been able to resist. What does this unit look like? Where are the parachutes? I think this is the task of other troops, and if the Airborne Forces blocked roads, bridges, raids on the rear, the destruction of bases ... And motorized riflemen with tankers, aviation and artillery came immediately to the rescue, the Navy would cover from the sea, then everyone would be doing their own thing ... You just need to understand what ultimate goal we are pursuing? A unit that can act against all types of weapons for a long time or the "scalpel" of the Commander-in-Chief? IMHO. At the post, the mentality of the paratrooper "Nobody but us" collides with the mentality of other troops "You won't be without us", but we need to reasonably talk about what we just want to achieve on the "exhaust". Good luck everyone!
    1. ammunition
      7 November 2015 20: 00 New
      0
      Quote: Raider
      having a commander who does not shy away from the name of the enemy, they will be a worthy rebuff, despite the growth below 175 and deviations from the standard of health.


      Allow me to answer specifically?
      ------------------------------
      1) Each kind of troops .. spit in one place any other kind of troops.
      This applies to both soldiers and officers.
      This I explain to you the real situation in the army. The army is not a citizen. In the army, do not care about the color of the epaulet and the color of the headgear.
      2) The most sensible (and brave) soldiers, more often obtained from draftees of small stature. soldier
  27. tolancop
    tolancop 7 November 2015 19: 30 New
    +2
    Ominusovat. I will try to explain the reason. I must say right away: I did not serve in the Airborne Forces and I am not a military specialist, but this does not interfere with the lack of logic in the author of the material.
    The airborne regiment (division, battalion, company) and the motorized rifle regiment have a similar name. That's just their tasks are somewhat different. And the tasks and preparation and support are determined.
    To make it clearer, I will give a civil analogy. The car ... Everyone knows this thing.
    But here cars are different: trucks (and among them bortoviks, a dump truck, tanks, tractors, etc.), cars (also a bunch of subspecies), special ones. According to the logic of the author, you need to attach a cargo platform to the passenger car so that it is more convenient to carry sand. Absurd? Of course, absurdity ... But for some reason, the author does not notice the absurdity of the idea of ​​strengthening the Airborne Division to the Motorized Infantry Division. But, let’s say, they reinforced the Airborne Forces with armament. Great!!! But following this logic, we should move on - to strengthen the rear units and support units ... With the regiment of the airborne forces solved the problem. And what other regiments are weaker than motorized rifles in our army? In many ways, the artillery regiment is clearly not up to the motorized rifle. Will pull up? What about air defense shelves? And also .... many sexes are found ...

    "... In 1969, the BMD-1, high-speed and multi-gun, was adopted.
    But the main thing was psychological preparation. Shirts and berets appeared. The requirements for the health of conscripts in the Airborne Forces have increased ... "

    The author somehow forgot about the heap of other equipment developed and adopted for armament, sharpened by the requirements of the Airborne Forces: cars, artillery systems, etc.
    T.ch. psychological preparation (the most important thing !!!) was great supported by material means.

    To summarize briefly, then: each task needs its own tool. hammer a nail, pull out nails - pliers.
    1. ammunition
      7 November 2015 21: 09 New
      +4
      Quote: tolancop
      I will try to explain the reason.


      The fact that you chewed in such detail, is correct and understandable to anyone .. it is clear in advance. The question is something else.
      -------------
      I do not even know where to start. ..
      Comrade officers and soldiers! .. who was in the Chechen.
      How many times have they beaten their own ??? Many times. And why ??
      Most often - because there was no necessary coherence of the units, and the interaction of the combat arms was not really worked out.
      Since the paratroopers were forced to rearm on motorized rifle weapons, and they were given ( Crouched) artillery, tank units and fire support helicopters.
      With what types of troops, the assault does not conduct exercises on the subject of co-ordination.
      And then ..
      At the moment in the army (I'm afraid to make a mistake) .. it seems six airborne divisions .. and a considerable number of airborne brigades.
      This is a very large part of the entire army.
      Initially, airborne divisions were "sharpened" for large and rapid abdominal operations. And they received such a purpose during the global confrontation between the USSR and the USA with the NATO bloc.
      Now everything has changed a lot. There is full confidence that the need for airborne landing of entire divisions will no longer be needed. Rather, the combat effectiveness of such a landing has sharply decreased.
      ------------------
      Thus .. in your own words .. "all the time you will have to transport coal and potatoes in cars, because there are too few trucks.
      -------------
      And for special and small abdominal operations, there will be enough parts of the GRU for special purposes.
      1. sharp-lad
        sharp-lad 7 November 2015 23: 03 New
        +1
        I propose that all the airborne forces be renamed to TMSHV (Heavy Mobile Assault Troops) and fully armed with heavy weapons and there is no need to change psychological preparation, assault units are always on the cutting edge!
      2. tolancop
        tolancop 8 November 2015 09: 47 New
        +2
        The lack of cohesion of parts is bad, but it has nothing to do with the availability of this or that weapon. Purely staff problems.
        The fact that the Airborne Forces units were reequipped for motorized infantry and they were given means of reinforcement only indicates that the Airborne Forces were not used for their intended purpose. And most likely because with the combat efficiency of a full-time motorized infantry there was a complete seam.
        1. The stranger
          The stranger 8 November 2015 11: 52 New
          +2
          No, the problems are not purely staff problems. Staffing just can be solved with little blood - quickly and relatively cheaply. This is only a matter of additional training for staff officers, who themselves are specialists of a sufficiently high level, who are still used to it and are able to learn. Two years is enough for this.
          But the coherence of different types of troops in the field is endless work with very high costs for frequent interspecific exercises.

          And so - yes, the question raised seems very complicated. How and why to use the most expensive amusement troops, of which there are many. Very similar to various jealousies and family squabbles on a smaller scale. For example, the dislike of motorized rifle and tank battalions say for anti-aircraft batteries in their battalions. Dislike of squad leaders with snipers. Suspicion of all reconnaissance platoons. Well, examples of the mountain.
          In short - you need to think. The answer is completely unobvious.
      3. max702
        max702 8 November 2015 17: 54 New
        +2
        Totally agree with you! Since many thousands of landings have left in the past, and the usual infantry work remains, so give a suitable tool and this task will allow you to complete even less losses, and therefore it will be possible to complete the next task at the expense of not spent! Do you need regular turntables of the Airborne Forces? Of course! And they (turntables) do not even give special forces even though they from the beginning of Afghanistan have been asking for an answer, as always there is no one on these resources! But they are on parachute landing training! Although it is not used anywhere in real conflicts, unlike the same attached turntables .. That's what the conversation is about in the article and many comments ..
        1. strannik1985
          strannik1985 8 November 2015 18: 18 New
          0
          Well, they gave 106 VDD instead of parachutes, helicopters, excellent (I recall that the promising DShBr-2000 should have 192 helicopters and 7700 personnel, which roughly corresponds to the number of VDD). How long will it take to move the personnel, equipment and almost two hundred helicopters from Tula, Ryazan and Naro-Fominsk somewhere in the North Caucasus or the Far East?
          1. max702
            max702 9 November 2015 11: 51 New
            0
            It is very simple with military transport and mobilized civilian aircraft .. The need to transfer troops will be known in a few days (provided that intelligence and the relevant services are working, if nothing will save them ..) Or do you think that such calls are answered in a couple of hours? You are a REAL situation, imagine that SUDDENLY it took several divisions on the other side of the country? And following the "okama razor" we remove all the fantastic options and see that if the need is ripe, then we know about it in a few days at least, it is impossible to hide the training of forces and means to repel which several airborne divisions were needed NOW! Either betrayal or criminal negligence. In just a few days, we move people and equipment in the required direction. As an example to you, the current operation in Syria, how much do you think was prepared to provide this group for its successful work? Did everything really start after Putin announced this at the UN? That would be great! But the technical component at the current level of progress does not allow this, so they slowly carried the necessary, perhaps for several years, accumulating resources and without arousing any special suspicions among the "partners". LOGISTICS wins all wars! namely, at the right time, in the right place, the availability of the necessary resources, how did the United States roll Iraq into 91m? For half a year they drove what was needed and prepared the operation, but Iraq saw everything but could not do anything about it, because the United States and its allies were an order of magnitude superior to it in everything, and now tell me who is an order of magnitude superior to Russia so that it would watch for six months how they would kill it and could NOTHING to do with it? In the same way, the United States did the same and during the Second World War transported troops and resources to Europe for two years and only after that they landed a landing, and then everything hung in the balance and miraculously did not go to dust, but you want the division from heaven to turn on the enemy and at the same time achieve success? It did not work then, but now it is an expensive method of suicide.
            1. strannik1985
              strannik1985 9 November 2015 13: 00 New
              0
              LOGISTICS wins all wars!

              Come on, tell me which planes you will carry under two hundred Mi-8, Mi-24, Mi-26 helicopters? And how long will it take?

              For six months we drove the necessary and prepared the operation, but Iraq saw everything but could not do anything about it because the USA and its allies were an order of magnitude superior to him in everything,

              Because in the region 2 AUGs were flying around with 160 carrier-based aircraft, in August 1990, NATO had no decisive superiority on the peninsula.
  28. Raider
    Raider 8 November 2015 11: 35 New
    +1
    Quote: ammunition
    1) Each branch of the army .. spit in one place any other branch of the army.
    This applies to both soldiers and officers.
    This I explain to you the real situation in the army. The army is not a citizen. In the army, do not care about the color of the epaulet and the color of the headgear.

    Dear, no one teaches you to be tactful, but you have to try. You are not the only one who served or are serving in the army and probably are not a major expert. I am discussing, including with you and others, I do not twist the propeller in one place. What have you written specifically? Read .. sent and left. This is not a fence on the street, I write what I want. This is the forum where they discuss. Do not agree? Write your point of view clearly. Show respect for the VO participants.
  29. k_ply
    k_ply 8 November 2015 13: 44 New
    +2
    I don’t know, maybe it’s worth trying to somehow clarify the features of the OSH, I’m tired of reading about some unspecified unusual tasks.
    From the 30s-40s of the last century, on land, infantry was used for the same tasks: it was amphibious (naval) or airborne landing, strike (MBT, BMP, combat helicopters) and fire (ACS, MLRS) power changed combined arms * Units and units (i.e. divisions and brigades / regiments), as the author points out. The difference in the methods (sea, air) of combat operational-tactical deployment (delivery) in the district of the database, or in the theater. Both existing methods have weight restrictions for BBM, amphibious floating equipment is usually limited to 22-22.5t, in the case of a noticeable increase in the overall dimensions and therefore the internal volume of the BBM, this ceiling can be raised (BTR LVTP-7, 29t.). Airborne equipment is limited by the capacity of parachute systems and is usually 18t. In this regard, does anyone really think that the author is trying to abolish the Airborne Forces to motorized rifle troops when the problem is different, in the disarmament of the MP and especially the Airborne Forces, due to the above-mentioned restrictions. Regularly, only about a third of the l / s rifle divisions in divisions (1 battalion out of 3) and brigades (1 battalion from 3-4) are airborne airborne motorized vehicles on BMD (31 in battalion battalion) and BTR-D, without changes, but the survivability of the BBM itself is poor. Why is the regular number of armored combat vehicles unchanged, because the airborne forces are limited in transport and long-term combat autonomy in terms of supplies of technical and technical support (MTO, incl. BC and fuel and lubricants), and not to be confused! it is not about reconnaissance and sabotage activities of small groups behind enemy lines. In order to somehow give greater combat stability and independence to the formations of the Airborne Forces and MPs after landing, in them, again, in comparison with the heavy formations of the SV, they introduced / introduced tank (MBT) units.
    The paratrooper specificity of the Airborne Forces unambiguously indicates flat terrain, where heavy enemy formations dominate, there will be "something" if we land on the stones of a mountain (mountain-forest) massif, or directly on urban buildings, from this we make a start. Speaking of the speed of the Airborne Forces, here we mean the VTA VKS (Air Force) and army aviation.

    * It is clear that the formations and units of the Airborne Forces and MPs do not consist solely of rifle units, having in their composition a typical set of reconnaissance, artillery, engineer and combat engineer, anti-aircraft units, communications units, RKhBZ (ZOMP), and mattechnical. and rear support (MTO and TO), and a certain ratio of tank units in heavy formations and army aviation units in light formations indicates what kind of formation it is. In the 1st case, it can be a tank, mechanized (balanced, 50/50% MBT and BMP) or motorized rifle, in the 2nd - mountain rifle (rifle) or air assault (at the same time airborne up to 1/3 of the combat personnel, t .e. provided with cp-delivery, helicopters).
    1. k_ply
      k_ply 8 November 2015 15: 51 New
      +2
      I’ll clarify ...
      Quote: k_ply
      The parachute-landing specifics of the Airborne Forces unequivocally indicate a flat area where heavy enemy formations predominate ...

      Therefore, airborne missile defense is carried out behind enemy lines, where its weakest parts are, but there is a danger of collision with armored vehicles and fur. parts of the enemy remain; outside the airborne airborne forces, parts of the airborne forces operate on secondary directions with difficult physical and geographical conditions (mountainous-wooded, wooded-marshy area), and in urbanized conditions n / a. Often, in order to carry out the assigned tasks, also outside the air defense system, besides tank companies and self-propelled guns, infantry regiments and armored personnel carriers 8x8 (Afghan, former SFRY, Chechnya) are assigned to foot regiments and battalions, I have not heard about the censure of the airborne command for such actions.
    2. The comment was deleted.
  30. k_ply
    k_ply 8 November 2015 13: 47 New
    +1
    Quote: erg
    So the airborne forces are the infantry. According to the old army classification, it refers to light infantry. It’s light, not because it has lightweight equipment, etc., but because it performs specific tasks on the battlefield and accordingly differs in tactics from ordinary infantry. For example, it differs by faster maneuvers, speed of movement, etc. In the old days, tasks similar to those of the Airborne Forces were carried out by huntsmen.

    "Covered infantry" is universal, the huntsmen are about mountain rifle and reconnaissance and sabotage units, despite the fact that the name of the 7th Airborne Division (Airborne Division) contains the word "mountain". About the old army classification, that's something! the key word here is "old", if you want to see such a classification, it does not mean that it is so. Leave the rangers, grenadiers and fusiliers for the military training of other countries and only, this difference in the actions of the infantry in loose and closed formation has long disappeared. No less "original" - "differs in faster maneuvers, movement speed, etc.". In BUSV you will not find differences in tactics of action, tactical nominations in the offensive, on the defensive, on the march, for both infantry combat infantry (infantry infantry fighting) on ​​the BMD, and for the infantry combat infantry on the BMP / BTR, talking about some greater maneuverability and speed of the BMD compared to BMP - nonsense! Well? Especially regular most of the PDB / DSB are on foot. The difference is in the methods of combat use, but not in tactics, i.e. ejection depth, landing by parachute, landing or combined method to the designated ejection (landing) zones, this is from the range of tasks for the airborne forces. Indeed, tactics and, in some ways, methods of casting / penetrating reconnaissance units of the Special Forces, Army (GRU) and Airborne Forces (45th Special Operations Regiment) are special, of course, which is not covered in BUSW.
    Quote: alicante11
    The downside of the reinforcement parts is the lack of coherence of actions that are inherent in permanent connections. But this issue is also solved by conducting joint exercises ...

    "+"
  31. motorized rifle
    motorized rifle 8 November 2015 14: 41 New
    +2
    Remember the Russian fairy tale about how a soldier cooked porridge from an ax? So here, we add tanks, heavy artillery systems, pick up parachutes and what is the output? Porridge! Leave the specifics of the Airborne Forces, it is better to let the MO deal with motorized rifles, strengthen training, taking something from the training of the Airborne Forces and Marines, increase the prestige of the service, at least by introducing the same berets in the rifle battalions of the corresponding color, and finally establish a holiday for infantrymen, in our history, infantry has been different so many times. And the airborne forces should have a landing structure. It is still unknown how everything will turn out, but what if it is needed. Like in a joke: Vasily Ivanovich is walking through the desert, naked, and a tie around his neck. Towards Petka, he asks: -Vasily Ivanovich, why are you naked? So nobody is there, he answers. So why then a tie? What if I meet someone! wink
  32. gallville
    gallville 8 November 2015 15: 11 New
    +3
    For the issue of weapons, you need to consider the issue of tactics. And the question of tactics comes from tasks.
    So for the moments:
    1. The airborne forces have been pulling the "blanket" from the ground for a long time. Especially after the "bad" use of the latter as an elite infantry. I'll give an example:
    Who better to cope with the task? A well-fed company from the Slavs of athletes with less tolerable support on cardboard bmd. Or a company where 10 Kavkaztsev, 20 drug addicts, 40 ordinary boys and the missing gap is filled by the Chukchi and Eltelmen. The latter do not even know the Russian language, and physical development at the level of penguins (penguins even go to formations from birth). Why all this? With the same cardboard bmp.
    Need to take cities and fortified areas in the "front ranks of youth"? Guards brigade (or whatever you call it) with a good manning of l / s and provision on the armature. And there is no need for any perversions with transplanting to equipment and attaching the necessary units. With which there is also no combat coordination. Because they see each other for the first time. And let the light infantry block the approaches and supply routes by burying themselves at the very top.
    2. The concept of the use of the airborne. I’ll stick there, too. Yes, they will no longer jump from planes as a whole division. And the fighting at the level of divisions and armies has sunk into oblivion. Now BTG is in effect. Accordingly, the construction of units should proceed from the structure of these BTGs. AND The structure of the BTG itself from the tasks.
    What are the tasks of the Airborne Forces and MP?
  33. gallville
    gallville 8 November 2015 15: 11 New
    0
    a) Bridgehead Hold / Capture to the approach of the main forces, and primarily on its territory. Therefore mobility. Mobility means a ton of technology. And the possibility of landing in the shortest possible time up to landing by parachute method.
    b) actions behind enemy lines. Including using btt.
    c) catching partisans and militants in rough terrain. By the way, this is also pulling a blanket from the special forces of the SV and the Ministry of Internal Affairs.
    Let's start from the end:
    P. c) parachute training. From the technique of buggies and light snoring. The 56th air assault brigade is just armed with UAZs.
    http://topwar.ru/10094-56-ya-desantno-shturmovaya-brigada-boevaya-tehnika-i-podg
    otovka.html
    And you need to land it with forces of either army aviation or the forces of the Air Force.
    So what is missing? Mrap, Buggy and preferably a helicopter regiment. In its concept, ideally, the Mi-8 and Mi-24/35 (the concept of a flying BMP).
    P. b) We will not repeat about helicopters. The technique needs airborne disassembling / floating (for mp) with maximum firepower. BMP-4m, BMP-3f, Nona, Vienna, s-ptrk (chrysanthemum, btr-d robot).
    This paragraph includes in fact not only c) but a). Therefore, we pass to a).
    P. a) it is a battle-tactical group which must capture and hold positions both behind enemy lines and in its territory. Take the approximate composition of BTG in a foreign territory:

    - 1 * reconnaissance company;
    - 1 platoon of UAVs;
    - 1 MP / airborne battalion 31 BMP-3F / BMD-4m
    - The battery of chrysanthemums / figurines here either.
    - battery Ven / non - 9 pcs.
    - battery Tungusok ??? / company pzrk.
    Naturally, that can be increased from this, that removed completely if necessary. In general, to keep the bridgehead BTG should stretch.

    Offensive BTG:
    - // -
    - 2 companies of the T-90 (the armata will be heavy), but in general I like the T-80 more.
    - artillery carrier of 152mm howitzers.

    The above, when multiplied by 2, makes up the brigade. Because 1 BTG does not pull on the regiment, and 2 BTG in composition is already a full-fledged brigade. So the divisional level in the airborne forces and mp is in question. In any case, the independence of the combat arms acting independently must be increased as much as possible. Hence the helicopter regiments and artillery at the brigade level. My personal opinion is about 152mm. Especially considering the moments of combat coordination.
    Now separately about technology. Based on the BMP-3, the necessary spectrum has been made. Only in the troops is he not. In addition, there are no such things as zrk. On the bmd-4m chassis, there is essentially nothing at all. The same shell with its silhouette causes a bunch of questions, and so the cardboard armor is also 2,5 m tall. Those. here the work is not an edge.
    Generally write really on the article. I hope at least someone will master these many letters.
  34. Archon
    Archon 8 November 2015 16: 25 New
    0
    why article? As the Ministry of Defense decides, so will it. Chess pieces do not tell the chess player what to do with them)
  35. Petrik66
    Petrik66 8 November 2015 21: 56 New
    +3
    The article is correct, questions of all kinds of special units and troops have been raised for a long time. If some take the most trained recruits, others do not receive them - an imbalance. Airborne Forces - colonial troops (if used for their intended purpose) or - Guard infantry, as was the time of the Second World War. With all the heroism of the individual fighters during the landing on the Dnieper in 1943, nothing significant could be achieved by them. And the Americans in Normandy, or are they with the Poles and the British in Holland ????? So many selected fighters went, and the results? Ponte, spirit, traditions - this is sacred, you don’t have to splash out the baby with water, but a beautiful dream, so it remained.
  36. Alex_59
    Alex_59 9 November 2015 07: 14 New
    +1
    And there was a conviction that there would never be a parachute landing of an entire division. Too risky and adventurous is an operation in the context of a brewing full-scale war.
    First, the landing can be in the rear. For example, the enemy made a breakthrough or a detour. For quick blocking - the landing in its rear on the paths of the unfolding breakthrough of the enemy. Motorized riflemen and tankers will reach, while the Airborne Forces will be in place in a matter of hours.
    Secondly, the Airborne Forces are not alone. Places of their landing must be cleared by aviation, cover the approaches of the electronic warfare. Then, landing in the rear of the enemy is possible under certain conditions. If aviation has not cleared the site, if the enemy’s air defense is alive, then do not drop. Do not hammer in nails with a microscope - this is the main rule.
  37. k_ply
    k_ply 13 November 2015 21: 48 New
    +3
    Due to the lack of interesting topics, I will return to some. comments.
    Quote: michell
    Or, when capturing an airfield, the airborne division is thrown by parachute, it captures the airfield, to which the combined arms division, with the same tanks and artillery, is being deployed by BTA planes.

    Whoa! whole divisions "tossing and turning"? And what can we do in this situation? :
    - SV divisions (2): 2nd Guards.m.sd (Tamanskaya), 4th Guards.td (Kantemirovskaya);
    - Airborne divisions (4): 7th Guards Airborne Division, 76th Guards Airborne Division, 98th Guards Airborne Division, 106th Guards Airborne Division, 104th Airborne Division formed on the basis of the 31st Airborne Division (5th on account).
    These Airborne Forces are provided with means of transfer and landing, i.e. BTA?

    PS: Strange, some commentators (Kind Cat) did not even hear about the beacons and the direction finding, in other words (Zoldat_A) there is nothing more to say besides the thesis-slogan rubbish.
  38. k_ply
    k_ply 13 November 2015 21: 50 New
    +2
    Quote: strannik1985
    Well, they gave 106 VDD instead of parachutes, helicopters, excellent (I recall that the promising DShBr-2000 should have 192 helicopters and 7700 personnel, which roughly corresponds to the number of VDD). How long will it take to move the personnel, equipment and almost two hundred helicopters from Tula, Ryazan and Naro-Fominsk somewhere in the North Caucasus or the Far East?

    I repeat, air and airborne landing, or parachute and landing landing methods are not mutually exclusive in the airborne forces.
    Once again I give a reference, so that without cunning, 7044 people. l / s and 172 helicopters: http://desantura.ru/articles/25705/
    It is necessary to note the change in the views of the leadership of the Armed Forces at the beginning of the 90s on the practice of using airborne brigades in operations ...

    - A quote from there, the plans ("Airmobile Brigade-2000") of the then Defense Ministry and the General Staff of the Armed Forces have long been canceled. In addition, in the same place, at the bottom of the page, the scheme of the OShS dshbr in a “new look” (2013), with a staff of 2,7 thousand people.
    Since the concept of the mechanical brigades "striker" assumes the transfer of more than 300 armored combat vehicles 8x8 by C-130 aircraft, it does not look fantastic, and the delivery of helicopters for 2 out of 3 military brigades of the 101st US Airborne Forces to the European theater of operations by VTAK (now KVP) aircraft Air Force during the exercises of the "Reformer" series. In the same way, in 1990, during Operation Desert Shield, the 101st Airborne Division was deployed to Saudi Arabia (via Europe, the Mediterranean, Egypt), in 2001 the 2nd and 3rd Airborne Brigades of the 101st Airborne Division were deployed in Afghanistan (op. "Enduring Freedom"), in 2003-2006 the division takes part in the operation in Iraq, in 2007-2009 the division is in Afghanistan, since 2008 the 101st and 159th air brigades of the division with a one-year rotation, since 2010 on rotation in Afghanistan, only 4 battalion tactical groups (BTG) of the 101st Airborne Division are deployed. 2008-2013 was OShS-4 combat brigades of 2 pambas (dshb).
    For the transfer of the 101st IDR (late 80s – early 90s), 858 S-141 and 76 S-5 flights were required, 188 S-141 and 12 S-5 brigades, and 30 S-141 BTGs. Typical loading options: C-5 -6 AN-64 / UH-60; C-17-4 UH-60 or 2 AH-64 and 3 OH-58; S-141 -2 AN-64 / UH-60 or 6 OH-58; C-130 -1 AN-64 / UH-60.
    In the United States Marine Corps, from the 80s of the last century, the 1st (Pacific Fleet), 6th (ATF) and 7th (Pacific Fleet) expeditionary brigades of the MP (ebrmp) * were supported by squadrons of storage vessels of the naval shipping command (ILC) of the Navy based near the districts of the alleged deployment of brigades. l / s (16,6 thousand people) and helicopters of the mixed air group ebrmp AN-1 (12), UH-1 (12) and CH-46 (12) were delivered to the theater of operations by VTAC air forces (245 S-141 flights). Other aircraft of the aviation group carried out an independent flight to the operational mission area:
    - aircraft (76): 24 F / A-18, 20 AV-8B, 10 A-6E, 6 EA-6B (EW), 4 RF-4B (reconnaissance), 6 OV-10A / D (corrected) , 6 KC-130 (tanker)
    - helicopters (56): 12/8 CH-53D / E - stage with refueling in the air if necessary.
    total: 132 LA
    For example, to transfer l / s (2,3 thousand people) of the MP expeditionary battalion with standard equipment and weapons (including helicopters: 4-6 AH-1, 3 UH-1, 12 CH-46, 4 CH -53) 80 S-141 flights were required.

    * 4th (ATF), 5th and 9th (Pacific Fleet) ebrmp were landing (15,7 thousand people), for conducting MAO from the landing ships of the Navy.

    Obviously, if it were not for the Atlantic, then independent flight (haul) of helicopters through intermediate ground airfields would be preferable, and given the lack of the need to build a runway for helicopters, the advantages are unconditional (distillation range AN-64 - 1900 km, UH-60 - 2200 km, SN-47 - 2250 km).
    1. strannik1985
      strannik1985 14 November 2015 02: 29 New
      0
      I beg your pardon, I used the same source, but from memory.
      I do not deny that all doubts are only about the possibility of the Russian BTA transfer helicopters on time and in the required quantity.
      It remains to envy the VTAC (KVP) of the US Air Force - throwing 438 helicopters 101 VSD is not a joke.

      As an option, a step can be repeated almost half a century ago — the creation of a special structural division similar to the brigades formed in 1968-1973 (44 Mi-24,67 Mi-8 and replacing 24 Mi-6) one by one per district.
  39. k_ply
    k_ply 14 November 2015 07: 15 New
    0
    Quote: strannik1985
    ... all doubts are only about the possibility of the Russian BTA to transfer helicopters on time and in the required quantity.

    Regarding the transfer of helicopters, it’s not even about the capabilities of the BTA. It’s easier for us, Transbaikalia and D. Vostok are not separated from the rest of Russia by the ocean.
    1. strannik1985
      strannik1985 14 November 2015 09: 05 New
      0
      And the engine resource will not suffer from such a long haul?
  40. k_ply
    k_ply 14 November 2015 09: 30 New
    +1
    Let's joke tads. And people in a DB will not suffer?

    The sources of the article below are most closely related to the ongoing changes in the OSH in the army, UBBR / DBBR:
    Chapter 1. :
    http://samlib.ru/a/aleksandr_walerxewich_girin/struktura_glava_1.shtml
    § 1.5.
    Chapter 2. :
    http://zhurnal.siwatcher.ru/a/aleksandr_walerxewich_girin/struktura_glava_2.shtm
    l
    § 2.2.2.
    § 2.2.5. - OSH Army Aviation (AA), because at the sight of A. Girin dshbr should probably use attached helicopters of AA groups of the combined arms army of the navy, 2 regiments (1 bvp, 1 tvvp) and 2 mixed helicopter links (1 command and reconnaissance (UR), 1 electronic warfare).