Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Difference between Airborne and Air Assault Divisions?

    avatar
    steve501

    Posts : 34
    Points : 64
    Join date : 2012-08-03
    Age : 49
    Location : England

    Difference between Airborne and Air Assault Divisions? Empty Difference between Airborne and Air Assault Divisions?

    Post  steve501 on Fri Sep 07, 2012 8:33 pm

    I have noticed that the current Russian Airborne Forces consist of 98th and 106th Airborne Division and 7th and 76th (Commando) Air Assault Divisions and 31st Indep Commando Air Assault Brigade. Can anyone tell me what the main differences are between the two especially in organisation and equipment especially again at Battalion level

    cheers
    Steve
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 21455
    Points : 22005
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Difference between Airborne and Air Assault Divisions? Empty Re: Difference between Airborne and Air Assault Divisions?

    Post  GarryB on Sat Sep 08, 2012 12:30 am

    First of all let me say I have no inside information, so I don't know.

    However in the west an airborne unit parachutes onto the target with light equipment.

    An Air Assault unit is delivered by Helo and tends to have direct support from attack helos and aircraft and some light vehicles delivered by heavy helos.

    For the Russians and Soviets however the main difference is that their airborne units are much better equipped in terms of light armour.

    In combat I can't tell you how much of a difference that makes... most rear areas where Airborne operate is generally thinly protected, but their targets are often important so there will be a concentration of defending forces... at say a nuclear facility or large air base.

    The western method of highly trained but lightly equipped soldiers results in a very dangerous operation... you don't want to land them right on the objective because they might be cut to pieces. You don't want to land them too far because the element of surprise is critical to their success.

    With the fully motorised Russian Airborne they can be dropped 50km from the target... mount up and drive to their target and mount an attack supported by light armour.

    An air assault unit is delivered by helo with helo fire support and serious mobility on the battlefield. The main problem of course is vulnerability to MANPADS, though with modern DIRCMs that threat should be greatly reduced if not eliminated.

    The success of the airborne in air assault units in Afghanistan was what forced the Americans to deliver Stinger missiles at a time when most NATO countries didn't have them. The result was that the Soviets changed tactics again and started to use artillery. There was a point however in about 1984 when the west thought the muj were going to give up.

    Under current conditions in Afghanistan an air assault force is very effective because the enemy don't have a reliable counter to helos, and the mobility and firepower of an air mobile unit means they can't choose to run away and fight another day... it takes time to move across mountainous terrain on foot so by flying ahead you can set up ambushes and attacks.
    Airbornewolf
    Airbornewolf

    Posts : 362
    Points : 422
    Join date : 2014-02-05

    Difference between Airborne and Air Assault Divisions? Empty Re: Difference between Airborne and Air Assault Divisions?

    Post  Airbornewolf on Sun Feb 09, 2014 12:10 am

    GarryB is right with his description about the difference between air assault and airborne.

    airborne insertions are to my experience always for strategic high-value targets. they are indeed lightly armed as they can take only what they can carry. but they do not need to win wars, they need to delay or deny the enemy something long enough on a point thats strategically critical so that the enemy cant interfere or use it for the force following the airborne.

    i respectfully disagree with your description Garryb about air assault deployments, even light armour and vehicles requires a larger deployment of air assets and the problem of airborne dropping of vehicles is that a rather high-altitude is required and the slowing down of aircraft and maintaining course for the drop. large aircraft will need to set flaps for lift and slow down and thus reducing maneuverability and make themselves a rather easy target for AA and detection by slowing down of course. the west mainly uses air assaults in area's that are secured already by friendly assets or as suprise to enemy operations that is only equipped to deal with present troops. and especially not with an air assault contingent that dropped in and starts operations against them as well.

    its the same for me in the past with air assaults. it does look mighty sexy when they make final approach and deploy in the drop zone , but if the landing point is not secure those chinooks and Super-Puma's are easy prey for the most basic recruit as they slow down with their heavy loads for landing. and each time the bullets where registered by the SAAB training laser sytem to be aimed for engines and pilots. no amount of AA defense will do them good. discount gunship support too, we tried it out and its a myth. it only works if you send them ahead 10 to 15 minutes in advance to sterilise the area and that is if they have enough fuel, ammo and the enemy does not have a suprise in the form of a heavy weapon or MANPAD. no matter what you enemy is they will first go for what is the easiest and vulnerable to hit and that's the transports holding the hardware and troops.


    and Garryb you where right about the stinger deployment in Afghanistan, the MI-24's, MI-8's and the airborne units where highly successful.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 21455
    Points : 22005
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Difference between Airborne and Air Assault Divisions? Empty Re: Difference between Airborne and Air Assault Divisions?

    Post  GarryB on Sun Feb 09, 2014 8:01 am

    The advantage of parachuting forces in that have armour is that it doesn't need to be anywhere near the target because the troops being dropped are a much more mobile force.

    Obvious targets for such an attack would be a remote airfield deep behind enemy lines.

    With airborne troops even a most basic airfield will have some sort of air defence equipment so you might lose a few aircraft... which could be a lot of expensive and essential equipment, or more critically it might be 100-150 highly trained parachutists that can't be replaced.

    The point is that the Airfield might have a Patriot battery to defend itself but only a small ground security unit because the main threat comes from the air.

    This means a VDV unit landed 100km away on open terrain could drive to the airfield and take it because they have all the mobility and firepower they need for the job in their BMD-4s and NONAs etc etc.

    Once they have taken the airfield they can fly in support forces and other troops to secure the airfield and expand out into the local area... they then might use that land force to take a nearby port and start bringing in forces and supplies by sea.

    With the western lightly equipped forces such an attack is not viable unless you plan to capture civilian vehicles and drive to the target area... but you still have the obvious problem of lack of firepower when you get to the target area.

    Cruise missile attacks to defeat the Patriots just telegraph the attack so it is critical they are precisely timed.
    Airbornewolf
    Airbornewolf

    Posts : 362
    Points : 422
    Join date : 2014-02-05

    Difference between Airborne and Air Assault Divisions? Empty Re: Difference between Airborne and Air Assault Divisions?

    Post  Airbornewolf on Sun Feb 09, 2014 1:49 pm

    i am not familiar with vdv air assault operations that includes vehicle droppings that include armoured vehicles. so im really curious how the tactics work for deploying them with the large aircraft involved and subsequent ground operations. the "heaviest" vehicle's we deploy are armed jeeps with various weapons, towed mortars and medical jeeps. and they are flown in by helicopters that fly relatively low.

    but it sounds unlogical to me to deploy like 100 KM off their targets. it would take hours to get there, there is rarely a highway that nicely leads to the objective if you know what i mean Wink. not to mention the high chance of detection by the enemy. or engagements on the way, you go rather fast trough ammunition in real life. you might reach the target zone with insufficient ammo to make the actual attack.

    well, lightly equipped. the problem with every airborne action is that what you can carry is what you have to use. and without vehicles you got to decide what to bring depending on a lot of factors. but my country "had" a decent load out for airborne and air assault actions. modern up to date stingers, Gil (spike) AT-missile. PZF-3 Tandem-warheads and bunker buster models, 81MM mortars, sniper rifles. good NVG and IR optics.

    anyway, what "we" do in the west with air assaults is deploy and quickly attack near the direct area of insertion and hold a certain objective and dig in or quickly extract.
    its possible the VDV operates in a similar style with operations with deploying close to their targets, but all i can say is "respect" then to take such large aircraft into enemy territory with possible contested airspace. and the nerves of steel the pilots must have. of course there will be specops teams scouting out threats to aircraft beforehand but in war there are never guarantees.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 21455
    Points : 22005
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Difference between Airborne and Air Assault Divisions? Empty Re: Difference between Airborne and Air Assault Divisions?

    Post  GarryB on Mon Feb 10, 2014 8:42 am

    Have you not heard of a BMD before?

    VDV are fully mechanised and road mobile for a reason.

    The armour is not super heavy and there are no MBTs but the key is mobility and speed... land 100km from a rear airfield and they might detect the landing but will have little idea of the target... is it one of a dozen airfields within 100km of the landing area... is it a port nearby, is it the nuclear power station or hydro electric dam nearby?

    When landing in the middle of nowhere there is much less threat to the heavy aircraft... which will be flying high and be out of danger from MANPADS.

    Previous practise was to land just before dusk so there would be some light for a safe landing but forming up and moving out will be in the cover of darkness and you have till dawn to do what you needed to do with the advantage of surprise.

    Rolling up to a small airfield with a VDV unit in BMD-4s and NONAs and other armoured vehicles should make short work of most defences at most rear airfields... which will have fairly minor ground forces there.

    Once captured the airfield can be used to land much heavier equipment... they did it in Kabul in 1979 where a plane landed at an airfield pretending to have problems. It sat on the runway and guided in other aircraft for the invasion as it had tied itself in to the local net and was using their radar and TACAN system.

    Equally they might be attacking a nuclear power station or submarine base...
    Airbornewolf
    Airbornewolf

    Posts : 362
    Points : 422
    Join date : 2014-02-05

    Difference between Airborne and Air Assault Divisions? Empty Re: Difference between Airborne and Air Assault Divisions?

    Post  Airbornewolf on Mon Feb 10, 2014 1:29 pm

    nah i know what a BMD is, i payed attention during my service what might appear on the field of the other team. more in the sense tough im interrested in what others have. and not in the sense i expected to be at war with them. and i know you mean well Garryb but ive been doing western airborne work for years. no offense intended of course.

    and the use of the heavy aircraft is why im so curious about because of the flight characteristics of such planes. yes, they can indeed fly over Manpad range but thats their cruise altitude most of the time. they need to decent to for a safe drop that i imagine for a combat drop with vehicles and troops is somewhere around 3000 meters maximum. higher than that your jumpers start to suffer from hypoxia and generally does not tend to be good for their health. not to mention you just might get spread all over the place instead as desired land in a nice tight group. that aircraft might make a steep decent but its not as maneuverable with such payloads as lighter aircraft the west uses.  

    the west posses the stinger block 1, it can engage targets about 4500 meters away. they would definitely come inside Manpad range. of course such drops with vehicles is best done at night in blackout conditions and make it a little harder for man pad teams to acquire their targets. its why im curious how the VDV does its heavy drops in operations. one possibility might be to simply smash holes in enemy lines on the frontlines by being able to drop quickly close to the front and bolster an attacking force or operate on its own and engage a damaged enemy force or otherwise favourable odds.

    i agree with you the addition of armoured vehicles certainly aids combat potential and mobility, and the west has no similar counterpart for that. but again, to go for a 100 or 50 KM drive for that matter in enemy territory without accurate intelligence is asking for trouble. you just might as well blindfold and attempt to cross a minefield. of course they might do recon themselves while advancing, but careful recon requires time and air assault/airborne actions are mostly a race against time.

    ...yeah, the joy of nuclear power plants in war. if both sides are smart they dont go mess around with nuclear power plants. a meltdown or leak will not favour either the attacker or defender. but other strategic targets are viable of course. creating beachheads like you pointed out on airfields, command and control centers or sever logistical lines to the front.
    flamming_python
    flamming_python

    Posts : 3509
    Points : 3593
    Join date : 2012-01-30

    Difference between Airborne and Air Assault Divisions? Empty Re: Difference between Airborne and Air Assault Divisions?

    Post  flamming_python on Mon Feb 10, 2014 1:50 pm

    Airbornewolf what do you think about the possibility of smaller airdrop operations; tactical insertions, special ops teams, etc...
    They can be done with 1-2 aircraft and it would be a lot easier for them to slip through the net as it were, and enemy MANPAD troops might not be alerted to their presence before its too late.

    The use of vehicles like BMDs would drastically augment their firepower, and this is definitely somewhere where the VDV or Spetsnaz have a big advantage over their Western counterparts, due to their employment of such specialized hardware.
    Airbornewolf
    Airbornewolf

    Posts : 362
    Points : 422
    Join date : 2014-02-05

    Difference between Airborne and Air Assault Divisions? Empty Re: Difference between Airborne and Air Assault Divisions?

    Post  Airbornewolf on Mon Feb 10, 2014 2:52 pm

    one or two aircraft indeed would be better in the sense of setting off alarm bells, after all Russia has a habit of sending out decoy bombers and they could be easily mistaken for those on radar and if they "fly" like bombers or recon aircraft. and if they do a HALO jump for special forces they can pretty much maintain attain cruise altitude and no one would notice and deviation in their flying behavior at all....that means obviously no armor or vehicles tough. i think those will show up on radar nowadays if they are dropped from such altitudes. at high altitudes manpads pose no threat, and if done at night it makes visual detection a lot harder.

    i understand your optimism Flamming python. but if you where holding a Manpad on gaurd duty, and you hear something like a heavy aircraft. wouldnt you get up and look for the chance to turn it into a raging ball of fire falling from the sky?. i certainly would, its one of those things then where you just get one chance for in your life if you know what i mean. it might be friendly but thats why you first get a PID before firing.

    that said, of course Stingers/manpads do not exactly lie around by the thousands in armoury's so they are strategically deployed. its more or less a game of chess where you put manpads thinking they are going to be needed.

    i do not doubt the armoured vehicles weaponry value of course. and its appearant value. but engagements rarely happen on flat open fields. to have such vehicles can of course be an advantage but definitely has its vulnerability's. most AT-weapons of today can be fired from confined spaces like buildings or improvised fortifications so ambushing them became more easy. same for western armour by the way. the Merkava did not fare too well either against this kind of warfare in Gaza.

    i honestly feel the BMD is a good field asset for the vdv without western counterpart in terms of firepower and mobility. but its certainly not a ticket to victory. it would need to be well protected by dismounted infantry and not get too close to enemy positions.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 21455
    Points : 22005
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Difference between Airborne and Air Assault Divisions? Empty Re: Difference between Airborne and Air Assault Divisions?

    Post  GarryB on Tue Feb 11, 2014 9:25 am

    and i know you mean well Garryb but ive been doing western airborne work for years. no offense intended of course.

    I hope the things I say don't come across as offensive to you either, I am genuinely interested in your opinion.

    and the use of the heavy aircraft is why im so curious about because of the flight characteristics of such planes. yes, they can indeed fly over Manpad range but thats their cruise altitude most of the time. they need to decent to for a safe drop that i imagine for a combat drop with vehicles and troops is somewhere around 3000 meters maximum.

    Like I said... the key is not to land you airborne forces right onto the target which will be heavily defended... but out in the middle of nowhere where it wont be defended.

    Stingers are effective weapons, but as you point out... even a large transport dropping troops and equipment at 3km altitude would require a Stinger team to be directly under the flight path to get a reasonable change of a clean kill... and lets agree there are very few countries that are covered in MANPADS 24/7.

    To be effective it has to be in the right place at the right time and to be honest half the time it would not be used by a responsible military at twilight in case the spotted transport is friendly.

    one possibility might be to simply smash holes in enemy lines on the frontlines by being able to drop quickly close to the front and bolster an attacking force or operate on its own and engage a damaged enemy force or otherwise favourable odds.

    Far too risky to operate near the front line... it would be quicker and easier and cheaper to just send in more ground forces.

    i agree with you the addition of armoured vehicles certainly aids combat potential and mobility, and the west has no similar counterpart for that. but again, to go for a 100 or 50 KM drive for that matter in enemy territory without accurate intelligence is asking for trouble. you just might as well blindfold and attempt to cross a minefield. of course they might do recon themselves while advancing, but careful recon requires time and air assault/airborne actions are mostly a race against time.

    Mobility and firepower is the key to their model... in the deep rear areas an enemy wont mine the general terrain... unless they want to deal with UXO for the next hundred years, and having to have mine detection gear with all their rear area forces including supplies and reserve units.

    ...yeah, the joy of nuclear power plants in war. if both sides are smart they dont go mess around with nuclear power plants. a meltdown or leak will not favour either the attacker or defender.

    An attacker benefits if the enemy losses mains power, and of course in a conflict that is about destroying an enemy rather than conquest and acquisition of land it would also be beneficial to at least control such sites... I am talking about third world countries of course... a european civilian reactor could be taken out with long range cruise missiles easily enough... there is no need to send in troops.

    that said, of course Stingers/manpads do not exactly lie around by the thousands in armoury's so they are strategically deployed. its more or less a game of chess where you put manpads thinking they are going to be needed.

    And that is the point of not landing near anything of value so the chance of MANPADs is diminished to the point it can be largely ignored.

    Enemy aircraft are more of a threat, but again in an attack on a third world country chances are the air force has already been dealt with by other means.

    i honestly feel the BMD is a good field asset for the vdv without western counterpart in terms of firepower and mobility. but its certainly not a ticket to victory. it would need to be well protected by dismounted infantry and not get too close to enemy positions.

    The Armour is not intended to make them super invincible... it is intended to give them extreme mobility in enemy rear areas and the firepower to take on any enemy forces they might encounter quickly. They are certainly not built to take a lot of punishment, but if used as intended they should not be in a position to be.

    Just because they are air dropped does not mean they can't use air support to aid their operations.


    Last edited by GarryB on Thu Feb 13, 2014 1:02 am; edited 1 time in total
    Airbornewolf
    Airbornewolf

    Posts : 362
    Points : 422
    Join date : 2014-02-05

    Difference between Airborne and Air Assault Divisions? Empty Re: Difference between Airborne and Air Assault Divisions?

    Post  Airbornewolf on Wed Feb 12, 2014 7:07 pm

    i can not seem to get these quotes right, so ill just go bit by bit what you replied on GarryB.

    you did not come over as offensive no worries, its me actually made a mistake with interpretation. apologies from my end.

    true, and thinking of my country alone i know several suitable drop zones for them. some very close to airbases and mobilization bases. or in other country's i saw for that matter. im beginning to see the difference now between VDV's organisation and tasks and ours.  both are Para's and primary task is to drop behind enemy lines for strategic missions.

    the VDV seems more for brute force as a main drop force with a spetznaz element screening the main drop, and propably make sure manpads and other nasty threats for aircraft either get identified and eliminated.  overwhelm the enemy and having them running around behind your lines making your life miserable is not a pleasure. not to mention most of the russian weaponry can fire NATO ammo but not the other way around. a well armed and motivated force with vehicles that indeed makes short work of reservists in the West.

    West para's seem more focussed on infiltrating and making their way to their targets undetected, also like vdv hit strategic targets and what i notice is what seems different is that our task was to deploy to germany at the start of an cold war invasion to city's and towns in Germany and make the PACT "work" for it. the problem the west was concerned about was the massive number of tanks the russians had. the idea was to either kill or drive away russian armour from city's so they where in the open making it available for aircraft to hit them, or we would deal with them in urban area's. we where equipped with other grenades than regular forces. we used grenades that do not use shrapnell to kill (defensive) but offensive grenades that use pressure to kill. throw them in the room, wait for bang and storm in. excellent for urban warfare. and especially actions at night, we where equipped with night vision in the cold war and most of what i remember of my training at the time is doing night operations.

    i joined up after the cold war of course, but my army has a tendency to base its airborne boot camp training still on the training handbook fighting russians instead of all these "less-pleasant" sandboxes we nowaday run around in. thats why i know and i know how ridiculous outdated that sounded.

    a cruise missile in an european reactor? Razz. you saw the russians sending in wave after wave with Tsjernobyl to plug the gap right?. i doubt no officer in their right mind would blow up a nuclear reactor. besides the nuclear contamination of making the country and those around it poisonous for years to come and the rest of the world enjoying the nuclear fallout the world propably would turn immediately on the one that blew it up. if anything i think they just plant some small controlled demolitions on its transformers or take out substations. no power but the facility can still control its cooling independently. or at least after my physics classes that seems the most logical but i prefer not to mess with nuclear-anything alltogether. i think Fukushima demonstrated again nuclear power is something we barely can control if some systems get damaged.

    i personally would never either attack a nuclear facility or launch an nuclear ICBM for that matter. you would not believe the discussion i had in Arizona's Titan missile museum. lets just put it my views where not really appreciated. but thats another story.

    and third world country's barely have a thing that could be called "air force". but your point is correct, they propably will be priority targets to achieve air superiority and ground forces have the ability to receive air support. outdated air force or not when you are standing on the ground you do not want to see any kind of aircraft making a strafing-run or bombing run. rotor wing aircraft might be a problem tough because of their limited range, they are far more dangerous than their fixed-wing partners as they can descern targets themselves because they fly low and relatively slow with dedicated ground attack weapons, but that is if they can reach the deployment zone of VDV.  and fixed wing aircraft propably have limited time available for attacking before they need to return to make it back to their base, but even 15 minutes on station for a SU-25 with rocket pods or simmilar ground attack weaponry might make a huge difference. you can imagine tough this CAS with its limited time brings some stress with the command and control group on the ground tough. 15 to 20 minutes propably gives you 4 targets and thats working fast for the FAC guy on the ground. in the west we usually got 1 FAC- soldier per platoon, im not sure how the VDV has it tough.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 21455
    Points : 22005
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Difference between Airborne and Air Assault Divisions? Empty Re: Difference between Airborne and Air Assault Divisions?

    Post  GarryB on Thu Feb 13, 2014 2:30 am

    the VDV seems more for brute force as a main drop force with a spetznaz element screening the main drop,

    Don't know of any airborne force that lands behind enemy lines to plant flowers...  Very Happy 

    The VDV is better equipped with armour which gives them more independence when they get to ground... one of the dangers for airborne forces once they land is their vulnerability to artillery... armoured vehicles address that while at the same time give mobility and firepower where needed to deal with harder targets and better defended positions.

    not to mention most of the russian weaponry can fire NATO ammo but not the other way around.

    Apart from mortars in the 120mm range I don't know of any Russian weapons able to use NATO standard ammo.

    West para's seem more focussed on infiltrating and making their way to their targets undetected,

    Two points... neither side wants to be detected, but the west seems more focused on infiltrating rather than para dropping.

    This is largely because the standard scenario for the west in europe is a massive Soviet/Russian invasion of Europe... which means huge air drops are not needed... it is easier to use paras as stay behind forces... guerilla forces.

    Ironically this means that the Soviet/Russian VDV model of more aggressive airborne forces would actually suit NATO and the US much better in their little colonial conflicts around the place.

    [qutoe]we used grenades that do not use shrapnell to kill (defensive) but offensive grenades that use pressure to kill.[/quote]

    Yes, the Russians have the RGO and RGN hand grenades, while previous models were the F-1 and RGD-5... see below:

    Difference between Airborne and Air Assault Divisions? Rgo_us10

    Difference between Airborne and Air Assault Divisions? Rgn_us10

    Difference between Airborne and Air Assault Divisions? F110

    Difference between Airborne and Air Assault Divisions? Rdg510

    For those not familiar the attack grenades have smooth outer shells and have very small high velocity fragments with a very short effective range so you can throw it from out in the open into trenches or at the feet of the enemy. The defensive grenades have much larger fragments that are fewer in number of course but have more energy and are effective to much greater ranges that must be thrown from behind cover because the fragments are generally dangerous to greater distances than the grenade can be thrown. The smooth and bumpy feel of them is a warning to the soldier to not use the wrong type.

    (Note the RGO and RGN have time and impact fuses)

    a cruise missile in an european reactor? Razz. you saw the russians sending in wave after wave with Tsjernobyl to plug the gap right?.

    In WWIII worrying about a little radiation will be the least of an attacking armys concern... the soviet military had NBC suits and equipment to ensure they will be less effected by any radiation than the local population.

    Besides a few explosions nearby should be enough to get the staff to shut the reactor down properly anyway.

    i think Fukushima demonstrated again nuclear power is something we barely can control if some systems get damaged.

    Fukushima showed that 1960s US reactors aren't as safe as they like to pretend they are.

    i personally would never either attack a nuclear facility or launch an nuclear ICBM for that matter.

    I can assure you my feelings are the same... I have no love for death and destruction.

    you would not believe the discussion i had in Arizona's Titan missile museum.

    You can't visit the Pope and expect him to agree that the best policy is atheism...

    You'd have better luck telling them Jesus wasn't American.... Smile

    in the west we usually got 1 FAC- soldier per platoon, im not sure how the VDV has it tough.

    Perhaps Vlad could tell us... but I suspect the sudden influx of sophisticated aircraft with guided air to ground weapons... and also even laser guided artillery ammo... the need for FAC is only going to get bigger. ...remember the VDV have NONA 120mm mortar vehicles... so a 120mm guided GRAN round would be very useful and available at all times to the units it is operating with... VENA or similar vehicles only expand the potential... and of course the influx of UAVs and UCAVs is going to mean targets could be marked from the air organically with the VDV unit almost self sufficient with recon and artillery support.

    A short while back there was a photo of a Tigr with a mortar mounted on its rear... systems like the Vasilek 82mm automatic mortar able to fire at about 600 rpm with a 4 round clip would rapidly make up for the relatively small 4kg payload with rate of fire and direct fire accuracy. A 120mm mortar with a 16kg payload would be even more devastating.
    avatar
    Mindstorm

    Posts : 846
    Points : 1013
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Difference between Airborne and Air Assault Divisions? Empty Re: Difference between Airborne and Air Assault Divisions?

    Post  Mindstorm on Sat Feb 15, 2014 11:44 am

    Some points on the subject in debate :


    1) Airborne Force's Mobility (meaning with this both the freedom of movement in the morphological elements of the operational area and the average speed in/off road) , is a parameter very hugely influencing : the chances of achieving tactical surprise , the overall offensive efficiency , the survivability to enemy defensive assets , capability to stress/elude enemy's ISR systems .

    To realize what just said is sufficient to remind a truly elementary fact often overlooked in shallow analysis of the difference between Russian and Western Airborne Forces composition : the "potential" operation area of attack/dispersion/camouflage-ambush/defensive entrenchment etc.. of an Airborne force, after the delivery, is the product of the square function of the median speed of the slower element of such a force.

    Let put that the speed of a purely dismounted airborne force at 6 km/h and that of a mechanized airborne one at 36 Km/h (1:6 ratio) you have that the potential area of operation (and obviously all the potential targets endangered in this area.....) in a single hour for those two forces are respectively 113.04 Km2 and 4069.44 km2 (1:36 ratio).

    That ,naturally, also mean that the second force (the mechanized one) exert a pressure and a "stress" over the enemy defensive and ISR element 36 times greater because you need 36 times the number of defensive structures , 36 times the number of vehicles and manpower and 36 times the number of sensor elements in order to obtain the same density/coverage in comparison with the area covered by the dismounted force .




     
    2) The mechanized component of Russian VDV not only provide the force with an immensely higher operational tempo (capable in itself to deny any chance to react to the enemy's command ) and the capability to split momentarily the forces to allow the destruction/neutralization of secondary targets in the area before converging toward a main objective, but also and above all to hit from stand-off range those primary and secondary targets .
    This stand-off not only render very difficult for the enemy to track the position of the attacking VDV (an airfield ,its hangars, its fuel storage sites, parked aircraft, ammunition storage and personnel buildings could be destroyed in a matter of minutes by such a VDVB force, firing from 2 -3 different points from 12-14 km of distance, without surrending the position of the attacking contingent) but allow also to disperse or remain close to local elements useful at defeat a possible enemy threat  (at example remaining close to a tunnel, a group of close buildings, an underground car park, a water course etc... in order to waste ,at example, an incoming attack from enemy artillery, or fixed wing aircraft employing JDAM, SDB, Paveway III/IV ,and so on).
    This factor ,combined with the possibility to bring with the force also specialized ECM vehicles and radar/IR decoys ,increase enormously the survivability of such a VDV force also in the chance of a detection.








    3) The kind of equipment, weaponry and the amount of ammunition and supply that a VDV regiment's troop can bring with itself is on a completely different level ; not less important, this equipment can be moved without any limit dictated by body tiredness.  
    ATGM and air defense systems allow to often gain total superiority over the forces present in the enemy rear area so to proceed quickly from a target to target.
    In particular ,lately, the air defense complement against the most dangerous enemy flyers for an highly mobile force like Russian VDV - high persistence low flyers such as UAVs, capable to provide positional correction for the ammunitions delivered by fixed wing aircraft and obviously enemy combat and reconnaissance helicopters- has been increased with induction of Strela10-M3 and improved IGLA MANPADS.


    In this video is possible to identify the amount and variety of equipment at disposal of a VDV battalion (from buggy, to hang-gliders, to field tripod thermal sights ,to UAV)



    At 6:37 you can see one of the latest training of engagement of a simulated UAV directly from a BMD.




    In summary is totally unfair to attempt a comparison between Western and Russian Airborne divisions, because the former is a bit more than a point infiltration force with almost not–existent fighting/persistence value ,while the latter can literally open wide holes in the enemy deep and ,from them, proceed at disorganize its same structure destroying or taking control of an objective after the other within a very compressed time frame and maintaining, contextually a very high combat value against enemy forces diverted from other area to attempt to stop them.
    flamming_python
    flamming_python

    Posts : 3509
    Points : 3593
    Join date : 2012-01-30

    Difference between Airborne and Air Assault Divisions? Empty Re: Difference between Airborne and Air Assault Divisions?

    Post  flamming_python on Sat Feb 15, 2014 1:36 pm

    Always enjoy your posts Mindstorm; outstanding.
    Werewolf
    Werewolf

    Posts : 5253
    Points : 5458
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Difference between Airborne and Air Assault Divisions? Empty Re: Difference between Airborne and Air Assault Divisions?

    Post  Werewolf on Sat Feb 15, 2014 6:59 pm

    Indeed great post like always.
    collegeboy16
    collegeboy16

    Posts : 1145
    Points : 1146
    Join date : 2012-10-05
    Age : 22
    Location : Roanapur

    Difference between Airborne and Air Assault Divisions? Empty Re: Difference between Airborne and Air Assault Divisions?

    Post  collegeboy16 on Sun Feb 16, 2014 7:16 am

    Hehe, now that I think of it you can conquer my country- philippines with the VDV. We literally dont have any anti-armor aside from a few occasional RPG-7s aa guns and bazooka. Perhaps we can buy those BMDs if the russians replace them with airdroppable kurgs.
    disclaimer tho a lot of the people here could make RPG-7 with ith the ammo if left with tools and the internet Twisted Evil


    Last edited by collegeboy16 on Sun Feb 16, 2014 7:26 am; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : takeback, far too lazy to have somthing to do with tools.)
    avatar
    Asf

    Posts : 472
    Points : 491
    Join date : 2014-03-27

    Difference between Airborne and Air Assault Divisions? Empty Re: Difference between Airborne and Air Assault Divisions?

    Post  Asf on Thu Mar 27, 2014 1:37 pm

    steve501 wrote: I have noticed that the current Russian Airborne Forces consist of 98th and 106th Airborne Division and 7th and 76th (Commando) Air Assault Divisions and 31st Indep Commando Air Assault Brigade. Can anyone tell me what the main differences are between the two especially in organisation and equipment especially again at Battalion level

    cheers
    Steve
    Actually, Airborne Division are fully capable for airborne deployment (e.g. with combat vehicles), and Air Assault Divisions has only one airborne battalion in a regiment (e.g. equipped with BMD vehicle family), other battalions are only air-lifted (e.g. armed with common ground combat vehicles such as BMPs), but all personel is still trained in airbourne deployment on foot if needed. Main tactics of air assaul division (regiment tactical group of a such division) is to seize control over an enemy airfield with airborne battalion(s) in order to deploy it's main forces or just deploy it's forces like a lighter version of regular ground division (something similar to a Stryker brigade).
    All of the divisions is equally able to conduct helicopter operations, often called "tactical desant" (e.g. tactical-lever airborne operation) in Russian, if needed (like in Afghanistan and Chechnia).

    Sponsored content

    Difference between Airborne and Air Assault Divisions? Empty Re: Difference between Airborne and Air Assault Divisions?

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Mon Aug 19, 2019 11:33 pm