On Tuesday Deputy Prime Minister of the Russian Federation Dmitry Rogozin carried out test drive of a new armored car "Typhoon" and recommended it to the Russian military men. Deputy Prime Minister arrived in the car to a meeting with team “KAMAZ-MASTER”. The deputy chairman of the government said that his personal impressions of a trip were close to boyish delight.
"If to be serious, it is very good car – look, a person who got behind a wheel for the first time could drive and even made not so difficult, but maneuvers. It means that military personnel will be able to be trained in such car easily: it is absolutely safe and easy-to-use," — he told following the results of car test drive.
"The car is powerful, strong, there’s such impression that you sit as if on a huge fighting elephant who can accelerate from a light touch of a pedal. I am glad that I negotiated a corner, though with the help of the general director," — Deputy Prime Minister joked.
From editorial board: If boys ever think for what purpose we need a car? "It’s cool!" That’s enough. While statesmen before expressing opinion about this or that product of military industrial complex usually get interested what fighting use of this equipment we are talking about? What are its tactical technical characteristics? What’s its prime cost? Etc...
Whether such car is suitable for real war?
Vertical armored walls lifted up to considerable height is almost ideal target. In case of hit of side or back part of cumulative shell all staff which is inside die.
This car has very long base that makes it low-maneuverable, especially on twisting roads, especially on mountain roads, it additionally increases its vulnerability.
There are no opportunities to appear on a roof or in the head part of large-caliber machine gun, not to mention main gun. The cabin represents open lamp not intended for front fight. Embrasures for firing by means of individual automatic weapon with small visibility are placed on the sides.
What does such fighting vehicle represent in the battlefield? Only target, it means that it doesn’t suit battlefield.
Whether it possesses any advantages for transportation of the staff in the area of combat actions? Yes, on the one hand, the staff is protected from splinters and bullets that is better in comparison with the car with soft tent. However in case of coming under fire of LAW loss of staff will be big. Vertical armored wall will hardly rescue from DShK or HMG fire. Losses after bumping into anti-tank mine will be higher, than in the car with open top.
Proceeding from it it’s possible to draw a conclusion about possible fighting use of new car – it’s punitive operation against poorly armed opponent, for example, against army armed with only with small arms.
Advantage of this car before traditional armored vehicle is only one - much more fighters can sit there and there they sit with bigger comfort. In any case, there are no new technological decisions - ordinary truck being generously plated.
As it’s not the first example of transition of the army on specially police equipment, a question appears – if we are preparing for war and who is our possible opponent? Who are these future combatants, guerrillas, rebels?
ánatoly Baranov, editor-in-chief of FORUM.msk