In the first half of the last century, the "motorized mechanization" of the assault forces was assumed mainly due to cars, off-road motorcycles and small tanks. The experience of World War II forced, if not to change these views, then to slightly shift the emphasis.
With all the specificity of airborne armored vehicles, its spectrum is quite wide, and we will confine ourselves to the history of the unique domestic family of BMD-BTR-D, especially since its progenitor, BMD-1, turns 40 in 2009.
In the late 1940s and early 1950s, the Airborne Forces went through a massive rearmament. Among other things, they received cross-country vehicles and the first sample of armored vehicles, developed specifically for the Airborne Forces, an airborne self-propelled artillery unit. However, this was clearly not enough.
In the first half of the 1960s, an infantry fighting vehicle was developed for motorized rifle units, and the question naturally arose about the same vehicle for the airborne troops. Then in the rear of the enemy there would be not "light infantry", but highly mobile mechanized units capable of operating in the conditions of both conventional and nuclear war. However, a lot here depends on the capabilities of the military transport aviation. The aircraft determines the requirements for weight, speed of loading, fastening, unloading or landing, the dimensions of its cargo compartment and hatch - the dimensions of the aircraft. BMP-1 (then still an experimental "object 765") did not fit into them. Firstly, the combat weight of 13 tons made it possible to transport only one BMP by the main military transport aircraft of that time, the An-12. Secondly, the An-12 provided the landing of one mono-cargo (a model of weapons with landing equipment) weighing up to 10 tons, so that the mass of the sample itself could not exceed 7.5-8 tons. It was necessary to create a transport-combat vehicle for the Airborne Forces (Airborne Forces).
The competition was attended by OKB-40 of the Mytishchi machine-building plant, headed by N. A. Astrov, who already had experience in creating ASU-57 and SU-85, the design bureaus of the Volgograd Tractor Plant (VgTZ), headed by I. V. Gavalov and the Leningrad VNII-100 (later VNIItransmash). An important role in the fate of the machine was played by the "penetrating power" of the commander of the Airborne Forces, General of the Army V. F. Margelov, who was supported by the Deputy Minister, and then the Minister of Defense, Marshal A. A. Grechko. A number of designers of armored vehicles, representatives of the General Staff and the Ministry of Defense considered it almost unrealistic to create a vehicle with such a complex of weapons that would fit within strict limits in terms of weight, dimensions and overloads during landing (up to 20 g). There was no clear idea: to make a car from scratch or make the most of the units of serial cars? But Margelov, after meeting with the designers and leaders of the VgTZ in the practical possibility of creating a combat vehicle, raised the headquarters and the Scientific and Technical Committee of the Airborne Forces, chiefs of the combat arms and services, and connected several ministries to the work. VgTZ received an assignment to develop a machine designated "Object 915". It is interesting that in 1942 in Stalingrad the paratroopers of the 13th Guards Division A. I. Rodimtsev, and it was in this city that a combat vehicle for paratroopers appeared a quarter of a century later.
This vehicle was required: high maneuverability, as high an average technical speed in the terrain as possible, confident overcoming without preliminary preparation (due to its own buoyancy reserve) water obstacles, as well as landing from military transport aircraft using its own parachute system and the deployment of a complex of weapons and several paratroopers with their weapons. It was natural to use the same main armament for the "object 915" as on the BMP - a smooth-bore 73-mm gun "Thunder" in a turret mount, supplemented by a machine gun and ATGM "Baby". The car was also supposed to serve as a base for a family of armored vehicles (from a light tank to a tanker). What has been implemented, we will find out further.
New armor and new suspension
The designers decided to use a number of fundamentally new solutions for domestic armored vehicles. One of the main ones was the widespread use of aluminum alloys - the Moscow branch of VNII-100 (later VNII Steel) did a lot of work here. Aluminum armor alloys are more expensive than steel ones, but they provide a number of advantages. Aluminum armor, with less weight, requires a greater thickness of the armor parts, so that the rigidity of the hull is higher than that of a hull made of relatively thin sheets of steel armor. And when it comes to bulletproof protection, the hull is lighter than with steel armor of equal durability.
With the help of VNIITransmash specialists, an individual hydropneumatic suspension was developed for the new machine. More precisely, it is an air suspension (gas serves as an elastic element) with the transfer of force through a liquid. Each suspension unit serves as both a spring and a shock absorber, the suspension turns out to be compact, and through the pressure adjustment it is possible to change the ground clearance of the machine over a wide range. The latter makes it possible to place the vehicle on the landing gear, to "pull" the chassis to the hull when moving afloat, and makes it easier to cover the vehicle on the ground.
In addition, the vehicle received a very tight layout, the capacity was limited to seven fighters, compensating for this by their "active" placement: in addition to the gunner operator in the tower, two machine gunners sitting on the sides of the driver could fire, three more paratroopers had ball mounts for their machines. To move afloat, the car received two water cannons.
The commander of the Airborne Forces did everything to speed up the progress of work. Already on April 14, 1969, the BMD-1 ("airborne combat vehicle", or "airborne combat vehicle") was adopted. Its production was launched at VgTZ. The BMD still surprises with its compactness, comparative ease of maintenance and reliability (which is understandable - the landing party does not have rear services and workshops at hand), and excellent driving characteristics.
Since 1970, the design bureau VgTZ was headed by A. V. Shabalin, and further work on the BMD-1 and its modifications went under his leadership. Soon the commander's BMD-1K, the command and staff vehicle BMD-1KSH "Sinitsa" for the battalion level of command appear, in 1978 - the BMD-1P and BMD-1KP with the 9K111 ATGM "Fagot" instead of the "Baby", a year later some of the machines received smoke grenade launchers for quick setting of smoke screens.
BMD-2 with the PRSM-925 parachute-reactive system. Combat weight of BMD-2 - 8 tons, crew - 3 people, landing - 4 people
How to dump it?
In parallel with the creation and development of serial production of the BMD, work was underway on the means of its landing: only a single complex "combat vehicle - vehicle - landing means" could ensure the effective use of the new combat means. At the first stage of operation of BMD-1 and BTR-D, parachute platforms PP128-5000 were used for their landing, and later P-7 and P-7M with multi-dome parachute systems. During the Dvina combined arms exercise in March 1970 in Belarus, together with more than 7,000 paratroopers, over 150 pieces of military equipment were thrown out - using multi-dome parachute systems and landing platforms. As they say, it was during these exercises that General Margelov expressed the idea of dropping the crew along with the BMD. Usually the crews leave the plane after "their" BMDs so that they can observe them in flight. But the crew is scattered within a radius of one to several kilometers from their car and after landing spends a lot of time searching for the car, preparing it for movement, especially in fog, rain, at night. Marker radio transmitters on the platforms solved the problem only partially. The proposed joint landing complex, when the BMD and the crew with personal parachutes were located on the same platform, was rejected. At the beginning of 1971, Margelov demanded to work out the landing of the crew inside the vehicle in order to reduce the time between the release and the beginning of the movement - the time of the greatest vulnerability of the landing.
After a series of experiments (first with dogs, and then with test people), on January 5, 1973, on the basis of the 106th Airborne Division, the first reset of the Centaur-BMD-1 system, equipped with two Kazbek-D seats (simplified version of the cosmonaut's chair "Kazbek-U") on the P-7 platform. The BMD-1 crew consisted of Lieutenant Colonel L. G. Zuev and senior lieutenant A. V. Margelov (the youngest son of the commander). The results have clearly shown that the crew will not only survive, but will also maintain combat readiness. Then dropping on the "Centaur" with military crews was carried out in each parachute regiment.
The Centaur system showed a high degree of reliability, but remained unique, purely Russian. It is known that in 1972, when the USSR was preparing for the first dropping of people on the "Centaur", the French decided to conduct their own experiment. A prisoner sentenced to death was put into a combat vehicle, which was thrown from an airplane. It crashed, and the West considered it inexpedient for a long time to continue development work in this direction.
BMD-3 with strapdown system PBS-950 "Bakhcha". Combat weight of BMD-3 - 12, 9 tons, crew - 3 people, landing - 4 people
The next step was strapdown systems. The fact is that the preparation for the BMD landing on the platform from the ISS also required a lot of time and money. Preparing platforms, loading and securing military equipment on them, transporting equipment on platforms to the airfield (at a very low speed), concentrating to aircraft parking areas, installing a parachute system, loading aircraft took, according to the experience of the exercises, up to 15-18 hours. Strapdown systems significantly speed up the preparation for the landing and the preparation of the vehicle for movement after landing. And by the beginning of the 1980s, the PBS-915 strap-down parachute system for the BMD-1P and BMD-1PK had been worked out at the Feodosiya branch of the Scientific Research Institute of Automatic Devices. And on December 22, 1978, near Bear Lakes, the first discharge of the Centaur-B system on a strap-down system with lining cushioning took place. The army was rightfully proud of the strapdown system, so in 1981 it was shown, as it were, by chance in the famous movie "Return Move".
It is customary to store BMDs in parks with an airborne landing system laid on the hull - this reduces the time between receiving a command and loading the vehicles ready for landing onto the plane. The main force of the landing is surprise, and this requires a quick reaction.
An important step in the development of landing facilities was the emergence of parachute-reactive systems (PRS), in which, instead of a parachute platform with several canopies, one canopy and a solid-propellant jet brake engine were used. The main advantages of the PRS are the reduction in the preparation time for the landing and the landing itself (the rate of descent of the object on the PRS is about four times higher), after landing around the machine there is no "white swamp" of huge panels of parachutes (domes and slings, it happens, are wound on rollers and caterpillars). For the landing of the BMD-1 and vehicles based on it, the PRSM-915 system is used. Abroad, as far as is known, serial analogues of our PRS and strapdown systems have not yet been created.
The PRS also became the basis for the landing of the crew inside the vehicle. The project was named "Reaktavr" ("jet" Centaur "). On January 23, 1976, the first dump of a BMD-1 vehicle with a crew on the PRSM-915 took place - Lieutenant Colonel L. I. Shcherbakov and Major A. V. Margelov. After landing, the crew brought the car into combat readiness in less than a minute, then performed exercises of firing from BMD weapons and driving over obstacles. Note that by 2005, more than 110 people were airborne inside the equipment (for comparison, about four times more people have been in space since 1961).
BMD-4. Combat weight - 13.6 tons, crew - 2-3 people, landing - 5 people
Family extension
The BMD-1 changed the face of the Soviet airborne forces, giving them qualitatively new capabilities, but with limited capacity and carrying capacity, it alone could not solve the problem of increasing the mobility of landing units with units - anti-tank, anti-aircraft, control and support. To mount a variety of weapons and controls, in addition to the BMD-1, a more capacious armored vehicle was required. And on May 14, 1969 - just a month after the adoption of the BMD-1 - the Military-Industrial Commission of the USSR Council of Ministers decided to create prototypes of an armored personnel carrier and a complex of command and staff vehicles for the Airborne Forces.
On the basis of BMD-1, the design bureau VgTZ developed an amphibious armored personnel carrier designated "Object 925" (in parallel, a civilian version - "transporter 925G" was being developed). In 1974 it was put into service under the designation BTR-D ("airborne armored personnel carrier") with the task of transporting personnel, evacuating the wounded, transporting weapons, ammunition, fuel and lubricants and other military cargo. This was facilitated by the lengthening of the chassis - by one roller on each side - and the increased dimensions of the hull with the wheelhouse. The capacity increased to 14 people (or two crew members and four wounded on stretchers).
On the BTR-D chassis, a family of armored vehicles was developed to equip almost all types of troops and services that are in the Airborne Forces. In addition, the BTR-D and BTR-ZD were supposed to serve as tractors for the 23-mm ZU-23-2 anti-aircraft gun, but during the exercises, the paratroopers began to install the ZU-23-2 directly on the roof of the hull. So, despite the objections of the manufacturer's representatives, an anti-aircraft self-propelled gun appeared. ZU-23-2 is installed on the roof on stands and is secured with cable ties and can fire at air or ground targets. In their own way, they "legalized" such "home-made" military operations in Afghanistan and Chechnya, where vehicles accompanied the convoys. There was also a factory version of the installation with a more durable fastening of the charger to the case, as well as with the option of armor protection for the calculation.
Finally, in 1981, on the same chassis, they created a 120-mm self-propelled gun 2S9 "Nona-S" and a reconnaissance and artillery fire control point 1В119 "Rheostat" for batteries "Nona", as well as their modernized versions 2С9-1М and 1В119-1 …
The BTR-D and vehicles based on it underwent a number of upgrades, including the replacement of old communications equipment in the second half of the 1980s. The parachute-reactive system PRSM-925 is intended for the landing of the BTR-D, and the PRSM-925 (2S9) for the "Nona-S".
BTR-D with anti-aircraft gun ZU-23-2
Beemdekha the second
In the early 1980s, BMDs confirmed their good driving performance in the mountains of Afghanistan, when vehicles with a landing force and a load on their armor took relatively steep climbs that were inaccessible to the BMP-1 and BMP-2. But the small elevation angles and the effective firing range of the 73-mm cannon did not allow effective fire on the mountain slopes. Work on the rearmament of the BMD has already been carried out, but the experience of Afghanistan has accelerated their implementation. The result was a BMD-2 with a 30-mm 2A42 automatic cannon and a coaxial machine gun in a single turret and a Fagot and Konkurs ATGM launcher. A number of changes were made, and in 1985 the BMD-2 ("object 916") was adopted by the Airborne Forces, in 1986 - the commander's BMD-2K.
In general, the fate of the machines of the BMDBTR-D family developed in such a way that according to their intended purpose - airborne vehicles - they were used only in exercises. Combat landing on December 25-26, 1979 at the Kabul airfield took place by landing method. "Beemdashki" allowed the paratroopers and special forces to quickly move to the objects and block them. In general, BMDs worked like "ordinary" BMPs and armored personnel carriers. The experience of Afghanistan gave rise to a number of changes in the design of machines. So, on the BMD-1P and BMD-1PK, they removed the racks for the ATGM launcher, and instead of them, the 30-mm automatic grenade launcher AGS-17 "Flame", which became popular in the mountain war, was attached to the roof of the tower - this "additional equipment" of the BMD-1 paratroopers repeated and during the Chechen campaign. Another popular weapon was also installed on the BMD - the NSV-12, 7 heavy machine gun.
At checkpoints, BMDs were often put in cover, and when the dushmans attacked, this very mobile machine quickly rolled out to an elevated point, from where it opened fire. The allocation of BMD for escorting relatively slowly moving convoys turned out to be ineffective: light armor and low mine resistance do not correspond to such tasks. The small mass made the car very sensitive to close explosions of land mines. Another problem came to light - when a mine was blown up, the aluminum bottom, bending like a membrane, hit the ammunition rack located directly above it, which caused the self-liquidator of fragmentation grenades to be cocked, and after eight seconds the ammunition detonated, leaving the crew no time to leave the car. This hastened the withdrawal of the BMD-1 from Afghanistan.
The aluminum discs of the road rollers were not durable on rocky or concrete roads, and the roller had to be completely replaced. I had to replace the aluminum track rollers with steel ones with an aluminum sleeve. Dust from the air often got into the fuel system, which required the installation of an additional fine filter.
And soon the paratroopers in Afghanistan generally moved from the BMD to the BMP-2, BTR-70 and BTR-80 - primarily because of the high vulnerability of the BMD during explosions.
After Afghanistan, BMD and vehicles at its base had to fight on their native land. Politicians threw paratroopers (as the most efficient units) to extinguish interethnic clashes and separatist riots. Since 1988, the paratroopers have been actively involved in more than 30 operations commonly referred to as "resolving national and military conflicts." BMD-1, BMD-2 and BTR-D had to patrol the streets and guard objects in Tbilisi in 1989, in Baku and Dushanbe in 1990, in Vilnius in 1991 and even in Moscow in 1991 and 1993 … At the end of 1994, the first campaign in Chechnya began, and here the BMD-1 was again driven into battle. To enhance protection against cumulative grenades and bullets of large-caliber machine guns on the BMD-1, they laid and hung boxes with sand, additional spare parts, etc. second Chechen campaign.
As for the BTR-D and vehicles based on it, they remained loyal "workhorses" of the Airborne Forces. Moreover, the machines are designed for delivery by military transport aircraft and heavy helicopters, they are excellent "pull" even in difficult road conditions and in the mountains, and are reliable. "Nona-S" and BTR-D with ZU-23 solved the problem of direct fire support of units.
The BMD-1 was supplied abroad in limited quantities (to Angola and Iraq), unless, of course, one counts the BMD left in the now "independent" republics (Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova). Iraqi BMD-1s in 2003 fell into the hands of American invaders.
The results of the second campaign in Chechnya, the experience of the Russian peacekeepers in Abkhazia confirmed the long-standing demands for an increase in the firepower and protection of the BMD.
The time of the heirs
By the end of the 1970s, it became clear that the possibilities of modernizing the BMD-1 and BTR-D to accommodate more powerful weapon systems and special equipment on them had generally been exhausted. At the same time, the Il-76 military transport aircraft, which became the main one for the Airborne Forces, and the new airborne means "softened" the requirements for the mass and dimensions of the machines - the landing of single-cargo carriers weighing up to 21 tons from the Il-76 was worked out.
The vehicle, which became known as the BMP-3 with a new set of weapons (100-mm and 30-mm cannon, machine guns, guided weapons complex), was originally developed for arming the Ground Forces, the Airborne Forces and the Marine Corps. This manifested itself, in particular, in the design of the undercarriage with variable ground clearance and in limiting the weight of the vehicle to 18, 7 tons. However, the airborne career of the BMP-3 did not take place. The 13-ton BMD-3, created under the leadership of A. V. Shabalin at VgTZ.
Airborne SPTP 2S25 Sprut-SD. Combat weight - 18 tons, crew - 3 people, 125-mm tank gun
The armament complex of the machine was not immediately determined, but in the end they settled on a combination of a 30-mm 2A42 automatic cannon and a 7, 62-mm machine gun paired with it in the turret, a launcher for 9M113 (9M113M) ATGMs on the turret, and also - 5, 45 -mm machine gun and 30-mm automatic grenade launcher in the front of the hull. The appearance of an installation for a 5, 45-mm light machine gun is characteristic - the paratroopers have long asked to install an installation for a light machine gun on their combat vehicle. There are three installations in the sides and for assault rifles. Getting out of the car is still done up and back - along the roof of the engine compartment. The turret became two-seater: the commander, located next to the gunner-operator, received a better view and can take control of the armament. Automation of the transmission and a number of mechanisms is no less important. At first, the BMD-3 caused a lot of criticism (which is usually for a new car), but those who happened to operate it noted that it was much easier to control than the BMD-1 and BMD-2. The control levers here were replaced by the steering wheel.
In the chassis of the BMD-3, Volgograd tank builders returned to single-sided road wheels - hollow rollers increase buoyancy and stability afloat. The suspension is also hydropneumatic.
The movement of the car afloat required a number of special solutions. The fact is that the Chelyabinsk diesel engine, corresponding to the task for most of the characteristics, exceeded the required weight by almost 200 kilograms. When afloat, this gave a large trim aft. Among other inconveniences, this did not allow to fire afloat along the shore along the water's edge. To "raise" the stern, the opening angle of the water cannon flaps was limited so that the vertical component of the reactive force was created, and the spare parts and accessories installed on the stern were turned into floats.
Simultaneously with the BMD-3, the PBS-950 strapdown system with the MKS-350-12M parachute system based on universal canopies was created for its landing. On August 20, 1998, during the exercises of the 104th Parachute Regiment of the 76th Airborne Division, a BMD-3 was dropped on the PBS-950 system with a full crew and landing force. The non-parachute dumping of the BMD-3 (without a crew) from an extremely low altitude has also been tested, although this method of dropping equipment is not popular.
Meanwhile, the BMD-4 appeared on a modified chassis. The main novelty was a combat module developed at the Tula Instrument Design Bureau with a turret installation of twin guns - 100-mm 2A70 and 30-mm 2A72 - similar to the BMP-3 armament complex. The 100-mm cannon can fire a high-explosive fragmentation projectile or 9M117 (9M117M1-3) ATGM. The most controversial reviews can be found about the capabilities and quality of the BMD-4: some indicate that the chassis of the vehicle as a whole has been completed, and the BMD-4 armament complex needs improvement, others are completely satisfied with the weapons and devices, but require the chassis refinement. However, the number of BMD-3 and BMD-4 in the troops is relatively small and the experience of their operation has not yet gained sufficient "statistics". On the whole, experts agree that the BMD-3 and BMD-4, as new-generation vehicles, require more qualified personnel for their operation (and this, with a decrease in the level of education, is a problem for the modern Russian army).
Now VgTZ has entered the Tractor Plants concern, which also includes the BMP-3 Kurganmashzavod manufacturer. And in 2008, Kurganmashzavod demonstrated the BMD-4M vehicle with the same armament complex, but on a different chassis based on BMP-3 units and assemblies. For which of the "four" the future is not yet clear.
Analogs and relatives
The amphibious armored vehicles in service with our army do not yet have direct analogs abroad, although work in this direction has been going on for several years. Thus, in the FRG, the Wiesel and Wiesel-2 amphibious assault vehicles are in service. But these are vehicles of a different class: "Wiesel" - a kind of revival of a tankette with a crew of 2-3 people, a self-propelled platform for ATGM "Tou", 20-mm automatic cannon, short-range air defense systems, radar or special equipment - to choose from; "Wiesel-2" - a semblance of a light armored personnel carrier of limited capacity and a platform for heavier weapons. Closest to the idea of BMD-BTR-D came the Chinese, who recently presented their own WZ 506 airborne combat vehicles.
As for the modern fleet of combat vehicles of the domestic airborne forces, the main ones are BMD-2, BTR-D and BMD-4. But it is assumed that the old BMD-1, for obvious reasons, will remain in service until 2011.
