Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Share

    Austin

    Posts : 6434
    Points : 6835
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  Austin on Wed Oct 20, 2010 3:40 am

    Garry , Thanks for that explanation.

    I read that in Afganistan and Iraq the US lost couple of choppers due to RPG attacks , the most memorable one for me was that was shown in the movie Black Hawk Down when they were shot in hover mode.

    The advantage of RPG though short in range compared to stinger but makes it up by having to countermeasure against it and special warhead , recently they showed in Discovery Channel how Taliban smartly engaged and dealt blow to US SF they shot down the Chinook with RPG , wiki has some info on this operation

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Red_Wing
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16865
    Points : 17473
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  GarryB on Thu Oct 21, 2010 1:39 am

    The Blackhawk down movie was set in Mogadishu in Somalia.

    A flying helo is pretty safe from RPG fire as it would take a very talented shot to get a hit. Remember the RPG has a max range of only about 900m at which range many rockets self destruct.

    The RPG has two means of propulsion, it has propellent around the tail of the rocket and the thick section behind the warhead is also a sustainer rocket, so the main charge blows the rocket out of the launcher and after a very short delay the sustainer accelerates the rocket and flattens the trajectory to make it more accurate against longer range targets.
    When the sustainer propellent burns out it sets of the fuse of the warhead and the whole round explodes.

    Its advantages are also its disadvantages... it is simple and cheap, but short ranged and unguided. Using the thermobaric models would be a huge improvement in anti helo performance because the standard warhead is designed to punch small holes in thick armour.
    A thermobaric warhead will be more effective over a wider range of impact points on most helos.
    The main problem being you have to anticipate the movement of the helo, the distance to the target and the curve of the flight of the rocket... almost impossible with a fast moving helo. With a hovering large helo however it is much more likely. Obviously a volley from 5-10 rocket launchers will make a kill much more likely as practised with engagements against tanks.

    A MANPAD is much more expensive and complex and difficult to get hold of, but the current models are also much more capable.
    With an RPG unless you have some way of very accurately determining range you are probably limited to about a 300m shot so we are talking about an effective range with a radius of 300m.
    You of course don't need to worry about clutter or IR distractions or getting a lock so you can locate RPGs on top of high points to shoot down on helos and vehicles which makes them more effective.
    Having a missile with an effective range of 5km however gives you a lot better coverage, especially when you look at the land around your base and work out potential Landing Zone areas (ie bits of flat ground) that can be mined and approaches covered. High up in the mountains most helos are challenged and payload limited so you could set up ambush positions and then give the enemy some intel of where to find something they seem interested in. Twisted Evil

    But this is nothing new... it is the sort of thing they did to the Soviets and the British before them.
    avatar
    Kysusha

    Posts : 204
    Points : 218
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  Kysusha on Thu Oct 21, 2010 5:50 am

    Hollywood has a hellofalot to answer for!
    avatar
    IronsightSniper

    Posts : 450
    Points : 458
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  IronsightSniper on Thu Oct 21, 2010 11:41 am

    RPGs aside, would the elevation of that 240 mm mortar be locked? The elevation settings of those line of mortars seems to be locked in that video. Asides from that, is there an accuracy rating in CEP for the Smel'chak?
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16865
    Points : 17473
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  GarryB on Fri Oct 22, 2010 2:00 am

    Not sure I understand the question Austin...

    If you are asking about the angle limits of the Tulip it can fire from 50 degrees to 80 degrees in elevation, and can traverse 23 degrees without moving the vehicle.

    A CEP is not given for the Smelchak but with such a heavy payload I would expect precise accuracy is not totally essential.
    The warhead is comparable to a small aircraft bomb.
    avatar
    Vladimir79

    Posts : 2191
    Points : 3083
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  Vladimir79 on Fri Oct 22, 2010 4:02 am

    Why all this talk about the Tulip Tree? It has far more cons than pros. Lacks mobility, low rate of fire, manpower intensive, set up time is better part of an hour, gets stuck in the mud easily. You have to fire a ranging round to use laser guided shells. The kit is a Soviet style siege cannon. Unless you have your enemy encircled, not much use.
    avatar
    IronsightSniper

    Posts : 450
    Points : 458
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  IronsightSniper on Fri Oct 22, 2010 8:30 am

    Well, no shit :p

    I'd wager that if any of us went to serve with Russia, we'd prefer to have the MSTA behind our backs or a series of 82 mm mortars. Tulips there to fulfill it's name, to look pretty (and by that, I mean make big boom!)

    Anyways, I'm not Austin paratrooper

    I asked about it's elevation settings because in the video, there seemed to be something that held the mortar back from gaining more or less elevation. Btw, can't remember where, but I also read somewhere that Smel'chak warhead weighed 32 kg, which would be less than the 130 kg "small aircraft bomb size".
    avatar
    Kysusha

    Posts : 204
    Points : 218
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  Kysusha on Fri Oct 22, 2010 10:20 am

    My, my, we are touchy. Really, I can’t see the benefit in Tulip either. From a plain Grunt’s perspective, I’d prefer 81mm /82mm mortar or 105mm Howz. as support weapons. Realistically, how do you think Tulip could operate and provide effective support to the infantry? The size of the shell alone is an obstacle for support fire – what’s the lethal range of that bloody round?

    Mortars on rapid rate, can suppress an area far more effectively than Tulip would and be a bloody sight more accurate in doing it as well.
    avatar
    IronsightSniper

    Posts : 450
    Points : 458
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  IronsightSniper on Fri Oct 22, 2010 11:08 am

    At 130 kg, an unassisted frag projectile from the Tulip can go 9.6 km. At 3.1 kg, the unassisted frag projectile of the 82 mm Podnos can go 4 km. Firing at 1 round a minute, the Tulip can place 130 kg down range in a minute. At 20 rounds a minute, the Podnos can throw 60 kg of ordinance down range in a minute. I should make it clear that I would prefer a light mortar or SP-howitzer to provide fire support over the tulip.
    avatar
    Kysusha

    Posts : 204
    Points : 218
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  Kysusha on Sat Oct 23, 2010 1:04 am

    Really, it has little to do with the weight of ordinance dropped down rage.

    Firstly, the weight of ordinance is also an obstacle for support weapons as the blast effect of the round limits the Danger Close area; you simply can’t walk it in on your position to clear the uglies off.

    Secondly, suppression is the cumulative effect of multiple detonations – one big bang ever minute or so allows a lot of fire and manoeuvre to be carried out in the intervening 60 seconds – you can also time the rounds for taking cover. Pl mortar fire drops the rounds off in a rapid rate and literally forces the bad guy to stop where he is. If he hasn’t sufficient cover – then he is a goner. Or, while he is he’s head down, bum up, you can manoeuvre to out-flank him and defeat him with small arms. Conversely it may be too hot for you so smoke off the area and get to hell out! All of these are options available to you with small calibre mortar or Howz.

    What’s more, the man-mobility of the mortars allows in and out of service much quicker than you can get with Tulip. If they do get registered fire, they can skip and re-establish quickly.

    Tulip is in my opinion, only effective when:

    You have total air superiority;
    You have a stationary target;
    Time is not a factor;
    The enemy does not have CB capacity;
    You do not call it in as supporting fire.

    When these factors are considered, then the usefulness of Tulip is very limited. It is limited for winkling out the enemy from well prepared positions, when your forces are in a commanding position.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16865
    Points : 17473
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  GarryB on Sat Oct 23, 2010 4:41 am

    Why all this talk about the Tulip Tree? It has far more cons than pros.

    It is a very specific tool for a limited range of jobs.
    It was used at a time when Soviet air power was not 24 hour or even very capable in bad weather and really until they get satellite guided bombs into full service that is pretty much where they still are.

    The shell is large enough that a Glonass guided bomb should be perfectly possible and relatively cheap and would not risk a low flying UAV operating a laser target marker let alone a team of soldiers with a LTM on the ground. The target will likely not even know what hit them.
    Its steep trajectory makes it very useful in mountains and in big cities so it can get into targets that other artillery types can't reach.
    It can also defeat targets lighter rounds will not defeat simply because of its weight.

    The kit is a Soviet style siege cannon. Unless you have your enemy encircled, not much use.

    Because of its range it could cover quite an area around a base without needing to be moved. With satellite guided rounds no initial shots need be fired.

    Anyways, I'm not Austin

    Sorry it was your avatar that is the same...

    I asked about it's elevation settings because in the video, there seemed to be something that held the mortar back from gaining more or less elevation.

    It is quite normal for Mortars to not have a full range of elevation because elevation is simply used to change range parameters. With mortars (like Howitzers) there are added charges that can be wrapped around the tail to further extend range when necessary. In this case it would be 80 degrees and no extra charges gives a range of 800m. 50 degrees and the max of charges fitted will send the mortar bomb 9.5km. There is also a rocket assisted bomb that will travel 19km. The nuclear round also had rocket assistance and a range of about 18km.

    Btw, can't remember where, but I also read somewhere that Smel'chak warhead weighed 32 kg, which would be less than the 130 kg "small aircraft bomb size".

    32kgs is the HE content, the entire round weighs 134.2kgs. The standard round weighs 130kgs. The 32kgs of HE is the bursting charge, it is a HE FRAG shell so most of the rest of the weight... about 80kgs is metal that is prefragmented so that it shatters evenly and makes a nice even pattern or razor sharp shrapnel.
    As a comparison the BETAB-500U which is a concrete piercing bomb weighs 510 kgs and has a 45kg HE warhead charge. Now admittedly a concrete piercing round needs a lot of steel to penetrate concrete before it explodes, but a fragmentation mortar shell needs a lot of steel to form fragments from too. These fragments are not a good aerodynamic shape so they don't fly as far as a better shaped object might... like a bullet... so it makes more sense to have a lot of fragments and a relatively small charge than a bigger charge and less fragments or lighter fragments. Heavy fragments will fly further than lighter ones.

    My, my, we are touchy. Really, I can’t see the benefit in Tulip either. From a plain Grunt’s perspective, I’d prefer 81mm /82mm mortar or 105mm Howz. as support weapons.

    The benefit is you get the choice of climbing up that vertical mountain and down the other vertical side to get into a well protected Muj base... or you can sit and watch as the Tulips are set up and fired.
    Another scenario is yo can wander into Grozny and take this particular building where the enemy is doing all its planning... there are no good guys there to save... just go in a kill everyone in the building... or you can sit and watch as the Tulips are set up and fired.

    Realistically, how do you think Tulip could operate and provide effective support to the infantry? The size of the shell alone is an obstacle for support fire – what’s the lethal range of that bloody round?

    We have already gone over this it is one of many options. The standard supporting mortar for airborne forces is a 120mm gun/mortar while the heavier Tulip is more specialised.
    Regarding infantry support roles the lethal range of a Tulip barrage is nothing like the lethal range of a barrage from Buratino. TOS still seems popular for specific roles.

    Mortars on rapid rate, can suppress an area far more effectively than Tulip would and be a bloody sight more accurate in doing it as well.

    Without having compared them myself I cannot say I know enough about both to agree. The sudden impact of 6 rounds of that weight and power landing at the same time followed by another 6 a minute later would feel quite effective to me I would guess.
    The comparison of 6 rounds only a fraction of their weight landing more frequently... well I think the effectiveness would depend largely on the target. I think with troops in the open the lighter 120mm rounds would be more effective till they could get to cover. For targets in trenches however I think the former would be more effective... but I have experienced neither.

    When these factors are considered, then the usefulness of Tulip is very limited. It is limited for winkling out the enemy from well prepared positions, when your forces are in a commanding position.

    And the Russian Armed forces will only ever fight whom?

    Getting back to the topic of the thread the Vasilek automatic mortar is capable of direct fire as well as high angle engagements.
    It can fire at a cyclic rate of well over 120 rpm and fires from a 4 round clip. A battery of 6 guns could move into position fire 200 rounds and then move off in less than 5 minutes.
    On paper an ideal support weapon yet only the VDV seem to still operate it. Their support vehicles like the NONA uses a 120mm gun of lower rate of fire but a heavier shell and longer range.

    As I have pointed out previously each size mortar offers advantages and disadvantages. The old WWII 50mm mortars were very light and mobile but were short ranged and had light bombs that weren't hugely effective. Modern 30mm grenade launchers make up for the small shell weight with rate of fire. The 82mm mortar is easily man portable and offers a moderately effective bomb over reasonable range. These remain in service largely in the Podnos mortar that is simpler and cheaper and man portable. The VDV have lots of vehicles to tow specialist equipment to they operate the Vasilek. The 120mm is at the edge of man portable and is turning up in Russian and Soviet use in vehicle mounts like the Vena and Nona.
    There was also a 107mm mortar but was similar to the 120mm with a lighter bomb and shorter range. There was also a 160mm mortar with a 40kg bomb and it was big and heavy with a much more effective bomb than the 120mm but needed a vehicle mount. The 240mm mortar had an even bigger bomb and a longer range and the option of firing a nuclear bomb. This probably was the main reason that the 240mm mortar survived and the 160mm mortar disappeared.

    For delivering bio or chem warfare agents dropping it in in a 130kg cannister that could probably be designed to carry at least 80kgs of agent with the rest being the strong container that will only rupture above the target (with a dispersing charge).

    avatar
    IronsightSniper

    Posts : 450
    Points : 458
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  IronsightSniper on Sat Oct 23, 2010 3:10 pm

    Why are we even arguing? The only thing I like about the Tulip is it's caliber, I agreed it's damn impractical early on unshaven
    avatar
    Kysusha

    Posts : 204
    Points : 218
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  Kysusha on Sat Oct 23, 2010 10:46 pm

    Exactly - but remember as they say: it's not what you've got but how you use it that counts!
    avatar
    Vladimir79

    Posts : 2191
    Points : 3083
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  Vladimir79 on Sat Oct 23, 2010 11:43 pm

    Kysusha wrote:Exactly - but remember as they say: it's not what you've got but how you use it that counts!

    With 400+ in the arsenal, it is far more than we need. I saw it used in Chechnya, a howitzer did the same job.

    avatar
    IronsightSniper

    Posts : 450
    Points : 458
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  IronsightSniper on Sun Oct 24, 2010 12:43 am

    Oh you know us Americans, the bigger the better! 1 Tulip can make a larger hole than one howitzer.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16865
    Points : 17473
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  GarryB on Sun Oct 24, 2010 5:34 am

    With 400+ in the arsenal, it is far more than we need. I saw it used in Chechnya, a howitzer did the same job.

    And that is to be expected.

    When force sizes diminish then the little extra tools become harder to justify. They might be the best choice for very specific roles but when you have a tighter budget and a smaller tool set then it is the very specialist tools that are removed first.

    Of course as I said with GLONASS guided shells it suddenly because rather more capable in the sense that it could be redesigned to set up... fire one shell and then move. The effect of 6 x 130kg shells impacting the target at once accurately would be quite useful.
    Yes I know that modern howitzers can use rate of fire to get 3-4 shells in the air on different trajectories and different shell charges so they all land on target at once and that 3-4 x 152mm shells is actually more weight of shells than the Tulip can fire... ie 3-4 x 40kgs = 120-160kgs. More importantly 3-4 shells spread the effect over a wider area just like a cluster bomb of 250kgs can have a wider effect against exposed infantry than a 500kg HE bomb because a 500kg bomb concentrates the blast and fragments in one point of detonation while several hundred small HE bombs spread over an area spread the HE and the splinters.
    The point is that in some environments the 152mm guns will not be able to get all its rounds on target with different trajectories because of steep terrain.

    I think the Tulip should be kept... but kept in Mountain brigades.
    modifying the design for GLONASS guided shells and for faster loading and for quick deployment and quick withdrawl.
    Tie it into the new network as part of an integrated force and it will be a more useful tool than it has ever been before.
    With 400 vehicles you will have spare parts to keep several batteries operating for years.

    Ask the Americans... they know. Sometimes you just need a bigger hammer... and don't be afraid to use the Sledge Hammer. Smile
    avatar
    IronsightSniper

    Posts : 450
    Points : 458
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  IronsightSniper on Sun Oct 24, 2010 9:07 am

    DoesRussia even have GPS guided shells? I thought the Excaliber was the only GPS guided shell out there.
    avatar
    Vladimir79

    Posts : 2191
    Points : 3083
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  Vladimir79 on Sun Oct 24, 2010 9:54 pm

    IronsightSniper wrote:DoesRussia even have GPS guided shells? I thought the Excaliber was the only GPS guided shell out there.

    No, we have laser guided shells. France is leading the European effort for GPS shells, it is called the Impaqt to be ready in 2015.

    http://www.nexter-group.fr/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=107:impaqt-munition-a-precision-metrique-&catid=50:munitions-dartillerie&Itemid=93&lang=en
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16865
    Points : 17473
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  GarryB on Mon Oct 25, 2010 1:44 am

    Russia has only recently put up the full GLONASS set of satellites.

    The Kh-38 and the Kh-25 series air to surface rockets have satellite guided versions.
    The KAB-500S-E is their first satellite guided bomb and was tested in the early 2000s on their strategic bombers first. (ie Tu-160s).

    The Brahmos has just received its GLONASS satellite guidance receiver, which the Indians seem to be very happy with.

    As I said the Russians were working on GLONASS guided shells for their 240mm mortars. They are also working on similar shells for their 152mm shells too.
    Whether the Russian Army buys them is another question.
    I do know they bought some Smelchak 240mm laser guided munitions because they were used in Afghanistan in the 1980s.

    They would not make them GPS compatible because the US controls that system and can turn off regions at will without warning.
    avatar
    medo

    Posts : 3245
    Points : 3331
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    T-90 MBT: News

    Post  medo on Mon Oct 25, 2010 7:11 pm

    Will russian army now start buying instead of older version of T-90 and BMP-3 newer version T-90M and BMP-3M with thermal imagers in FCS? This will be a very big improvement for BMP-3, which could work in the same capabilities day and night.
    avatar
    Vladimir79

    Posts : 2191
    Points : 3083
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  Vladimir79 on Mon Oct 25, 2010 8:21 pm

    Who the hell knows. It is all in limbo now with no orders for armour in 2011.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16865
    Points : 17473
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  GarryB on Tue Oct 26, 2010 2:34 am

    Well they have spent money on production facilities for the thermal sights, I would expect the intention is for installing these in armour.
    Of course with no communication about their plans it might not matter much if it has all been worked out.

    If the military has made all its decisions about its plans for the next 5 years but doesn't tell its MIC then its MIC will lose millions of dollars a year maintaining a capacity they don't need and the result is that when the Military is ready to order large numbers of armour they will find there is no production capacity left for tanks... but a lot of capacity to make trains if you want them... Sad
    avatar
    IronsightSniper

    Posts : 450
    Points : 458
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  IronsightSniper on Thu Oct 28, 2010 1:02 pm

    So if Russia already has the capability to install a GPS receiver onto the Tulip, then why not do it now?
    avatar
    Vladimir79

    Posts : 2191
    Points : 3083
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  Vladimir79 on Thu Oct 28, 2010 4:00 pm

    We aren't talking about the Tulip. It will never have GPS guided shells nor is it necessary for a mortar.
    avatar
    medo

    Posts : 3245
    Points : 3331
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  medo on Sun Oct 31, 2010 10:47 am

    I doubt they won't buy any new tank or armor in 2011, when the money is given. Maybe there are negotiations behind the scene about versions ans prices.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Thu Dec 14, 2017 5:10 am