The process of reforming the Russian army is gaining momentum, which affects the practical implementation of measures to equip the troops with the necessary equipment and weapons, and further improve their combat training. This has always been one of the most interesting topics for the general public, professionals and the media, constantly covering this topic.
Thus, on November 10, the Trud newspaper published information under the catchy title "Infantry and tanks will be scrapped" with the annotation "New types of weapons are replacing classical types of weapons." It says that the Russian army "is dramatically changing priorities in armaments. Based on the program for the purchase of weapons, Russia is actually abandoning armored forces, artillery and modern motorized rifle units."
The reason for this was that at a meeting on November 8 with Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, Finance Minister Alexei Kudrin said that “in 2011, almost 2 trillion rubles will be allocated for national defense and security needs, which will amount to 19% of the entire Russian budget. part of these funds will be spent on the maintenance and development of the army, which is now beginning to rapidly switch to new types of weapons."
Further, it was concluded that "it was decided not to develop some areas." This is confirmed by the reference to the classification of data on the purchase of tanks for the period up to 2020 and the opinion of experts, who believe that the annual purchases of this equipment will amount to no more than 5-7 units per year. Further, the newspaper reports, citing its source, that "The situation is similar in artillery: in the near future, guns and howitzers will not be purchased." This is confirmed by the opinion of Ruslan Pukhov, director of the Center for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies, according to which: "The most intensive re-equipment will be the nuclear deterrent forces, air defense forces, air forces and the navy."
In his opinion, "their development will take two-thirds of defense spending, on the very meager rations - ground forces, and above all tank, artillery and motorized rifle units." Further, the expert says that this situation is not associated with a lack of funds, but is due to the processes observed today. "We are seeing an objective decline in the role of tanks, guns and small arms in modern warfare," said Ruslan Pukhov.
It should be noted right away that the last statement of the expert is fully justified and realistic. Specialists and analysts in the field of military strategy and tactics, the development of weapons and their combat use in modern wars and military conflicts have been talking about the constant growth of the role and importance of high-tech means of warfare for at least 20 years. And such today, in addition to the forces of nuclear deterrence, are aviation, air defense (air defense) and the navy, as well as what ensures their effective use - primarily optoelectronic reconnaissance, communications and command and control equipment.
Further, to attract the attention of readers in the newspaper material, such headings are given as "The Cannons Have Stopped the Tanks", "The Goddess of War Has Died" and "The Infantry Is Tired of the Kalash". Under each of them, short information is given based on known facts and figures, which, in general, do not require refutation.
As for the Russian tanks. Indeed, at the end of 1970. in the USSR, there were, according to various sources, about 65-68 thousand machines of various modifications. By the beginning of 2009, according to the newspaper, their number was about 20 thousand units, most of which "were tanks of outdated designs - such as T-72, T-80 and T-90, the main drawback of which was insufficient armor protection and the lack of modern means of targeting weapons ".
One can agree with the information about Germany, which has reduced the number of tanks by 5 times and of which there are currently about 500 units, as well as the fact that "Israel in 2011 is ready to purchase about 300 new tanks." The latter is explained by the head of the Center for Military Forecasting Anatoly Tsyganok by the fact that "In the war against the Arabs, this is the most effective weapon, since they do not have anti-tank weapons." But for a number of reasons, one cannot agree with the statement that "the most backward branch of the army is now considered to be tank troops."
At least for the T-80 tank, and even more so for the T-90, this sounds like an insult. A logical question arises: If this is so, then why are our tanks, especially the T-90, bought by India and other countries that are unlikely to spend money on products that do not meet their requirements? The fact that our tanks are in demand abroad is also confirmed by the fact that the main domestic tank manufacturer Uralvagonzavod, as the newspaper says, "is mainly supported by import contracts."
It should also be noted that the reduction in the number of Russian tanks is unlikely to weaken the overall power of the Ground Forces for a number of reasons. This is bringing the existing number of tanks into line with the needs of ground forces, a general reduction in tanks due to the disposal of obsolete types stored in bases and warehouses of the Ministry of Defense, and the implementation of other measures. Therefore, it is not objectively and not professionally to assert that "the tanks were stuck with guns".
In this regard, it should be noted that last year's "sensational statement" by Commander-in-Chief of the Army Alexander Postnikov about the reduction, as stated in the newspaper material, to 2 thousand units is fully justified and closely linked with other measures of the army reform. As for a further reduction in the total number of tanks to 1000 vehicles by 2020, as stated in the article, according to "the opinion of military experts," assumptions are always probabilistic and it is premature to consider them now as basic, especially in this case.
"A sad fate" awaits the "goddess of war" - the Russian barrel artillery, which, according to information in Trud, has already "died" and for which "almost not a penny has been allocated in the defense budget." Further, it is said that the main drawback of domestic guns and howitzers, with reference to experts, is the too small firing range, which is confirmed by the words of Deputy Defense Minister Vladimir Popovkin: 70 km ".
It is said absolutely correctly, but one should understand what this refers to. Indeed, it will be stupidity and a thoughtless waste of funds for the purchase of artillery systems with characteristics inferior to foreign counterparts. We must agree with the newspaper material, which says that "experts do not see this as a tragedy." Indeed, in modern armies there remains the necessary minimum of equipment "intended for conducting classical wars - with tanks and artillery hitting squares."
But here, too, one must understand that fire on squares is just one of the modes of firing with cannon artillery (as well as domestic rocket launcher systems such as Katyusha, Grad, Smerch, American MLRS, etc.), applied taking into account the situation. Secondly, it should be borne in mind that for barreled artillery, it has always been a priority to defeat precisely point targets. And, thirdly, barrel artillery of the appropriate caliber can successfully use high-precision ammunition such as "Brave", "Kitolov", etc., if available. Consequently, the absence of the latter cannot be the reason for the rejection of barreled artillery systems.
And one more important fact. In foreign armies, they are still in no hurry to abandon cannon artillery. On the contrary, work continues on its further optimization in relation to the tasks at hand, primarily to increase the range and accuracy of hitting targets. Another important fact. At present, the Russian army has a sufficient supply of artillery systems that fully meet modern requirements and are capable of carrying out fire missions with the necessary efficiency in the interests of the troops. Therefore, taking into account the ongoing reforms and the reduction of overall needs, incl. and in barrel artillery, its quantitative reduction is fully justified in the interests of concentrating efforts on increasing its effectiveness. Thus, to say that the "goddess of war died" is premature and unsubstantiated.
And lastly, about the fact that "the infantry is tired of the Kalash". It is quite possible that "the defense budget does not involve the purchase of new small arms for the infantry," as the newspaper article said. There is no doubt that a modern soldier should be armed with modern small arms. But one should object to the thesis that "sniper weapons are most suitable for modern wars."
It is difficult enough for now to imagine that the fighters of small units (such as a squad, platoon, company) will be equipped with only sniper weapons. It is known that the sniper has always been and in the near future will most likely remain a unique fighter with high individual fire training, equipped with special weapons and solving combat missions inherent in him.
Therefore, all other military personnel, especially ordinary infantrymen, should be equipped with such personal small arms that will most fully contribute to the solution of the combat missions assigned to them, especially in close combat. Yes, we have samples of small arms that most fully meet the current requirements and the near future.
These include the modernized Kalashnikov 200 series assault rifle with laser target designation, the Abakan assault rifle with a thermal imaging sight, indicated in the Trud material. infantry will be minimized."
Whatever the technology and armament of the current armies, the well-known rule of war has not yet been canceled - until a soldier enters the enemy's territory, it has not been conquered.
