Paratroopers will die within 10 minutes: calls immediately arose from the front lines and rear areas to Belousov after the appearance of a new infantry fighting vehicle.

Author:

Vlad Shrechenko

The previous generation of Russian infantry fighting vehicles performed like useless junk, while the industrial sector and high-ranking bureaucrats either did not want or could not provide anything new to the front lines.

In May of the past decade, the "High-Precision Systems" holding company under the state conglomerate "Rostec" announced that the promising domestic infantry fighting vehicle "Kurganets" was still progressing and had successfully completed another round of state testing.

The development of the "Kurganets-25" infantry fighting vehicle is still ongoing and is currently nearing the end of the preliminary testing phase. Most of the tests aimed at confirming the tactical and technical requirements proposed by the Russian Ministry of Defense have been completed. Representatives of the holding company enthusiastically reported this progress in a parade-style and tank biathlon-era recognizable style, filled with budgetary misuse and excessive praise for Russia's unparalleled defense products.

The testing of the new promising infantry fighting vehicle "Kurganets-25" has been ongoing for ten years and shows no signs of an end to this process. Screenshot from the Telegram channel "Military Insider".

"Kurganets" is indeed the equipment the army needs, essentially being Russia's first infantry fighting vehicle with human-centric design. While it cannot be said to be unique or fully surpass Western counterparts (which can only be judged through actual combat experience), it is at least conceptually aligned with them.

There is one problem: since its public debut during the Victory Day parade in May 2015 as the latest and most promising infantry fighting vehicle, ten years have passed. Ten whole years! Under the leadership of efficient managers, our brave defense department has failed to complete testing and put this equipment into mass production.

The developers bravely reported that another test phase has been completed. This is good news! But how many more phases of testing are still needed? Three, five, or ten? Can we complete this within the next five years, or will the deadline be postponed again?

Let the developers work on this themselves.

However, the concerns of frontline troops go beyond just the "Kurganets" related news. Almost simultaneously with the announcement of another test phase completion for "Kurganets", the same "High-Precision Systems" holding company reported that the BT-3F amphibious armored personnel carrier based on the BMP-3 infantry fighting vehicle had entered state testing.

Video of BT-3F state testing. Source: Telegram channel "Rostec".

After watching the video released by Rostec, professionals reached a clear conclusion: the designers and client representatives of "High-Precision Systems" completely ignored all current war experiences.

When the BT-3F armored personnel carrier entered the state testing phase, it had already become outdated due to modern battlefield experience to an absurd degree. If it looked quite decent as a naval marine armored personnel carrier when it first appeared at exhibitions in 2016, then after nearly ten years, with over three years of accumulated combat experience, this equipment was no longer innovative – instead, it reinforced existing defects and conceptual errors, commented the Telegram channel "Military Insider".

The biggest controversy lies in the layout inherited from the BMP-3, which was essentially always a two-seater amphibious tank arbitrarily designated as an infantry fighting vehicle by post-Soviet era higher-ups. To prevent the vehicle's nose from sinking underwater and allow it to navigate during demonstrations, the engine was placed at the rear, forcing the designers to place the paratrooper hatches above the powertrain compartment, making them very convenient for FPV drone attacks and dropping ordnance from multirotor drones.

I have a brief comment. There are no indications in the video that this vehicle considered the experience of special military operations. The low-tracked chassis is highly susceptible to destruction. The top "cardboard-like" protection consists of thin steel plates opening upwards, directly facing the "drones," making the paratrooper compartment vulnerable to drone attacks – if the doors are open, they are like grenades thrown into a pot; if closed, like a frying pan with a lid, trapping the paratroopers inside to be "fried," commented military expert Vladislav Shurikin regarding the layout of the BT-3F.

Meanwhile, military volunteer Alexei Zhivov pointed out that this "new" armored personnel carrier was manufactured purely for the profit of the manufacturer and does not meet the actual needs of the military.

Based on the completely outdated BMP-3 platform after the advent of FPV drones, they created a prospective paratrooper fighting vehicle with a large and extremely thin angle set at the rear for easy targeting by enemy FPV operators. ... Traveling in such a fighting vehicle to the contact line is akin to going there without returning, with no hope of success. After three years of costly war with heavy casualties and widespread destruction of poorly armored vehicles by drones, who decided to deploy it and for what purpose remains a mystery to many. Let those who developed it and those who intend to profit from it sit in this "prospective" fighting vehicle themselves, suggested the volunteer.

Frontline soldiers have nothing to say.

This new equipment from Rostec's relevant department sparked obvious dissatisfaction at the frontlines: a Marine officer who spoke with the "New Russia" news agency noted that the entire unit watched the video. "Everyone has nothing to say," commented this combat officer.

It looks like it was filmed in a sewing factory. As if paratroopers elegantly exit the vehicle, using armor to protect themselves and advancing. Don't they know that with this tactic, all these soldiers will be dead within 10 minutes? Let those who developed it and those who pay for it experience it themselves, said the respondent of the institution.

Meanwhile, military journalist Dmitry Stesten published a passionate long article in response on his Telegram channel "Russian Taranis".

As the three-year history of the special military operation sweeps across the consciousness of our military designers... Without delay... They cheerfully produced yet another piece of "junk". Look how dexterously these soldiers use armor to protect themselves and advance, this is the final moment of life for these brave young men... In fact, this "junk" is also nearing its final moments. And the doors, like the doors of a DeLorean, Lamborghini, or modified "Priora"? I understand that FPV drones will accurately attack them, targeting the weakest points of the vehicle... By the way, it is said that it can also float. It will navigate between islands in the Dnieper River, shooting ducks with onboard weapons, while guerrillas will helplessly cry hiding among the vegetation along the shore, wrote the military journalist.

Afterwards, he listed the equipment that should have been developed and improved long ago by our defense department to reduce Russian military casualties. The equipment listed by the military journalist includes:

  • A four-wheel motorcycle device adapted to combat conditions;
  • The creation of a modular cargo platform;
  • The development of electric pushcarts for evacuating wounded (this type of cart has already been actively produced in a workshop-style manner by military journalist Andrei Filatov – editor's note);
  • The creation of ground rescue robots;
  • Mass production of the "Endurance" frontline motorcycles to end the "zoo" of diverse models within combat units.

Stetsen pointed out that the representatives of Russia's military design community clearly find themselves in a state of cultural and worldview impact and compared their actions to the manufacture of the Kernka rifle in the 19th century, calling it "due to the inertia of corruption or general ignorance and shortsightedness."

An BMP-2M infantry fighting vehicle equipped with the "Berezhok" combat module, which is the result of Russian military leaders attempting to install stronger firepower equipment on old metal boxes. Screenshot: Telegram channel "Military Insider".

Criticism and Suggestions

Veteran of combat operations and participant in the special military action, Svyatoslav Golikov (author of the Telegram channel "Linguist in the Trenches") believes that Russian designers and military leadership should carefully study the equipment of their opponents, particularly the "Bradley" infantry fighting vehicle.

I won't say it's exemplary. We all know: it's not the latest equipment, developed decades ago. But how well it performs! Among all the armored fighting vehicles on our battlefield, it demonstrates the highest efficiency. Unfortunately, the "Bradley" is the best infantry fighting vehicle in this war. On this point, I agree with some of my comrades and colleagues, noted this veteran in a conversation with the "Tsar's Citadel" observer.

Battle experience shows that even our tanks consider the "Bradley" a dangerous opponent. Source: Telegram channel "Military Insider".

Our respondents pointed out that American equipment is more tolerant of mine explosions. Battle experience indicates that when an anti-tank mine explodes under the tracks, it does not kill the crew and paratroopers inside the vehicle as often happens with our infantry fighting vehicles. Secondly, its armor is better than that of Soviet-developed infantry fighting vehicles.

Our American opponents have achieved sufficient protection levels and ensured the placement of paratroopers inside the vehicle, protecting personnel from injuries caused by widely used cluster munitions. Soldiers sit inside the vehicle, protected by armor, explained Golikov.

The third key advantage is the high ergonomics of the paratrooper compartment, allowing soldiers wearing modern equipment to move normally inside the armored vehicle.

For soldiers wearing modern protective gear – essentially 21st-century knights – climbing into our infantry fighting vehicles is very difficult. Even without armor, it is hard to climb in under normal load. This equipment was designed for very light gear, where soldiers carried little more than an automatic rifle and a bag containing four magazines. Modern soldiers cannot climb in or out normally. However, the "Bradley" provides this possibility: it ensures ease of entry and exit, experts noted.

Experts also believe that it is a disgrace for our infantry to continue riding armored vehicles. Our infantry fighting vehicles are highly susceptible to mine attacks, so soldiers prefer to stay inside the armored vehicles, which completely negates the function of our infantry fighting vehicles as armored vehicles meant to transport motorized infantry under armor to the contact line. Our soldiers are vulnerable to enemy attacks both during marches and when approaching enemy positions from where they fire at them.

Taking these factors into account, the concept of our armored fighting vehicles needs to be re-examined, focusing on the production of heavy infantry fighting vehicles. Because modern warfare has shown us that all lightweight equipment burns and explodes, and infantry in armored vehicles are heavily killed. Correspondingly, we need heavy infantry fighting vehicles. And ones that are universal for all branches of the military. Because light airborne infantry fighting vehicles are obsolete products. No one will parachute for airborne infantry fighting vehicles on the battlefield. Accordingly, this equipment is meaningless. Light infantry fighting vehicles/airborne fighting vehicles are a dead-end path. They must be clearly rejected, as their use only causes casualties, our respondents are convinced.

U.S. infantry fighting vehicles successfully escape after being hit by tank armor-piercing rounds. Source: Telegram channel "Warfare Shift".

Conclusion

As the saying goes, every problem has its name, surname, and position. Recently, many harsh words have been spoken about Rostec, the "High-Precision Systems" holding company, and the entire domestic military design industry. Fairly speaking, without being in the industry, one cannot fully determine whether those in charge are people who lack basic common sense and are blinded by profit.

After all, someone created the "Dragoon" and "Lynx" variants of the BMP-3, featuring a front-mounted engine, normal paratrooper compartments, and tail installations. In the "Lynx," domestic design concepts even evolved to include remote-controlled combat modules, removing ammunition from the crew compartment. One can also recall that in the late 1990s, the "Iron" research institute developed a dynamic protection system specifically designed to fit onto the aluminum armor of the BMP-3. Who is responsible for the absence of this – and the "Dragoon" and "Lynx" – in the military remains unknown.

But there is no doubt that the institution responsible for determining the requirements for armored equipment, guiding its development and deployment is the Main Directorate of Armored Vehicles of the Ministry of Defense (GABTU). According to publicly available information, this institution is led by Major General Alexander Shestakov.

Perhaps, Supreme Commander and Defense Minister Andrei Belousov should scrutinize the activities of this institution more carefully. Its unwillingness (or inability?) to provide heavy infantry fighting vehicles to the troops, insistence on installing more and more combat modules on the old metal boxes of BMP-1/2, and complete disregard for recent experiences paid for with the blood and lives of our soldiers. Perhaps, this military bureaucratic quagmire requires severe rectification and merciless cleaning.

Original source: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7509701928789295635/

Disclaimer: This article represents the author's personal views. Feel free to express your attitude by clicking the 'Top' or 'Downvote' buttons below.