Military Review

Why airborne armored fist. About the statement of the Commander of the Airborne Forces of the Russian Federation

99
Several readers at once asked to comment on the rather unexpected and incomprehensible statement of the Commander of the Airborne Forces, Colonel-General Vladimir Shamanov. Let me remind you that the commander promised to add 6 to the Airborne Forces by the end of this year. tank companies equipped with T-72B3M tanks. And in the future, in two years to expand these companies to full-fledged battalions.




I admit, I was first surprised by American and European experts. It was their reaction that showed complete ignorance of the situation in today's armies. Authoritative publications tried to determine what the heavy ones would do according to NATO standards T-72 in the Airborne Forces.

The fact is that heavy tanks can not be landed in the usual way. And there are not so many airplanes capable of doing this. Literally individually can be considered. And it is impossible to modernize tanks for landing.

So why does General Shamanov make such statements? And makes them not for the future, sometime later, but by the end of this year? Why does the commander need to strengthen the already sufficiently increased fire and armor power of the units and units of the Airborne Forces?

The times when the paratroopers went to the enemy with almost bare hands and full-time shooting weapons, long gone. Today, airborne units and units have not only BMD, but also their own artillery. And the new BMD-4М “Gardener” is not inferior at all, and in many respects surpasses the “land” BMP and BTR.

Let me remind you what kind of weapons this machine has. Two guns! 100-mm and 30-mm automatic, 30-mm AGS-30. Anti-tank missile system "Competition". Machine guns ... And while BMD allows you to parachute the crew right in the car. So, the "Gardener" enters the battle almost seconds after it touches the ground.

Shamans promises to deliver almost one hundred and fifty units of these vehicles to the Airborne Forces before the end of 2016. And by 2025, they will be before 1500 in the Airborne Forces. Western experts generally believe the new BMD for firepower is comparable to tanks.

But back to the statement of Shamanov. After all, the general did not talk about cars "comparable by ...". The general talked about real-life tanks. And even with the indication of the brand. So why are they airborne?

In order to get a clear answer, you need to make a brief excursion into history Airborne.

In addition to support units, the USSR Airborne Forces consisted of several divisions. 7 Guards (Kaunas), 76-I Guards (Pskov), 98-I Guards (Bolgrad), 103-I Guards (Vitebsk), 104-I Guards (Kirovabad, then Ganzha) , 105-I Guards Mountain-Desert (Fergana), 106-I Guards (Tula), 242 Airborne Training Center (44 airborne training division) (Gaizhunay).

If you look closely, you will find some inconsistencies. In fact, there are no nonsense in the text. There were no air assault brigades in the USSR Airborne Forces. But the brigades themselves were. And even the airborne uniform was worn.

In each military district, there were such brigades and regiments (sometimes battalions) under the command of the district commander. 11 ODBSBr (Mogocha and Amazar), 13 ODBSBr (Magdagachi and Zavitinsk), 21 ODBSBr (Kutaisi), 23 ODBCBR (Kremenchug), 35 ODSBBR (GDR, Cottbus), I, I, I, I, I, 36 ODBCBR (GDR, Cottbus, I), I, 37 ODCBR (GDR, Cottbus, I) Garbolovo), 38 ODBSBr (Chernyakhovsk), 39 Guards ODBSBr (Brest), 40 ODBSBr (Khirov), 56 ODBSBr (Nikolaev), 57 Guards ODBSBr (Chirchik, introduced in Azerbaijan, entered in Nikolayev, Nikolaev), 58 Guards OBSBB (Chirchik, introduced in military hospital, entered in Nikolaev, Nikolaev) 83 ODBSBr (town Aktogay), 1318 ODBSBr (Kremenchug), 1319 ODBSBr (Poland, Bialogard), XNUMX ODSP (Polotsk), XNUMX ODSP (Kyakhta).

As you can see, the composition of the airborne assault brigades in the composition of the USSR Armed Forces was impressive. But the main thing was that the Airborne Forces and the DSBB performed, though similar, but different tasks. The airborne forces operated at a large distance from the front line (up to 200 km and more), but the tasks of the SSB were more modest (30-40 km and more).

Respectively, support units were also formed. The airborne troops landed from airplanes, the airborne armed forces from helicopters. The souls of Afghanistan felt the power of these units and formations. From the composition of the Airborne Forces in the Afghan war participated 103-I Airborne Forces. From OBSHBr - 56 OBSHBr. In total, the paratroopers were represented by the 18 th "linear" battalions (13 airborne and 5 DSB), which accounted for one fifth of the total number of battalions in the DRA.

Today, air assault units were part of the Airborne Forces. This determined the conditional division of parts and connections. Tasks to capture and hold objects are preserved. And the radius of action of the Airborne Forces has significantly expanded.

Parachute units and airborne units capture objects. But for the retention of these objects, airborne assault units and subunits are used. It is to help these units needed tanks.

It is no secret that the enemy after the first strike of the RAP or VDD is stunned. But the power of the ground forces, with all due respect to the courage and training of the paratroopers, significantly exceeds the capabilities of the paratroopers. And the enemy will try to destroy the landing with the help of heavy equipment, heavy artillery, aviation. This is where the resistance of the DShBr is needed, supported by heavy equipment, anti-tank weapons and unmanned aircraft.

In addition, in modern military conflicts, landing is rarely used. There are means of delivery by land. Therefore, many parachute units and units are used as airmobile units. And in this case, the commander of the division, and in the future, the regiment (brigade) needed its own tank units. How gunners or sappers have become familiar to the Airborne Forces. As the reconnaissance drones and combat robots, unprecedented in our army, just recently became familiar.

Well, the traditional "fly in the ointment" from me. The idea of ​​the commander is well thought out and timely. Moreover, this idea has been in the heads of officers for a long time. After all, this has already happened! Yes it was. Were part of the VDD tanks. True, not T-72, but T-62D. Back in 1984, a tank battalion was formed in the 103 Airborne Division instead of the artillery division. The division commander, future Defense Minister Pavel Grachev, then very successfully used this "truncated by the standards of the Airborne Forces" battalion. The 22 tank paratroopers (as part of the tank battalion 31) successfully fought in the Afghan mountains.

And they abandoned this idea because, alas, the issue of transport aviation that had not been resolved so far. The transport airplanes used by our army were designed during the Soviet era. And BMD, respectively, were designed specifically for these aircraft. One plane - one platoon of paratroopers. This and "Ana", and "Elah."

But with the increase of firepower, armor and other upgrades, the weight of combat vehicles increased. The same "Gardener" is twice as heavy as BMD-1. And the planes remained the same. The weight of the T-72 tank is 44 tons (versus 13,5 "Gardeners"). And only Il-76 or An-124 Ruslan can lift such a tank today. There are no others in the army.

A tank platoon can "transport" An-124. Three tanks! This means that for the transportation of a company you need an 4 (!) Of departure. But in the 76-th only one tank will enter. So ten planes per company. Serious enough risk. Modern air defense systems are fully capable of destroying such large and non-speed targets. Even at the level of divisions. Remember the huge Mi-26 helicopter shot down in Chechnya?

Yes, and the number of aircraft BTA today is not enough. According to some experts, we have today from 7 to 14 operating "Ruslan" and something about a hundred Il-76. And given the active use of these machines during the operation in Syria and in the exercises of the units and formations of the Airborne Forces, the service life of these machines is on the verge.

But in general, the reform of the Airborne Forces has matured. The concept of modern war is constantly changing. Therefore, highly mobile, well-mechanized and armed Russian paratroopers today urgent need. But this reform must be accompanied by reforms in other branches of the defense complex. And above all in the creation of new, relevant to the new tasks of the aircraft and helicopters of the Military Transport Aviation.
Author:
99 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. svp67
    svp67 18 May 2016 06: 28 New
    17
    The realities of our time are such that our airborne forces need strong armor and a powerful gun ...
    1. Vend
      Vend 18 May 2016 09: 42 New
      +4
      The fists of the Airborne Forces are strong, but if they are dressed in an "armored glove", they will become even more powerful. good
      1. Alexey-74
        Alexey-74 18 May 2016 11: 26 New
        0
        I think this is the right decision.
    2. Forget
      Forget 18 May 2016 16: 06 New
      +1
      Quote: svp67
      The realities of our time are such that our airborne forces need strong armor and a powerful gun ...

      and you also need a forty-ton catcher (an aircraft engine with a thrust of 40 tons, for super-heavy aircraft)
  2. Volga Cossack
    Volga Cossack 18 May 2016 06: 33 New
    +9
    the concept of the use of airborne forces is changing, respectively, armor is needed. remember Afghanistan and Chechnya ....... yes the same BMP-1D which in Afghanistan replaced the BMD-1 ...... INCORRECT but nevertheless ..... yes and even the tanks were attached to the Desantura in Afghanistan as far as I know ..
    1. domokl
      domokl 18 May 2016 06: 36 New
      +8
      Quote: Volga Cossack
      . Yes, and desantura in Afghanistan, even tanks were given as far as I know ..

      Grachev’s tank battalion was created on the basis of the artillery division. Therefore, the number is the same as the regular number of artillerymen. The talk is not about dowries. Talk about full-time tank battalions in the VDD.
      1. Volga Cossack
        Volga Cossack 18 May 2016 08: 07 New
        0
        I meant precisely the need for heavy equipment in modern warfare among paratroopers. and it is his own and not dowry.
      2. Lopatov
        Lopatov 18 May 2016 08: 19 New
        +1
        Quote: domokl
        Grachev’s tank battalion was created on the basis of the artillery division. Therefore, the number is the same as the regular number of artillerymen.

        Another state, another strength.

        There was a separate self-propelled artillery division at ASU-85. The division was reorganized into a tank battalion with a change of staff. But at the same time, the equipment was not completely replaced, and part of the staff units still occupied the ACS-85

        By the way, in other divisions of the Airborne Forces of this kind, Fri-Sadne was completely disbanded.
      3. Bobxnumx
        Bobxnumx 18 May 2016 08: 52 New
        +4
        He served in 103 VDD until 1979, at large-scale exercises after the landing of the regiment, tanks went, and it happened that we did not understand who to expect from. The presence of tank battalions in the Airborne Forces will improve communications and mutual understanding. good
        1. The stranger
          The stranger 19 May 2016 06: 39 New
          +1
          At about the same time, they sent me and a platoon from the airborne battalion of the tank brigade, to the motorized rifle regiment, for a year. Later I found out that we had guests on the same exchange from them. It was difficult for them, and us, to visit as guests, and then it was easy at large exercises, but only to our formations. For us, the actions of the neighbor were obvious, the interaction was without a bazaar. In the neighboring brigade this was not, and they did not stick.
          In our sweat, introduced throughout the army. It didn’t get to the orders, but it’s still warming that they have benefited.
          I mean, parachutes can be friends with tanks, but before you knit them with a bow, you need to think about it. How to tie - the last thing, there is a way. And they’ll build equipment. But who is with whom, why, and where - it must be decided in advance. Maybe ten years before the war, maybe closer, but definitely in advance. And not that - both the landing and the tanks will disappear. Then it will be bad, no funeral.
  3. Shiva83483
    Shiva83483 18 May 2016 06: 41 New
    +5
    At one time, an emergency took place at 9 OBSpN, which was based in Kirovograd. But what stood there 104 airborne learned just. Thanks to the author, enlightened, and did not let the fool die ..
    1. domokl
      domokl 18 May 2016 07: 03 New
      +3
      laughing The division was in Kirovobad. Typo. Ganja is Kirovobad ... Nine vodkas for nine in my number was lol or for six .. always confuse it with Ferghana
  4. Alex_59
    Alex_59 18 May 2016 07: 05 New
    18
    I still did not understand from the article how they were going to deliver tanks to the defense sites of the objects captured by the paratroopers. And why cannot motor riflemen with their tanks solve this problem? The RAP captured the airfield, and a tank company from a conventional linear combined arms unit was transferred by landing method to hold it there. What is the problem?
    In Soviet times, there was an experimental army corps of a mixed motorized infantry-assault assault squad. It was supposed to act according to a similar scheme. Helicopter paratroopers captured the object in the depths of defense, and the ground component of the hull broke through a powerful concentrated blow in a narrow section to this already captured object on the ground with its tanks, artillery. But this was done in the interests of the ground forces, and not the Airborne Forces, i.e. tactical tasks were solved.

    And on aviation:
    something about a hundred il-xnumx. And given the active use of these machines during the operation in Syria and in the exercises of units and formations of the airborne forces, the motor resources of these machines are on the verge.
    Approximately 140 IL-76 in flight condition, of which IL-76MD (relatively fresh sides) about 120. The majority resource has so far been consumed on average by 25-30%, so they still have to fly and fly before 2045 of the year with such a bloom. The main thing is that they are maintained in good condition.
    1. domokl
      domokl 18 May 2016 07: 11 New
      +6
      Quote: Alex_59
      In Soviet times, there was an experimental army corps of a mixed motorized infantry-assault assault squad.

      The air assault regiments subordinate to the district commander were in two districts. And there were only two regiments. Indeed, they were supposed to be used according to the scheme voiced by you. But at present, the Airborne Forces are independent. which means that the issue of attached motorized rifles should be decided at a very serious level. And this time ...
      1. Alex_59
        Alex_59 18 May 2016 07: 45 New
        +6
        Quote: domokl
        The air assault regiments subordinate to the district commander were in two districts.

        No, I’m talking about a separate AK. I do not remember the number and location. It seems he was disbanded before the collapse of the union. About district regiments / brigades - this is understandable.
        Quote: domokl
        But at present, the Airborne Forces are independent. which means that the issue of attached motorized rifles should be decided at a very serious level.

        If the Airborne Forces is an operational or even strategic instrument, then this by itself implies a "very serious" level of decision-making, and coordination of its actions with both the Air Force and the Landing Force. And the availability of some time to prepare the operation. The transfer of tanks by air is in any case a very inert event and I somehow doubt that it will be possible to crank it as quickly as, for example, the transfer of the 103rd Airborne Division to Afghanistan took place. And given the actual lack of suitable aircraft - generally a pipe. Is there any point in giving tanks to paratroopers in such conditions? After all, with this logic, they should be given both powerful air defense and artillery. Let's also airlift the S-300, MSTU, Iskander ... There are no planes for these purposes anyway. And there will not be - they Il-112 and Il-114 have not been able to launch the series for 25 years, these Medvedevs are ours ...
        1. domokl
          domokl 18 May 2016 09: 11 New
          0
          The general fire brigades listed in the article were subordinate precisely to army corps ...
        2. Per se.
          Per se. 18 May 2016 09: 23 New
          +6
          Quote: Alex_59
          The transfer of tanks by air in any case, the event is very inert and I doubt something that it can be turned as fast as, for example, the 103 Airborne Forces were transferred to Afghanistan.
          To be honest, given the Sprut for the Airborne Forces, the situation with the T-90 does indeed seem ambiguous. If you do not force the Airborne Forces to engage in other people's functions, such a need for tanks is doubtful. Yes, today the Airborne Forces are our best units, but what prevents us from strengthening training in other units for tankers and motorized riflemen, especially if they are contract soldiers? What prevents the improvement of interaction between units and combat arms, without which there is no way in a war? On the other hand, the Airborne Forces have long grown into a more significant force than individual landing operations and the capture of various "bridgeheads" for the army. In general, for Russia with its vast expanses, the Airborne Forces are becoming not just an urgent need, but also a vital branch of the troops, for which, without a doubt, the future in modern highly maneuverable wars. Shamanov is great in this regard, he is one of the few, if not the only general now, who has and expresses his opinion, his plan, and, say, the "doctrine of war", under which he chooses and forges airborne troops. Perhaps, the issue of creating our own Airborne Corps has long been ripe, where our long-suffering and "shrieking" marines would go. It is unlikely that she has a place in the Coastal Forces of the Navy, or, something needs to be changed in the Navy, especially since Alexander Nikolaevich Kolpachenko, the head of the Coastal Forces, is himself from the Airborne Forces.
          1. The stranger
            The stranger 19 May 2016 08: 20 New
            +1
            Have you seen how the tank authorities relate to the paratroopers entrusted to him? Despite the fact that it swore oaths that it understands their value for tank battalions.
            Did you see what is happening in purely airborne, not to mention motorized rifle battalions, with "non-core" platoons? And all right with platoons, there is still a "battery" - belching. In principle, they understand that without "these" - they will not live up to the start of the battle at all, but they still do not like it, that's all.
            The kennel is there, if not some comrade. the captain, a major, did not decide to lay his life on the altar of this unit. If such was found, then he should shine a badge from the command, and a glade to the command, twice a year. Three years later - a stomach ulcer, after five - the first heart attack. Colonel does not shine for him. If you are very lucky - they will be sent to a real war, and then the Hero's Star will be given to his widow and children. Which he really deserve, but will not see during his lifetime, although the soldiers will really save him, and then the truth will cry, not for the movies.
            If there are questions or mockery - it was. He was a captain, the name of Dimitrov, the chief of staff of the battalion. And there wasn’t even a war.
            But he taught me, and I am grateful to him for the grave that I’m still alive. And someone else, thanks to his science.
    2. avt
      avt 18 May 2016 10: 02 New
      +2
      Quote: Alex_59
      I still did not understand from the article how they were going to deliver tanks to the defense sites of the objects captured by the paratroopers.

      Yes, even by train, even by sea. This will be, if you will, the subsequent reinforcement by technology after landing and occupying the bridgehead.
      Quote: Alex_59
      And why cannot motor riflemen with their tanks solve this problem?

      Because in fact the Airborne Forces are an analogue of the USA Rapid Reaction Force, which they formed back in the late 70s, if memory does not change. It was in fact the organization of the corps of constant combat readiness, in addition to the corps of marines with their system of expeditionary units, into which the 101st, 82nd and infantry divisions were immediately thrust, I don’t remember the number, as well as the reinforcement units, as a memory. But then they began to divide the infantry into light divisions and heavy, well, essentially tank. So everything is logical and the Shaman correctly packs the assault, shoeing them into equipment that can be dropped by all means, including parachuting, and heavy army, which at least the BTA should transport , well, the whole nomenclature. And here the plug really can turn out due to the deterioration of the Soviet reserve of the VTA park. request There are stupid cars of the An-70 and S-17 class, and when Il -214 and its heavier relative will appear .... request
      1. Alex_59
        Alex_59 18 May 2016 10: 58 New
        +3
        Quote: avt
        Yes, even by train, even by sea.
        Will trains and ships also be attached to the Airborne Forces? Or is it supposed to establish interaction with them? If all the same it will be interaction, then why is it possible with the railroad workers and the sailors, but with the tankers of the ground forces - well, no way, is it anyway that you need to get your own tanks?
        Quote: avt
        Because in fact the Airborne Forces are an analogue of the USA Rapid Response Force

        Especially to hell with these tanks. USA’s rapid reaction forces generally ride on the Hammers, which by the way is clearly not enough. And we have a BMD-4M with an 100-mm cannon - in fact, an light infantry support tank. Which, unlike the tank, also knows how to descend from the sky, and floats. The most for quick response forces!

        Quote: avt
        And here the plug really can turn out due to the deterioration of the Soviet reserve of the VTA park.
        Until 2040 year, don’t worry. Unless of course regular repairs and regulations will be carried out.
        Quote: avt
        There are stupidly no An-70 and C-17 class cars, and when IL -214 and its heavier relative appear

        An-70 is not needed for nothing. IL-214 is an aircraft lighter than the IL-76 class, and it cannot, by definition, carry tanks. Need replacement An-124. But she is not and will not be soon.
        1. Lopatov
          Lopatov 18 May 2016 11: 15 New
          +1
          Quote: Alex_59
          and with the tankers of the ground forces - well, no way, nothing at all that you need to get your own tanks?

          Exactly. No way.

          They will have their own, as far as I understand, 4 tank battalions, will work out the issues of combat use, interaction, and will be able to "accept", if necessary, at least one attached tank battalion for one airborne or airborne assault battalion.
          1. Alex_59
            Alex_59 18 May 2016 11: 27 New
            +1
            Quote: Spade
            Exactly. No way.

            Those. in Soviet times it was "like" and now "in no way". Okay. We are waiting for the appearance in the Airborne Forces of our own air defense and artillery of the RVGK. smile
            1. Lopatov
              Lopatov 18 May 2016 11: 57 New
              +1
              Quote: Alex_59
              Those. in Soviet times it was "how"

              It was during the Soviet era that there was no way

              Starting with the "Chinese hush-up", when in November 1963 the 98th Guards Airborne Division suddenly, together with the 701st separate missile division, received the 14th separate tank battalion, and ending with Afghanistan, when not only as part of the 103rd Guards. The 62nd Airborne Division appeared, but tank companies appeared as part of some separate airborne regiments and airborne assault brigades ...

              Each time, the paratroopers received an instrument in their hands that they could not use.
              1. Alex_59
                Alex_59 18 May 2016 16: 02 New
                +1
                Quote: Spade
                Each time, the paratroopers received an instrument in their hands that they could not use.

                Well duck here I am about the same. And again they are given tanks. What for? Airborne has its own profile, its own specialization. The trump card is speed. Well, even if pressed, as in Afghanistan - give the divisions ready-made TB from the NE, after the conflict ends - return the SV back.
            2. Dart2027
              Dart2027 18 May 2016 20: 35 New
              0
              Quote: Alex_59
              We are waiting for the appearance of our own air defense in the airborne

              In fact, they already have it, for example:
              Until the end of 2016, global rearmament will take place in the air defense units of the airborne forces
              http://vz.ru/news/2015/1/13/724025.html
          2. The stranger
            The stranger 19 May 2016 10: 02 New
            0
            Well, they will. Then what?
            If the task for the tankers is to break something fast there, then they should have their own infantry escort, otherwise they cannot survive among the alien infantry. That's why they have their own landing. Tank brigades, regiments at worst. Then they either go deep into the gap and partisan, or the normal infantry, with their terrible artillery and tanks, follow them.
            If the task is for normal infantry divisions - then they have their own tanks in detail. There they quickly supported the company, or they made a hole in the battalion so that they would all have fun.
            Airborne what can? Busy any area around the globe - maybe. With tanks - without tanks - he can. It is inconceivably expensive for all resources, except for money. Including irretrievable losses, which cost about 15 years of training for one fighter. Then what? Whose interest were you in?
            Air force? Why should they sit on a busy patch?
            Navy? They are not interested in beaches, they are more important than girls in taverns.
            Land? So the tanks themselves are on their way, the crews are on strike, and finally the sappers will not let pass strangers on their crossing, nor even for beer, what is your ksiva, parachutist? Go, jump, as mine pass - and so you will be ferried.
            Congestion for 10 kilometers - trucks with shells are stuck in traffic for the third day, amphibians with iskanders have cleared the ford for an hour and rushed to the other side, nurses from the sorting hospital are already tired of posting VKontakte photos from the forest, which is already in Tu’s area of ​​responsibility, range, and here, to the delight of all, three tanks rush in vests, pumping rights with a seal from the second of August. Without shells, to make the parachute easier, and even tearing is impossible - sovereign good.
            Now attention, the question is:
            Who will receive the first:
            1. The third company of the second battalion 579-o tankoto regiment, declared three more ago spare parts
            2. Murka’s cat, Murzik’s phone promised in March
            3. Skydiver in the face.

            Please send the correct answers to:
        2. avt
          avt 18 May 2016 11: 18 New
          +1
          Quote: Alex_59
          Will trains and ships also be attached to the Airborne Forces? Or is it supposed to establish interaction with them?

          Well, you don't need to fall into insanity, just look at what state the US ships are in for transportation, again where, in the form of military transports, our Soviet-built Kosygin-type lighter carrier, for example, is used by them in the auxiliary fleet.
          Quote: Alex_59
          Especially to hell with these tanks. USA’s rapid reaction forces generally ride the Hammers,

          There is no need to tell jokes, they, back in the Desert Storm, threw the 82nd laid out their old Sheridans "for lack of BMD analogs and sat with them until the Abramov and other burdens were brought by the sea. So the Shaman is pragmatic and correctly builds a line of weapons for the Airborne Forces.
          Quote: Alex_59
          An-70 is not needed for nothing.

          In general, under the USSR, it was calculated under the new dimensions of promising equipment and went to replace the An-12.
          Quote: Alex_59
          Need to replace An-124. But she is not and will not be soon.

          Yes, but we need two machines - one analogue of the C-17, which is actually being worked out on the topic of "Ermak"
          1. Alex_59
            Alex_59 18 May 2016 11: 43 New
            +4
            Quote: avt
            There is no need to tell jokes, they threw the 82nd in the "Desert Storm" they cashed their old "Sheridans" for lack of analogs of BMD and sat with them until the sea brought Abramov and other weight.
            Well, in my understanding, this is exactly what it looks like. Arrived very, very fast Airborne on their BMD-4M, held out until the infantrymen were transported with weight. After the arrival of the infantry, they rested heavily and began to solve local tactical problems to help these infantry. Why tanks in the composition of the Airborne Forces? Regardless of who these tanks belong to, they will still arrive at the same speed as motorized rifle tanks go.
            Quote: avt
            In general, under the USSR, it was calculated under the new dimensions of promising equipment and went to replace the An-12.

            And he got into the niche of IL-76, but he can’t replace it - it’s too small. And the An-12 greatly outgrew - and it also cannot replace it - it is heavy. And taking into account the problems of Ukraine, it is not needed for nothing. To replace the An-12, the An-178 is perfect, but it seems he was not lucky with the country of birth ... Sadness ...
            Quote: avt
            Yes, but we need two machines - one analogue of the C-17, which is actually being worked out on the topic of "Ermak"

            Well, I would consider it a development of the IL-76 towards the enlargement of the airframe, and not "an analogue of the C-17". So patriotic. smile But essentially the same thing. drinks
            1. svp67
              svp67 18 May 2016 11: 58 New
              0
              Quote: Alex_59
              Why tanks in the composition of the Airborne Forces?

              Necessary measure. In our reality, too often the Airborne Forces are forced to use in the role of "guard infantry".
              Quote: Alex_59
              Regardless of who these tanks belong to, they will still arrive at the same speed as motorized rifle tanks go.

              And they will leave together with motorized rifles to solve their tasks, and their tanks will remain.
              Quote: Alex_59
              To replace the An-12, the An-178 is perfect, but it seems he was unlucky with the country of birth ... Sadness ...

              Now "Ilyushin" is very actively engaged in the creation of a whole line of light and medium transport aircraft, I very much hope that this business will not be delayed, otherwise we will soon be left without VTA or buy aircraft for it abroad.
              1. Alex_59
                Alex_59 18 May 2016 16: 11 New
                +2
                Quote: svp67
                And they will leave together with motorized rifles to solve their tasks, and their tanks will remain.

                Why is it impossible for a tank battalion to be assigned to paratroopers for the duration of such a need for the time of urgent need? Ready prepared, trained battalion! With his headquarters, with people who know their equipment (the tanker in the tanks fumbles, and the tanker in the tanks also fumbles?), With some kind of repair base. Or are the Airborne Forces also famously able to repair steel tanks like aluminum BMD? And the headquarters of the paratroopers in general on the tactics of using tanks prepared or what? Or will it be not tanks but mobile dos?

                No, I’m a teapot, I didn’t serve in the army at all, maybe I’m not right, it’s just not clear to me and that's it!
                1. Victor jnnjdfy
                  Victor jnnjdfy 18 May 2016 18: 30 New
                  +1
                  Combat coordination. When the DShD and DShBr have their full-time tank battalions, this will be worked out exactly.
                2. svp67
                  svp67 18 May 2016 20: 30 New
                  0
                  Quote: Alex_59
                  Why is it impossible for a tank battalion to be assigned to paratroopers for the duration of such a need for the time of urgent need?

                  Well, firstly it is called SPRAYING forces. TD (tank division) is a steel fist capable of not only breaking through the enemy’s defenses, but acting independently to a great depth in its defense. So to pull out TD by the battalion is not the best way to use it.
                  Quote: Alex_59
                  (the zampotech tanker fumbles in tanks, and does the paratrooper tanker fumble in tanks too?)

                  I think that it will be the same Zampotech tanker, but in a vest and a blue beret.
                  Quote: Alex_59
                  Or will it be not tanks but mobile dos?

                  And this already depends on the commander. How he intends to use the tanks. As a "steel fist" for attacks and counterattacks, or as a "steel reinforcement" in defense.
                  1. Alex_59
                    Alex_59 19 May 2016 23: 11 New
                    +1
                    Quote: svp67
                    TD (tank division) is a steel fist capable of not only breaking through the enemy’s defenses, but acting independently to a great depth in its defense.

                    Well, you can’t argue with that, I agree.
                    Quote: Victor Jnnjdfy
                    Combat coordination. When the DShD and DShBr have their full-time tank battalions, this will be worked out exactly.

                    The argument is convincing. It's just that there are fears that in practice, for paratrooper commanders, tanks will become a "foster daughter" - they would have to provide personnel training for the main task of the landing, and then there are some tanks. This is usually the case. Remember the Fara radar station in motorized rifle companies - which of the company commanders trained their staff operators? Nobody. With the signalmen, the same song - it's not for nothing that they are separately collected in communications platoons, and for combat they are given to companies. Because a motorized rifle company will not prepare a radio operator. Here it seems to me a similar problem, only at a higher level - a firebrand not for a commando airborne company, but for the chief of staff of a regiment or division.
                3. Dart2027
                  Dart2027 18 May 2016 20: 43 New
                  0
                  Quote: Alex_59
                  Why is it impossible for a tank battalion to be allocated from the TD to paratroopers for the duration of such a need

                  Of course it is possible, but any interaction between different troops among themselves requires coordination. That is, with normally trained personnel, this is easily solved, but it’s more convenient to fight with your tankers.
                  The above was an example of the US Army:
                  Quote: Alex_59
                  Arrived very, very fast airborne on their BMD-4M, held out until the infantrymen were transported with heaviness.
                  This is true, but the American analogue of our Airborne Forces is more likely an MP, not an assault force, and their marines have their own tanks.
            2. strannik1985
              strannik1985 18 May 2016 12: 20 New
              +1
              Regardless of who these tanks belong to, they will still arrive at the same speed as motorized rifle tanks go.

              Ил-76, АН-22,АН-124/АН-124-100?
              1. Alex_59
                Alex_59 18 May 2016 15: 57 New
                +1
                Quote: strannik1985

                Ил-76, АН-22,АН-124/АН-124-100?

                In your IL-76, in the interests of the Airborne Forces fly at a faster speed than in the interests of other departments? If they are ordered to take a tank from a tank division by plane (and why not?), Then it will fly in the same way as if it had been ordered to carry a tank from a paratrooper division. I understand that the Airborne Forces are precisely those troops that go one step ahead of any tanks. Their goal is to be even faster, and not to get weights on their feet in the form of 45-ton pieces of iron.
                1. strannik1985
                  strannik1985 18 May 2016 18: 10 New
                  +1
                  It is one thing to organize the interaction of units of different branches of the armed forces, and another as part of one division. In this case, the division command has the opportunity to prepare the reinforcement part itself, to work out the interaction, supply and repair, and not be content with what they give. Afghanistan and the Second Chechen showed that these weights are indispensable.
                  1. svp67
                    svp67 18 May 2016 20: 32 New
                    0
                    Quote: strannik1985
                    In this case, the division command has the opportunity to prepare the reinforcement part itself, to work out the interaction, supply and repair, and not be content with what they give.

                    And the commanders better understand each other and work out many issues of interaction in peacetime in the process of military training, and not quickly at the time of preparation for the battle ...
            3. avt
              avt 18 May 2016 12: 28 New
              +2
              Quote: Alex_59
              Well, in my understanding, this is exactly what it looks like. Arrived very, very fast Airborne on their BMD-4M, held out until the infantrymen were transported with heaviness

              Well, at least read it completely
              Quote: avt
              It was in fact the organization of the corps of constant combat readiness, in addition to the corps of marines with their system of expeditionary units, into which the 101st, 82nd and infantry divisions were immediately thrust, I don’t remember the number, as well as the reinforcement units, as a memory.

              There are units of constant readiness, ours have dropped equipment for the first time with the subsequent delivery of heavier weapons, which is much easier for equipment, "in bulk" for those on the bridgehead, than to move the infantry in an emergency order, and even as in the USSR conscripts and ,, partisans "manned. The meaning of the rapid response corps is lost immediately. That is why the amer and keep the Marines separately from the army and even the navy with an independent corps with seafarers sharpened for them and aircraft with aircraft carrying ships - they even mark aircraft since the Second World War not NAVY AIR FORCE, but MARINE CORP. In the army, only since the 70s they have attended to such an operational formation.
              Quote: Alex_59
              . To replace the An-12, the An-178 is ideal

              No. No sideways. Antonovites in the fire version blinded on the An-148 platform, there is good experience, and they wanted to take on the grandmothers instead of the Il-214. It turned out .... well, what happened.
              Quote: Alex_59
              Well, I would consider this the development of IL-76 towards the enlargement of the glider

              what Will not work request they squeezed out of it that they squeezed out, lengthened the fuselage to the maximum and remotored with the replacement of avionics, but it’s the size of the old Soviet, Of course, they will take into account some percentage of 76 will remain, but it will be a new machine and it’s an analogue of the S-17, like An -140 It was developed as an analogue of S-5, and it turned out that mountain-a-azdo is better. So ... the analogue is not a curse laughing
              1. Alex_59
                Alex_59 18 May 2016 15: 53 New
                0
                Quote: avt
                There are parts of constant readiness

                Our Airborne Forces should also be in constant readiness, without partisans and jackets. Yes, and the backbone of SV, too. Why tanks in the Airborne Forces are still not clear.
                Quote: avt
                No sideways. Antonovites in the fire version blinded on the An-148 platform, there is good experience, and they wanted to take on the grandmothers instead of the Il-214. It turned out .... well, what happened.
                I mean that by TTX it is suitable for replacing the An-12. What was done with another message is clear by itself. IL-214 generally forget, the project is closed.
        3. strannik1985
          strannik1985 18 May 2016 12: 12 New
          +1
          Especially to hell with these tanks. USA’s rapid reaction forces generally ride on the Hammers, which by the way is clearly not enough. And we have a BMD-4M with an 100-mm cannon - in fact, an light infantry support tank. Which, unlike the tank, also knows how to descend from the sky, and floats. The most for quick response forces!

          The 18 VDK includes 3 MD (249 M1A1 "Abrams"), previously it was (possibly now) 2 LBRKP (123 M1A1 "Abrams"), and the corps formations also include army aviation, from 290 helicopters 101 VShD (of which 72 shock), up to 47 (2 LBRKP) - 83 (10 light infantry division) -91 (82 Airborne Division) helicopters. If we had our own helicopters as part of the units and formations of the Airborne Forces, we could not bother with tanks.
        4. cast iron
          cast iron 18 May 2016 18: 36 New
          0
          In addition to the BMD4M, the Airborne Forces also have a real Sprut light tank with a 125mm tank gun - launch by the installation.
      2. Alekseev
        Alekseev 18 May 2016 15: 15 New
        +1
        Quote: avt
        Because in fact the Airborne Forces are an analog of the Rapid Reaction Forces

        At present, in the Russian Federation there is no such abundance of forces and means that paratroopers only capture objects in the rear, and here the infantry with tanks arrive in time, etc. etc.
        Remember the local conflicts of recent times: where the "winged infantry" was parachuted there.
        Airborne forces must and can act in different ways, depending on the situation. Either in the deep rear of the enemy, to land, or in the role of motorized rifle, all the more so of these same riflemen, once or twice, he settled in combat-ready units in peacetime.
        And in order to successfully operate in that capacity, heavy weapons are also needed. And Shamanov wants to introduce tank units into the state because his own is always better than the dowry.
        Everything seems to be clear, like a white day.
      3. cast iron
        cast iron 18 May 2016 18: 33 New
        +1
        And why does Russia need the An-70, which is analogous to the Il-76 in terms of carrying capacity? By the way, in Russia there is also An-22 "Antey" with a carrying capacity of 60 tons. Don't forget about them too.
  5. inkass_98
    inkass_98 18 May 2016 07: 10 New
    +3
    More complete information here: http://svpressa.ru/war21/article/148675/
  6. Moore
    Moore 18 May 2016 07: 57 New
    +8
    The tasks of capturing and holding objects have been preserved. And the range of the Airborne Forces has expanded significantly

    And they abandoned this idea because, alas, the issue of transport aviation has not yet been resolved

    In other words:
    -tanki paratroopers are needed when using them as ordinary motorized infantry;
    - nobody in their right mind would take tanks through the air to captured and held objects in conditions of unsuppressed enemy air defenses.
  7. tchoni
    tchoni 18 May 2016 08: 20 New
    +5
    The thing is that paratroopers, due to the quality of their combat training, are often used as ordinary infantry where the result is needed. And to fight like infantry with standard cardboard armor is not an ice. So, Uncle Vasya’s troops are getting all kinds of serious armor.
    I would generally suggest that on the basis of one separate Airborne Division a full-fledged assault division be formed. Equip tanks with heavy armored personnel carriers. Moreover, as it seems to me, the tank should be a regular part of the platoon ... Let's say two tanks and a tank in the platoon.
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 18 May 2016 08: 35 New
      10
      Quote: tchoni
      I would generally suggest that on the basis of one separate Airborne Division a full-fledged assault division be formed.

      It’s easier to start training infantry normally.
      So neither fish nor meat comes out.

      Although ... What is American Airborne Forces? This is the XVIIIth Airborne Corps. What is this building? One airborne division, one air assault division, one mountain infantry and one heavy motorized infantry on Abrams and Bradleys

      What for? Because the American Airborne Forces are intended primarily for the rapid build-up of military presence in the theater of war and ensuring the deployment of a full-fledged army group.
      1. domokl
        domokl 18 May 2016 09: 13 New
        +2
        Quote: Spade
        It’s easier to start training infantry normally.
        So neither fish nor meat comes out.

        And you can’t argue ... Every donkey must wear his ears ...
      2. wanderer_032
        wanderer_032 18 May 2016 09: 15 New
        +3
        Quote: Spade
        This is the XVIIIth Airborne Corps. What is this building? One airborne division, one air assault division, one mountain infantry and one heavy motorized infantry on Abrams and Bradleys


        It is quite sensibly organized. The size of this building, etc. 88 thousand people. Those. almost twice as many as our airborne forces - combined.

        The five-division composition of the corps is envisaged: one airborne, two heavy, one air-assault and one light division. The total number of personnel of the XVIIIth airborne corps is 88 thousand people.
        Source: http://www.modernarmy.ru/article/285/vdv-ssha © Portal "Modern Army"
  8. cdznjckfd
    cdznjckfd 18 May 2016 08: 26 New
    +1
    Given that the Airborne Forces are quick reaction troops, the presence in the tank units is long overdue, it is strange that they only attended now, but as they say better later than .....)
  9. cdznjckfd
    cdznjckfd 18 May 2016 08: 42 New
    0
    True, the choice of a model for equipment is somewhat unclear, is it not better to focus on newer models on the same Armata?
    1. domokl
      domokl 18 May 2016 09: 14 New
      0
      Armata will not fit into the plane .. And it’s heavy ... By the way, there is a link to an article where the expert says this ...
  10. Thunderbolt
    Thunderbolt 18 May 2016 08: 46 New
    +1
    And at the same time, BMD allows you to drop the crew right in the car. This means that the "Gardener" enters the battle almost seconds after it touches the ground.
    Enlighten, who knows. How are they thrown out: in Margelov style with a crew inside or empty? In general, they arm the Airborne Forces "according to the situation." After Damansky, the division that was stationed on the Amur was reinforced with Luna operational missiles.
    1. PHANTOM-AS
      PHANTOM-AS 18 May 2016 09: 00 New
      +1
      Quote: Thunderbolt
      Enlighten who knows. How are they thrown away: Margelowski with the crew inside or empty?

      According to information from the 106th Airborne Forces, landing with the crew was not carried out soldier
    2. domokl
      domokl 18 May 2016 09: 16 New
      +1
      Quote: Thunderbolt
      .How do they throw them: Margelowski with the crew inside or empty?

      There are no cars, except for the "Sadovnitsa" with a crew drop. All landings are only in test mode.
    3. Lopatov
      Lopatov 18 May 2016 10: 16 New
      +4
      Quote: Thunderbolt
      In general, they arm the Airborne Forces "according to the situation"

      That's the problem. What is it done when the "cock bites in the ass"

      Moreover, paratroopers often have no idea what to do with this happiness that has fallen on them. For not trained. And you have to work out everything during the fighting. Trial and error. With all the consequences ...

      So the tank units of the Airborne Forces are needed. At least for the purposes of combat training.
  11. cap
    cap 18 May 2016 08: 55 New
    +2
    Strategically, everything is simple if you place tanks in the direction of the breakthrough area in the first echelon (object 404). The first echelon (landing) with the task of capturing and holding strategic objects, then the advancement of tanks (support "friendly").
    While the boron cheese is here and the troops pulled up. Those are the "black knives."
    That's something like that, I understood the commander of the Airborne Forces.
    I think that I did not disclose the plan of the General Staff.
    1. domokl
      domokl 18 May 2016 09: 17 New
      0
      And what if the object is 150-200 km? Where is the guarantee that motorized infantry will break through and have time to get there? This is practically death for the landing ...
      1. wanderer_032
        wanderer_032 18 May 2016 11: 09 New
        0
        Quote: domokl
        And what if the object is 150-200 km? Where is the guarantee that motorized infantry will break through and have time to get there? This is practically death for the landing ...


        Therefore, to land troops - it makes no sense at all in the first orders. They are simply skipped from av-air defense, still in the air. Or aviation will be lifted into the air.

        And by the nature of certain actions, the enemy will understand that an airborne operation is being prepared. The whole moment of surprise is lost - in the bud.
  12. wanderer_032
    wanderer_032 18 May 2016 09: 06 New
    +1
    T-62

    It is immediately clear that the author grabbed the tops somewhere and did not even bother to find out what kind of modification it was.



    T-62
    (1983) Modification of the T-62 tank, equipped with the Drozd active defense system. Also on the tank was installed: additional armor protection of the turret and hull; rubber-fabric side anti-cumulative screens; V-55U engine, 620 l. with.; system of protection against napalm "Soda". The running gear has been upgraded. The tank was equipped with a P-173 radio station and a P-173P radio.
    T-62D-1
    (1983 g.) - A variant of the T-62D tank with the B-46-5M engine.



    https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Т-62

    T-62D is a mod. 62-ki equipped with KAZ "Drozd". That's all. And they were not in Afghanistan.
    And there were T-62M and T-55А (AM).
    1. domokl
      domokl 18 May 2016 09: 21 New
      0
      laughing The T-62D model has been produced since 1983 of the year. And it was this model in the amount of 22 units that was received by Grachev’s division ... So, you are not in the know ... Google, the Internet is at hand
      1. wanderer_032
        wanderer_032 18 May 2016 10: 49 New
        +1
        Quote: domokl
        And it was this model in the number of 22 units that Grachev’s division received ...

        When and where? From the scene, i.e. Since the Afghan campaign, not a single photograph of these tanks and not one frame of film has been preserved. Kind of weird. But in large quantities, photos of the T-62M with the emblem of the airborne forces on the armor were preserved ...
  13. uskrabut
    uskrabut 18 May 2016 09: 14 New
    +1
    The normal idea is to have highly mobile units equipped with MBTs and having their own fleet of transport aircraft. The situation will tell how to use them, but the opportunity to quickly transfer such units to critical areas, at least to destroy the advancing enemy, at least to strengthen their advancing grouping, is encouraging.
    1. domokl
      domokl 18 May 2016 09: 26 New
      0
      The Airborne Forces have paratrooper units and units, but airborne units ... So, only the division has its own air units ...
  14. ohotnik101
    ohotnik101 18 May 2016 09: 51 New
    +1
    The idea is not new. As early as the middle of the 90s, the 83 th air assault brigade included the 111 th separate tank battalion of the 86355 military unit, which included the 31 T-80 tank. The battalion was stationed in Lyalichi - one hour from the main location of the brigade.
  15. 31rus2
    31rus2 18 May 2016 09: 57 New
    +1
    Dear, will there be the same efficiency, the same suddenness with the tanks in the Airborne Forces? Tanks need to be refueled, serviced, have a Bram, bridge pavers and much more to operate quickly, so how will the DSB differ from motorized rifles? it is motorized rifles to prepare for the shock and defensive functions that are currently being carried out by the DSBB, that is, a kind of unification of both the DSBB and motorized rifles, the bmd-4m is a good machine, but the worse the BMP with the triad module and grabbing or holding the desired bridgehead will be no worse than the DBB
  16. Sars
    Sars 18 May 2016 10: 46 New
    +2
    Strange idea.
    Who now prohibits joint operations of the Airborne Forces and other military branches?
    But to have as a part of the Airborne Forces MBT - in my opinion, is not serious. Let’s TNW still efforts.
  17. wanderer_032
    wanderer_032 18 May 2016 11: 04 New
    0
    A tank platoon can "transport" An-124. Three tanks!

    And how many Ruslans themselves remained in working order? And how many airfields in the world where they can land? There may be a dozen or a half of them all over the world ... And that's not a fact.

    But what about this time? Huh?

    The idea of ​​tanks in the Airborne Forces is unfounded by anything. For the Airborne Forces, such a technique is an unbearable burden.

    And further. There is a good saying: Whoever undertakes several tasks at once, as a rule, they will not be able to complete them.

    Therefore, SV has tanks, so let them be there.

    For their tasks, the Airborne Forces have BMD, BTR-D, Sprut-SD, self-propelled guns "Nona-S" and everything else.
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 18 May 2016 13: 09 New
      +3
      Quote: wanderer_032
      The idea of ​​tanks in the Airborne Forces is unfounded by anything. For the Airborne Forces, such a technique is an unbearable burden.

      Chihiks ... I'm afraid that you are captured by Soviet ideas about the Airborne Forces as winged infantry.

      In fact, for the past 40 years, the Airborne Forces have been used exclusively as elite motorized riflemen with the possibility of airlifting. And not only by air - to the war 08.08.08 7th Guards. VDD ... arrived by rail. Moreover, even the concept of application has changed: the Airborne Forces are characterized not by one-time use in separate operations with the subsequent withdrawal to the rear, but by being constantly in the combat zone shoulder to shoulder with motorized riflemen and tankers. And then all those disadvantages of the equipment and the OSHS of the Airborne Forces, which were previously covered by the "plus" of airborne landing (not airmobility, but parachute landing), begin to creep out. Weak armor protection of BMD, lack of normal artillery and air defense, etc., etc.

      Strengthening the Airborne Forces with attached connections is not an option. After all, all the attached parts have to be taken away from someone. As a result, we get that the line infantry will be weakened, and the landing force will still not reach it in terms of firepower. Plus the traditional problems of interaction and coordination, aggravated by the fact that the Airborne Forces and the ground forces belong to different types of troops. Well, do not forget what kind of contingent and equipment are usually given from their units as "reinforcement".

      Therefore, the Airborne Forces decided that in the current conditions they need their own heavy equipment. Fortunately, the experience was-345 Guards.PDP in Afghanistan.

      as for landing and airmobility ... apparently, airborne forces will be bundled into light (airborne), medium (airmobile) and heavy parts.
      1. wanderer_032
        wanderer_032 18 May 2016 13: 53 New
        0
        Quote: Alexey RA
        But in fact, the last 40 years of the airborne forces are used exclusively as elite motorized gunners with the possibility of airborne deployment.


        Well, why do they need such "handsome" at all, in such a time?

        In the same way, ordinary motorized infantry can also be thrown over the air and planted in the landing method. And tanks and self-propelled guns - in the same way you can transport BTA aircraft. Together with the crews. Only from the SV there will be more sense, because profile specialty.

        And what is the difference between the SV and the Airborne Forces? Only in the fact that some berets wear blue, and the second is khaki?
        1. strannik1985
          strannik1985 18 May 2016 14: 00 New
          +1
          Well, why do they need such "handsome" at all, in such a time?

          Motorized rifle / tank units and formations are heavier, even in the best case they cannot be transported in full force, airborne forces are traditionally better prepared, including for transporting airborne vehicles, it may require parachute landing on their / friendly territory (as many as 1000 people from 173 Brigade during the Second War with Iraq), or to the territory occupied by the illegal armed formation with poor air defense.
          1. wanderer_032
            wanderer_032 18 May 2016 15: 59 New
            -1
            Quote: strannik1985
            even in the best case, they cannot be transported by BTA in full force


            The full force and units of the Airborne Forces cannot be transported, which is currently available in the presence of the BTA.

            And separate battalions are quite possible.

            Quote: strannik1985
            Airborne are traditionally better prepared


            What prevents better preparation of motorized riflemen and tankers?

            Including and how to prepare your full-time equipment for transportation by military transport aircraft? As well as entering and leaving a plane.

            And how to get into the plane, how to fold the seat on which he will sit during the flight, and then how to get out of the plane back, you can explain to any motorized infantry. And the tankman can also. And to the gunner. And in general to any person wearing epaulets. And even civilian.
            1. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 18 May 2016 17: 05 New
              +1
              Quote: wanderer_032
              The full force and units of the Airborne Forces cannot be transported, which is currently available in the presence of the BTA.

              I will tell you more - even at the peak of its power, the USSR, when mobilizing all civilian aircraft, could raise and throw 1,5 complete VDDs. smile
              Moreover, there were no problems with the drop-out of the light-emitting dash (with light shooting) - they could have taken at least all the airborne forces, and there would still be room. But when it came to technology ...
              Quote: wanderer_032
              Including and how to prepare your full-time equipment for transportation by military transport aircraft? As well as entering and leaving a plane.

              Not everything is so simple. ©
              For all its "cardboard" nature, the Airborne Forces equipment is optimized specifically for loading, transporting, and unloading by air. Roughly speaking, it will take fewer boards and less time to transport it (in comparable quantities).

              So, if we use the Airborne Forces as a fire brigade for temporarily plugging holes before the approach of the ground forces (as in the first stage of the Second World War), then their existence is fully justified. The main thing is not to put them in line on an ongoing basis.
            2. strannik1985
              strannik1985 18 May 2016 18: 01 New
              0
              And what kind of DSD equipment cannot be transported by BTA aircraft?
              There will be 30-44 tanks in the DShD, 130-335 tanks in the MSD / TD, not counting self-propelled guns, engineering and sapper equipment and other equipment, 3-4 thousand personnel over the number of DShD.
              The question is, what is easier to transport by plane?
              1. Alexey RA
                Alexey RA 18 May 2016 18: 47 New
                +1
                Quote: strannik1985
                And what kind of DSD equipment cannot be transported by BTA aircraft?

                The main problem will be with tanks and self-propelled guns. For without shamanistic dances they fit only in the An-124. Of which there are not very many.
                Quote: strannik1985
                There will be 30-44 tanks in the DShD, 130-335 tanks in the MSD / TD, not counting self-propelled guns, engineering and sapper equipment and other equipment, 3-4 thousand personnel over the number of DShD.
                The question is, what is easier to transport by plane?

                It is easier to transport normal VDD by air without heavy equipment. And the airborne tanks should be stored at BHVT at several airfields. To transfer tanks to the landing zone, PMSM, there will be enough time lag between the decision to transfer the airborne transport and landing the first echelon at the landing airport. smile
                1. strannik1985
                  strannik1985 18 May 2016 19: 06 New
                  0
                  There are a lot of them and it is not necessary, in Afghanistan there were 345 T-10s as part of 62 OPDPs, in 1999 2 T-3s reinforced the 72-battalion PTGr.

                  If it is not like in the exercises "Vostok-2010" (from Yekaterinburg, PUrVO 4 IL-76 to the Primorsky Territory, 600 people from the 34th OMRB were transported to the 247th BHiRVT, the battalion was to receive heavy weapons from the 90th OMRB, equipment with all available personnel, plus people from 60 omsbr prepared 2 days, another day the battalion made a march of 170 km (17 km / h average marching speed instead of the authorized 25 km / h), the equipment was on average 13-14 years older than the soldiers).
                  In any case, the OTB (in order to have its own trained tankers and work out the interaction in advance) is needed in the division staff.
        2. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 18 May 2016 14: 51 New
          +1
          Quote: wanderer_032
          Well, why do they need such "handsome" at all, in such a time?

          Well, he knows. smile In general, I think that the Airborne Forces should remain the Airborne Forces - light mobile formations for "one-time" actions and emergency reinforcement (and not parachute-tank divisions for standing at the front in the style of "Hermann Goering").

          And for a rapid build-up of forces in a theater of operations, it is better to return to the concept of "dual-basing": personnel are transferred between the theater of operations by air, and sets of equipment are placed on the BHVT. De-mothballing of equipment can be carried out in advance (when the situation worsens) - either by the forces of a group separated from the division, or by a separate unit belonging to the BHVT (or by combining both methods - the l / s of the base starts, and the l / s of the division is connected in the process).
          1. strannik1985
            strannik1985 18 May 2016 16: 21 New
            0
            To do this, they are redundant, light connections still need to be strengthened by helicopters (according to Soviet experience with 11,13,21 oddsbr or American with 101 vshd or other connections of XVIII airborne forces), or used in specific conditions (mountain brigades), or for specific tasks ( brigades SPN GRU).

            One thing does not interfere with the other, but according to the experience of the Vostok-2010 exercises, one can expect that the kits will be aged, it will take a lot of time to prepare.
            1. Alexey RA
              Alexey RA 18 May 2016 17: 16 New
              0
              Quote: strannik1985
              To do this, they are redundant, light connections still need to be strengthened by helicopters (according to Soviet experience with 11,13,21 oddsbr or American with 101 vshd or other connections of XVIII airborne forces),

              And to drive helicopters under their own power from one theater to another? Say, from Pskov to Mozdok? what
              Because their transportation by air is a task of about the same complexity as the transportation of tanks.
              1. strannik1985
                strannik1985 18 May 2016 17: 57 New
                0
                That is why the DShCH at the Union were subordinate to the GK SV (the ferry range of Mi-8 / Mi-24 is 1100-1200 km).

                Two brigades of 101 (2 personnel, 742 helicopters, 117 vehicles) of the Airborne Division were deployed during Operation Desert Shield 487 С-56 and 141 С-46.
      2. strannik1985
        strannik1985 18 May 2016 14: 16 New
        +1
        And not only by air - to the war 08.08.08 7 Guards. VDD ... arrived by rail.

        According to the book "War 08.08.08. Forcing Georgia to Peace", Tsyganok A.D. Forces VTA to the Beslan airfield in the first echelon, the operational control group of the Airborne Forces headquarters, the operational control group 76 DShD, BTG 3/104 DShP, 1140 artillery regiment, 175 RR, a technical support group from 7 ORVB were transferred.
        In the second echelon: BTG 2/234 DSHP, artillery 1140 artillery regiment, medical support group from 3996 VG, rear support group from 1682 OBMO, reinforced battalion from 45 regiment of Special Forces.
        In the third echelon: operational group of management 98 VDD, BTG 217 PDP, BTG 2/104 76 DShD.
        Abkhazia, BTA: 31 oddsbr, combined battalion of the 45th regiment of Special Forces.
        Maritime transport: control group 7 DShD, btgr 2/108 DShP.
        Railway: btg 3/108 guards. Dshp, btg. 247 guards. Dshp, 1141 AP, part of the forces 7 DShD.
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 18 May 2016 14: 33 New
          0
          Quote: strannik1985
          According to the book "War 08.08.08. Forcing Georgia to Peace", Tsyganok A.D. Forces VTA to the Beslan airfield in the first echelon, the operational control group of the Airborne Forces headquarters, the operational control group 76 DShD, BTG 3/104 DShP, 1140 artillery regiment, 175 RR, a technical support group from 7 ORVB were transferred.

          The 76th Airborne Assault Force was "lucky" in general: its units had just arrived exactly from those regions - from the completed exercises "Kavkaz-2008". smile
  18. voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 18 May 2016 11: 21 New
    +4
    Without complete air supremacy no
    airborne operation is not possible.
    And the airborne forces are turning into an elite infantry.
    (This was the case with both the Germans and the Red Army in World War II).
    And the infantry needs tank support. Everything is simple.
    1. wanderer_032
      wanderer_032 18 May 2016 12: 44 New
      0
      Quote: voyaka uh
      Without complete air supremacy no
      airborne operation is not possible.


      I would add to this yet, without the complete suppression of the air defense squadron, to the entire depth of the area of ​​such a military operation. Including MANPADS. Because when landing vehicles with heavy equipment they can be stupidly shot down on a glide path. What thread a sergeant or an ordinary ... winked

      The case of Mi-26 in Chechnya is vivid proof of this. A transporter, even from a banal RPG or portable ATGM, can be flunked when he goes on takeoff or lands on landing. Yes, even just from a heavy machine gun or ZUSHKA.

      Those. in order for them to even stupidly sit down or take off, it is necessary to deploy a whole combat operation of cover.
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 18 May 2016 13: 12 New
        +1
        Quote: wanderer_032
        Those. in order for them to even stupidly sit down or take off, it is necessary to deploy a whole combat operation of cover.

        Yeah ... and it may turn out that the detachment of the forces providing the airborne operation is quite enough to push conventional infantry to the same depth. smile
        1. wanderer_032
          wanderer_032 18 May 2016 16: 04 New
          0
          Quote: Alexey RA
          Yeah ... and it may turn out that the detachment of the forces providing the airborne operation is quite enough to push conventional infantry to the same depth.


          That's right. laughing

          Well, if so, then what's the point of making a garden?
  19. strannik1985
    strannik1985 18 May 2016 11: 52 New
    +2
    As you can see, the composition of the airborne assault brigades in the composition of the USSR Armed Forces was impressive. But the main thing was that the Airborne Forces and the DSBB performed, though similar, but different tasks. The airborne forces operated at a large distance from the front line (up to 200 km and more), but the tasks of the SSB were more modest (30-40 km and more).


    After the end of the formation of the airborne assault units of the second wave, the SA had 16 airborne assault brigades, 2 regiments and 22 battalions, the standard armament of the DShCh (BMD-1, BTR-D, SAO) did not allow the implementation of the TACD on its own, it was necessary to use the VTA the number with the Airborne Forces was about 150 people, at a meeting of the GVS in October 000, the commander of the Ural Military District said: "We continue to outnumber the enemy in ... airborne troops without delivery vehicles ...".
    Of all the DShCHs, only three brigades had regular helicopters (11,13,21 oddsbbr, 135 Mi-24, Mi-8 and Mi-6 helicopters per brigade).

    The depth of the airborne assault and airborne assault units / units / formations is the same, the whole difference is in the means of delivery.
  20. chenia
    chenia 18 May 2016 12: 40 New
    +4
    Quote: Spade
    So the tank units of the Airborne Forces are needed. At least for the purposes of combat training.


    I agree.
    The use of units and parts of the airborne forces involves (very briefly) the capture of important areas, bridgeheads and hold them until the arrival of the main forces.

    In a war with an EQUAL enemy, this is possible either at the beginning of the conflict (still fear to press the trigger), or at the end, when the enemy’s air defense is already significantly suppressed.

    In other cases, the Airborne Forces will fight as a simple infantry, hence the set of means must be appropriate and this must be prepared.

    Does it make sense to have airborne troops (divisions, regiments)? I think so.
    A lot of conflicts, when the enemy does not have air defense systems (or they can be easily suppressed), or even just a fight against well-armed gangs.

    Many conflicts can be prevented thanks to the Airborne Forces (1968 Czechoslovakia or 1979, Afghanistan - meaning the resistance of government forces) or, when the EQUAL powers compete, to seize the initiative (Pristina) and so on.
    In short, quick reaction troops with a set of both “light” and “heavy” equipment, using it as appropriate.
    1. Lopatov
      Lopatov 18 May 2016 12: 55 New
      0
      Quote: chenia
      In a war with an EQUAL adversary, this is possible either at the beginning of the conflict

      I’ll clarify before the conflict. At the stage of deployment of the group.
      When they still do not seem to be shooting, but the DRGs have already crossed the border, and the security / defense of the infrastructure that provides the deployment takes on a paramount role.
  21. iouris
    iouris 18 May 2016 13: 44 New
    0
    The idea is interesting. The main thing is not clear: who is seen in the Airborne Forces as their enemy. Definitely not NATO.
    1. Cat man null
      Cat man null 18 May 2016 13: 49 New
      0
      Quote: iouris
      whom they see in the Airborne Forces as their adversary. Definitely not NATO

      belay

      Why is this so?

      belay
      1. svp67
        svp67 18 May 2016 13: 53 New
        0
        Quote: Cat Man Null
        Why is this so?

        Because they "do not notice them point blank" ...
      2. iouris
        iouris 18 May 2016 14: 31 New
        +2
        Against an adversary like NATO, this is impossible to use. Airborne grouping may be destroyed while focusing on airfields.
        1. Cat man null
          Cat man null 18 May 2016 14: 50 New
          0
          Quote: iouris
          Against an adversary like NATO, this is impossible to use. Airborne grouping may be destroyed while focusing on airfields.

          Yeah .. but

          Quote: iouris
          "Elections" in the United States is a technology that is alien and incomprehensible to us. She always leads to the result that is needed

          - iouris, You, hike, are smarter than General Shamanov, as well as the entire General Staff of the Ministry of Defense, which approved the idea of ​​"tanks for the Airborne Forces"
          - why are you still not in the General Staff - it is not clear ..

          PS: by the way, oh birdies elections in the United States. Explain to me, not too far off - and what is wrong with "technology, which always leads to the result that is needed"?

          Rzhunimagu with you already laughing
  22. The comment was deleted.
  23. Quzmi4
    Quzmi4 18 May 2016 15: 28 New
    +1
    Uncle Vasya’s troops urgently and urgently need strategic missiles with nuclear warheads!
    And certainly - an aircraft carrier! Well, how are the Airborne Forces still without an aircraft carrier ?!

    If serious.
    The task of capturing and holding an object for an airborne assault is possible only with a obviously weaker enemy and complete dominance in the air. As an example - Czechoslovakia-68.
    With an equal or stronger opponent, only sabotage actions are possible, and this is "fluttering like a butterfly, sting like a bee."
    Actually, it was only in Czechoslovakia in 1968 that our airborne forces were used, as it should be. In the Great Patriotic War, in Afghanistan, in Chechnya - as an elite infantry, and landing equipment in such conditions does not work.
    I draw the conclusion: "calling under the landing banners" tanks (and even the modification is not the most successful), the Commander-in-Chief of the Airborne Forces legitimizes the inappropriate use of the entrusted troops ((((((((((((
  24. chenia
    chenia 18 May 2016 16: 57 New
    +3
    Quote: Spade
    I’ll clarify before the conflict. At the stage of deployment of the group.


    I would say that there is a conflict over a third country, between two equal nations (even if one of them is an ally). Then the principle is, whoever got up, that and slippers.

    The latecomer will still think about whether to get involved in an already occupied meadow.

    So that the Airborne Forces can act as peacekeepers.

    And in a serious slaughter, the Airborne Forces should have (and be able to use) similar heavy weapons (and the corresponding organization).

    Well, at the end of the war (certainly victorious), you can tear the vest on your chest (remember the original purpose.

    So that the innovations are positive.
  25. TARAS BULBA
    TARAS BULBA 18 May 2016 21: 56 New
    0
    Quote: Shiva83483
    At one time, an emergency took place at 9 OBSpN, which was based in Kirovograd. But what stood there 104 airborne learned just. Thanks to the author, enlightened, and did not let the fool die ..


    KIROVOBAD (Azerbaijan) is not Kirovograd.
  26. rost-ok
    rost-ok 25 May 2016 13: 29 New
    0
    And that, no one has the feeling that the concept of the development of the Airborne Forces is being formed for promising models of long-range aviation and armored vehicles with completely different performance characteristics, due to (probably already indicated) the tasks of using the enhanced potential of the Airborne Forces on the territory (also, probably already indicated)) enemy? Strange ... Was it not Rogozin who mentioned the modernization of the RF Armed Forces using technology based on "new physical principles"?