Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    State Armaments Program 2011-2020

    Share

    franco
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1774
    Points : 1814
    Join date : 2010-08-18

    Re: State Armaments Program 2011-2020

    Post  franco on Sun Oct 02, 2016 4:24 pm

    VladimirSahin wrote:No news of T-72B3M?

    Would assume that is the improved T-72B3's that he is talking about.

    Benya
    Sergeant
    Sergeant

    Posts : 176
    Points : 180
    Join date : 2016-06-05
    Location : Budapest, Hungary

    Re: State Armaments Program 2011-2020

    Post  Benya on Thu Oct 13, 2016 8:38 pm

    Russian Army Southern Military District has received 350 new military equipment

    This year Land Forces, coastal troops of the Black Sea Fleet and Caspian Flotilla, Southern MD special formations have received more than 350 pieces of modern armored and automobile vehicles, missile and artillery armament, communication and electronic warfare equipment, engineer hardware, and other equipment.

    [img][/img]
    Russian Army BMP-3 in live demonstration

    Tank and motorized rifle units of the combined-arms and foreign military bases are receiving T-72B3 tanks, BMP-3 IFVs, and BTR-82A APCs.

    Aviation and helicopter regiments and brigades of the Southern MD have already received more than 10 pieces of aviation hardware, including Mi-8AMTSh, Su-25SM, and Su-30SM. In total, these formations are to receive about 30 aircraft by the end of 2016.

    In the middle of 2016, S-400 Triumph and Pantsyr-S air defence systems have been deployed in Crimea this year.

    Black Sea Fleet and Caspian Flotilla are to receive about 20 ships, vessels, and motor boats as well as 10 aircraft for naval aviation.

    By the end of 2020, the Southern military district is to be equipped with up to 70% of modern hardware operated by ground, naval, and aviation units.

    Source: Arrow http://www.armyrecognition.com/october_2016_global_defense_security_news_industry/russian_army_southern_military_district_has_received_350_new_military_equipment_71110162.html

    Project Canada
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 531
    Points : 540
    Join date : 2015-07-20
    Age : 28
    Location : Canada

    Re: State Armaments Program 2011-2020

    Post  Project Canada on Thu Oct 20, 2016 7:25 am




    The FAS found frustrating the state defense order for more than 150 billion rubles

    The Federal Antimonopoly Service (FAS Russia) found frustrating performance of state defense order for more than 150 billion rubles. Violations found in the scan FSUE "Spetsstroyinzhiniring" at Special Russia.

    The Federal Antimonopoly Service (FAS) has found major violations on the basis of a scheduled inspection of the FSUE "Spetsstroyinzhiniring at Special Russia", including the failure of defense contracts worth more than 150 billion rubles.

    "Spetsstroyinzhiniring" is defined by the Government of the sole executor of design and survey works, construction, overhaul and reconstruction of the Defense Ministry special forces. The company under the jurisdiction of Spetsstroy.

    The audit showed that FSUE actually distribute the work under a state contract between the organizations subordinate Spetsstroy, and other commercial companies, the FAS said.

    "As a result of the lack of proper control over the actions of their subcontractors' Spetsstroyinzhiniring" ripped turnaround time for state contracts totaling more than 150 billion rubles. In addition, the Federal State Unitary Enterprise does not carry out work with claims in respect of involved subcontractors. The size of the detected penalty not to demand from subcontractors, was more than 10 billion rubles, "- said the FAS.

    The audit FAS filed more than 20 cases of administrative offenses in relation to company officials involved in the disruption of the state defense order. On the results of checks to inform the General Prosecutor's Office and the FSB.

    https://defence.ru/article/fas-obnaruzhila-sriv-gosoboronzakaza-bolee-chem-na-150-mlrd-rublei/


    I hope the Defense ministry do more to tackle corruption in arms procurement especially in a time of economic difficulties where every single ruble counts.

    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9451
    Points : 9943
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: State Armaments Program 2011-2020

    Post  George1 on Fri Oct 21, 2016 1:02 pm

    MOSCOW (Sputnik) — The Russian Armed Forces have received over a dozen aircraft and helicopters, as well as 21 radars and the Bal and Bastion coastal missile defense systems in July-September this year, Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu said Friday.

    Read more: https://sputniknews.com/military/201610211046574104-russian-army-aircraft-radars/


    The Russian Armed Forces will receive the Veliky Novgorod diesel-electric submarine, two Buk and six Pantsir-S air defense systems in November, Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu said Friday.

    Read more: https://sputniknews.com/military/201610211046579934-russia-army-submarines/


    _________________
    "There's no smoke without fire.", Georgy Zhukov


    franco
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1774
    Points : 1814
    Join date : 2010-08-18

    Re: State Armaments Program 2011-2020

    Post  franco on Tue Nov 15, 2016 10:35 pm

    SOCHI, November 15 - RIA Novosti. Since the beginning of the year in the Russian armed forces received more than 5.5 thousand units of equipment, including 190 aircraft and helicopters, a multi-purpose submarine, more than 750 tanks and armored vehicles, said Russian President Vladimir Putin, opening up a series of meetings with the leadership of the Ministry of Defense and defense industry.

    "The troops received more than 5500 units of armaments and military equipment. This includes more than 60 new and 130 upgraded aircraft and helicopters, attack submarines, 60 anti-aircraft missiles, missile systems and complexes, 55 radar stations, 310 new and 460 modernized tanks and armored vehicles in total this year, the planned volume of supply of new and repair 5700 units of major weapons and military hardware, and we expect that they will be handed over to the troops on schedule " Putin said.

    Drawing attention to the meeting, Supreme Commander emphasized that it is important to reinforce the positive groundwork achieved in recent years, to continue to clearly and consistently communicate in the formation and implementation of the state defense order assignments.

    "Such a challenge facing the Ministry of Defence and all the enterprises of the military-industrial complex Secondly, it is necessary to strengthen state control over the efficient spending of the prime contractor and subcontractors of budgetary funds allocated to the state defense order.", - Putin said.

    The head of state instructed to strictly observe the performance discipline in the performance of state defense order. "Discipline must be primarily financial discipline at a high level", - he stressed.

    franco
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1774
    Points : 1814
    Join date : 2010-08-18

    Re: State Armaments Program 2011-2020

    Post  franco on Wed Nov 30, 2016 1:43 am

    Coming up to the end of the year 2016 and a review of the Air Defense modernization programs to years end;

    - 16 regiments of S.400 active
    - 6 brigades of Buk-M2 active
    - 1 brigade of Buk-M3 active
    - 3-5 brigades of S.300V4 active

    EDIT: in addition there are an unknown number of S.300PM's upgraded to S.300PMU standard.

    franco
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1774
    Points : 1814
    Join date : 2010-08-18

    Re: State Armaments Program 2011-2020

    Post  franco on Mon Dec 05, 2016 1:56 am

    Ignore the poor headline translation but almost 7,000 new pieces of equipment delivered to the Russian Armed Forces in 2016.

    https://ria.ru/defense_safety/20161205/1482813057.html

    par far
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1069
    Points : 1206
    Join date : 2014-06-26

    Re: State Armaments Program 2011-2020

    Post  par far on Wed Dec 07, 2016 8:09 pm

    "RUSSIA OFFICIALLY CREATES ‘SUPER-LIGHT BATTALION’, ARMS IT WITH UAZ PATRIOT COMBAT VEHICLES (INFOGRAPHICS)."

    "The press service of Russia’s Central military district announced Wednesday that a super-light battalion with UAZ “Patriot” combat vehicles was deployed as a part of the newly formed motorized infantry brigade in the Samara region".

    "The battalion was created as result of analysis of the combat expirience gained by the Russian military in Syria".

    "90 units of UAZ “Patriot” combat vehicles equipped with machine guns are set to be delivered to the batalion until the end of 2017".




    https://southfront.org/russia-officially-creates-super-light-motorized-battalion-arms-it-with-uaz-patriot-combat-vehicles-infographics/



    VladimirSahin
    Master Sergeant
    Master Sergeant

    Posts : 364
    Points : 384
    Join date : 2013-11-29
    Age : 25
    Location : Some redneck state in the US.

    Re: State Armaments Program 2011-2020

    Post  VladimirSahin on Wed Dec 07, 2016 9:06 pm

    Please tell me that's some kind of sick joke.

    franco
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1774
    Points : 1814
    Join date : 2010-08-18

    Re: State Armaments Program 2011-2020

    Post  franco on Wed Dec 07, 2016 11:07 pm

    VladimirSahin wrote:Please tell me that's some kind of sick joke.

    I agree but the first battalion of a new brigade and there are plans for a second brigade of them.

    eehnie
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 586
    Points : 611
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: State Armaments Program 2011-2020

    Post  eehnie on Thu Dec 08, 2016 1:39 am

    franco wrote:
    VladimirSahin wrote:Please tell me that's some kind of sick joke.

    I agree but the first battalion of a new brigade and there are plans for a second brigade of them.

    It is also very rare for me. It would be a mistake in my view.

    Outside of Syria, where the adversary is very low armed, the survival rate of this kind of unit would be very low in my view.

    This combat style seems more for the type of adversary of the Security Forces than for the Armed Forces.

    VladimirSahin
    Master Sergeant
    Master Sergeant

    Posts : 364
    Points : 384
    Join date : 2013-11-29
    Age : 25
    Location : Some redneck state in the US.

    Re: State Armaments Program 2011-2020

    Post  VladimirSahin on Thu Dec 08, 2016 3:31 am

    franco wrote:
    VladimirSahin wrote:Please tell me that's some kind of sick joke.

    I agree but the first battalion of a new brigade and there are plans for a second brigade of them.

    I'm thinking someone in the MoD maybe drank too much or something. 2 Brigades of these??!!! That's embarrassing. Looking forward to NATO soldiers laughing at the toyota brigades in a possible future war, they'll probably wonder if they're in Afghanistan or Iraq seeing such units.

    miketheterrible
    Sergeant
    Sergeant

    Posts : 170
    Points : 172
    Join date : 2016-11-06

    Re: State Armaments Program 2011-2020

    Post  miketheterrible on Thu Dec 08, 2016 3:49 am

    VladimirSahin wrote:
    franco wrote:
    VladimirSahin wrote:Please tell me that's some kind of sick joke.

    I agree but the first battalion of a new brigade and there are plans for a second brigade of them.

    I'm thinking someone in the MoD maybe drank too much or something. 2 Brigades of these??!!! That's embarrassing. Looking forward to NATO soldiers laughing at the toyota brigades in a possible future war, they'll probably wonder if they're in Afghanistan or Iraq seeing such units.  

    You are aware the purpose of these right?  Recon and quick run and gun.  Such tactics have been used often and without proper equipment.  Add in the equipment and they will have no problem.

    Most of the US forces casualties are due to such tactics.  I don't think the US forces laughed so hard when they were getting blown up or overran but I know I sure did especially when it happened in Iraq where they had a lot of heavy equipment in.  But I see you are from the US.

    It is highly maneuverable unit, it is intended to conduct lightning fast raids on the enemy from the flanks and unprotected areas. Also highlights a significant increase in mobility during operations in settlements.

    So in other words, used in soft areas that doesn't need a heavy hand.  Because we all know Russia's experience in placing heavy equipment in city centers in lets say Grozny.

    SeigSoloyvov
    Senior Sergeant
    Senior Sergeant

    Posts : 222
    Points : 224
    Join date : 2016-04-08

    Re: State Armaments Program 2011-2020

    Post  SeigSoloyvov on Thu Dec 08, 2016 4:31 am

    VladimirSahin wrote:
    franco wrote:
    VladimirSahin wrote:Please tell me that's some kind of sick joke.

    I agree but the first battalion of a new brigade and there are plans for a second brigade of them.

    I'm thinking someone in the MoD maybe drank too much or something. 2 Brigades of these??!!! That's embarrassing. Looking forward to NATO soldiers laughing at the toyota brigades in a possible future war, they'll probably wonder if they're in Afghanistan or Iraq seeing such units.  

    Um no I serve in the United States Military, Ground Forces. Lightning fast units with high mobility are very very deadly if used correctly. These units aren't meant to attack defended positions but raid unprotected or lightly defended areas.

    Go in destroy shit and get out before a force can get in range and react. These tactics utterly trashed the Army and the marines themselves had a hard time dealing with it, mind you I was a marine for over eight years. So unless you have more than ten years combat experience than I do (doubt that) I can without a doubt say you have no idea what a REAL battlefield is like or what the situation is like on them.

    Fun fact I have been to Syria with the kurds, I have been to Iraq. I've even had the Ruskies drop a couple of air strikes near my position (didn't know we was there).

    Still let me tell you a story of WW2 how in Africa. The Brit would load up jeeps with machine guns drive into the German airfields and destroy the aircraft on the ground while dealing with meager resistance in a real war not even base will have hundreds of armed guards. Then drove away before anyone could stop them.

    The creation of such units does serve a tactical point granted, if the Russians can utilize them properly well that's another story.

    Units like these require targets of opportunity is the thing they aren't made for direct fighting.


    eehnie
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 586
    Points : 611
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: State Armaments Program 2011-2020

    Post  eehnie on Thu Dec 08, 2016 1:36 pm

    miketheterrible wrote:You are aware the purpose of these right?  Recon and quick run and gun.  Such tactics have been used often and without proper equipment.  Add in the equipment and they will have no problem.

    SeigSoloyvov wrote:Go in destroy shit and get out before a force can get in range and react. These tactics utterly trashed the Army and the marines themselves had a hard time dealing with it, mind you I was a marine for over eight years. So unless you have more than ten years combat experience than I do (doubt that) I can without a doubt say you have no idea what a REAL battlefield is like or what the situation is like on them.

    Fun fact I have been to Syria with the kurds, I have been to Iraq. I've even had the Ruskies drop a couple of air strikes near my position (didn't know we was there).

    This is useful only vs low armed adversaries, With the current weapon range, the use of these units in scenarios like the Donbass is far more difficult, if not impossible. In this kind of scenarios, it is run, gun and die, because after the attack the unit is fairly exposed to all the types of mid-long range weapons (man portable antitank weapons, artillery of all the types, MRLS,...).

    miketheterrible
    Sergeant
    Sergeant

    Posts : 170
    Points : 172
    Join date : 2016-11-06

    Re: State Armaments Program 2011-2020

    Post  miketheterrible on Thu Dec 08, 2016 3:26 pm

    Uh, no.

    In Donbass, they are usually using light forces like standard ground troops with atgm's and heavier weapons like recoiless rifles and mortars to hit positions. Their heavier units - T-64's with BTR's and BMP-2's are used more on front line.

    Firebird
    Lieutenant Colonel
    Lieutenant Colonel

    Posts : 914
    Points : 946
    Join date : 2011-10-14

    Re: State Armaments Program 2011-2020

    Post  Firebird on Thu Dec 08, 2016 6:30 pm

    200 page academic article here. From a butthurt HATO Swede unfortunately tho.

    Very interesting. Haven't really read it yet. So I don't know what the technical accuracy is like.

    Lots of crybaby whining about Russia "not respecting international law". So hold your noses in parts.

    Just click on the link. You can download the pdf.

    https://www.docdroid.net/DA0LkJq/2016-the-fighting-power-of-ru-200pgs.pdf.html

    SeigSoloyvov
    Senior Sergeant
    Senior Sergeant

    Posts : 222
    Points : 224
    Join date : 2016-04-08

    Re: State Armaments Program 2011-2020

    Post  SeigSoloyvov on Thu Dec 08, 2016 7:32 pm

    eehnie wrote:
    miketheterrible wrote:You are aware the purpose of these right? Recon and quick run and gun. Such tactics have been used often and without proper equipment. Add in the equipment and they will have no problem.

    SeigSoloyvov wrote:Go in destroy shit and get out before a force can get in range and react. These tactics utterly trashed the Army and the marines themselves had a hard time dealing with it, mind you I was a marine for over eight years. So unless you have more than ten years combat experience than I do (doubt that) I can without a doubt say you have no idea what a REAL battlefield is like or what the situation is like on them.

    Fun fact I have been to Syria with the kurds, I have been to Iraq. I've even had the Ruskies drop a couple of air strikes near my position (didn't know we was there).

    This is useful only vs low armed adversaries, With the current weapon range, the use of these units in scenarios like the Donbass is far more difficult, if not impossible. In this kind of scenarios, it is run, gun and die, because after the attack the unit is fairly exposed to all the types of mid-long range weapons (man portable antitank weapons, artillery of all the types, MRLS,...).

    Not every area will have these you seem to think every single unit is afforded these things they REALLY aren't. Most units have minimal shit, only the units expected to push are given heaven weapons. This is a Fairy tale among civi's that everywhere you go on a battlefield you will find a tank or ATGM.

    The type of things these guys would attack would be targeted with small arms. The US doesn't give every unit half the shit you spoke of only the frontline units get that stuff, rear line units don't.

    eehnie
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 586
    Points : 611
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: State Armaments Program 2011-2020

    Post  eehnie on Thu Dec 08, 2016 8:08 pm

    SeigSoloyvov wrote:
    eehnie wrote:
    miketheterrible wrote:You are aware the purpose of these right?  Recon and quick run and gun.  Such tactics have been used often and without proper equipment.  Add in the equipment and they will have no problem.

    SeigSoloyvov wrote:Go in destroy shit and get out before a force can get in range and react. These tactics utterly trashed the Army and the marines themselves had a hard time dealing with it, mind you I was a marine for over eight years. So unless you have more than ten years combat experience than I do (doubt that) I can without a doubt say you have no idea what a REAL battlefield is like or what the situation is like on them.

    Fun fact I have been to Syria with the kurds, I have been to Iraq. I've even had the Ruskies drop a couple of air strikes near my position (didn't know we was there).

    This is useful only vs low armed adversaries, With the current weapon range, the use of these units in scenarios like the Donbass is far more difficult, if not impossible. In this kind of scenarios, it is run, gun and die, because after the attack the unit is fairly exposed to all the types of mid-long range weapons (man portable antitank weapons, artillery of all the types, MRLS,...).

    Not every area will have these you seem to think every single unit is afforded these things they REALLY aren't. Most units have minimal shit, only the units expected to push are given heaven weapons. This is a Fairy tale among civi's that everywhere you go on a battlefield you will find a tank or ATGM.

    The type of things these guys would attack would be targeted with small arms. The US doesn't give every unit half the shit you spoke of only the frontline units get that stuff, rear line units don't.

    With the range of the current MRLSs of the current heavy artillery pieces and of the current man-portable anti-tank, rockett and missile launchers, outside of scenarios with adversaries with very small density of these weapons like Syria or Iraq, it is almost impossible to find a unit totally uncovered, unless a big strategic mistake of the adversary.

    These configurations for the UAZ-3163 Patriot as "combat" vehicle are in my view only valid vs adversaries with very low density of powerful weapons. In the case of Russia it would be right to be used by the Russia Security forces, because their adversaries are of this condition, or to export.

    I doubt this new is accurate. Maybe only some plan of someone officer. It means modifications of the originally accepted UAZ-3163 that surely should face new tests to be accepted for the proposed purpose, that is also different of the original.

    SeigSoloyvov
    Senior Sergeant
    Senior Sergeant

    Posts : 222
    Points : 224
    Join date : 2016-04-08

    Re: State Armaments Program 2011-2020

    Post  SeigSoloyvov on Thu Dec 08, 2016 10:16 pm

    eehnie wrote:
    SeigSoloyvov wrote:
    eehnie wrote:
    miketheterrible wrote:You are aware the purpose of these right? Recon and quick run and gun. Such tactics have been used often and without proper equipment. Add in the equipment and they will have no problem.

    SeigSoloyvov wrote:Go in destroy shit and get out before a force can get in range and react. These tactics utterly trashed the Army and the marines themselves had a hard time dealing with it, mind you I was a marine for over eight years. So unless you have more than ten years combat experience than I do (doubt that) I can without a doubt say you have no idea what a REAL battlefield is like or what the situation is like on them.

    Fun fact I have been to Syria with the kurds, I have been to Iraq. I've even had the Ruskies drop a couple of air strikes near my position (didn't know we was there).

    This is useful only vs low armed adversaries, With the current weapon range, the use of these units in scenarios like the Donbass is far more difficult, if not impossible. In this kind of scenarios, it is run, gun and die, because after the attack the unit is fairly exposed to all the types of mid-long range weapons (man portable antitank weapons, artillery of all the types, MRLS,...).

    Not every area will have these you seem to think every single unit is afforded these things they REALLY aren't. Most units have minimal shit, only the units expected to push are given heaven weapons. This is a Fairy tale among civi's that everywhere you go on a battlefield you will find a tank or ATGM.

    The type of things these guys would attack would be targeted with small arms. The US doesn't give every unit half the shit you spoke of only the frontline units get that stuff, rear line units don't.

    With the range of the current MRLSs of the current heavy artillery pieces and of the current man-portable anti-tank, rockett and missile launchers, outside of scenarios with adversaries with very small density of these weapons like Syria or Iraq, it is almost impossible to find a unit totally uncovered, unless a big strategic mistake of the adversary.

    These configurations for the UAZ-3163 Patriot as "combat" vehicle are in my view only valid vs adversaries with very low density of powerful weapons. In the case of Russia it would be right to be used by the Russia Security forces, because their adversaries are of this condition, or to export.

    I doubt this new is accurate. Maybe only some plan of someone officer. It means modifications of the originally accepted UAZ-3163 that surely should face new tests to be accepted for the proposed purpose, that is also different of the original.


    Again no it was rare you could arty cover when I was in Iraq during operation Freedom and beyond. The artillery guns including self-propelled are hardly ever able to cover when needed. This is again another civi illusion that arty is always there and always ready guess what it's not, in fact, you learned not to depend on arty.

    Again you are assuming EVERY single unit under the sun will have these weapons when in reality they do not. I have experience here, I know how the military works. I have done NATO, I have trained with Brits, Japanese and more. If you avoid the main lines and shock units very few have heavy weapons of that type and the arty won't be around to save your ass if you get attacked in rear lines like that either they never did for me when I was in the marine.

    Fuck I had many cases where I was stuck in a goddam hole for days at a time with those bastards all around us.

    Hell the CIA gave the rats thousands of AT weapons and consider their size (manpower) every man should have one by your logic guess what they don't either. So what you are saying isn't accurate at all in how stuff goes down on the BF again. There is a difference between how you think this stuff works and how it really goes down.

    eehnie
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 586
    Points : 611
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: State Armaments Program 2011-2020

    Post  eehnie on Thu Dec 08, 2016 11:05 pm

    SeigSoloyvov wrote:
    eehnie wrote:
    SeigSoloyvov wrote:
    eehnie wrote:
    miketheterrible wrote:You are aware the purpose of these right?  Recon and quick run and gun.  Such tactics have been used often and without proper equipment.  Add in the equipment and they will have no problem.

    SeigSoloyvov wrote:Go in destroy shit and get out before a force can get in range and react. These tactics utterly trashed the Army and the marines themselves had a hard time dealing with it, mind you I was a marine for over eight years. So unless you have more than ten years combat experience than I do (doubt that) I can without a doubt say you have no idea what a REAL battlefield is like or what the situation is like on them.

    Fun fact I have been to Syria with the kurds, I have been to Iraq. I've even had the Ruskies drop a couple of air strikes near my position (didn't know we was there).

    This is useful only vs low armed adversaries, With the current weapon range, the use of these units in scenarios like the Donbass is far more difficult, if not impossible. In this kind of scenarios, it is run, gun and die, because after the attack the unit is fairly exposed to all the types of mid-long range weapons (man portable antitank weapons, artillery of all the types, MRLS,...).

    Not every area will have these you seem to think every single unit is afforded these things they REALLY aren't. Most units have minimal shit, only the units expected to push are given heaven weapons. This is a Fairy tale among civi's that everywhere you go on a battlefield you will find a tank or ATGM.

    The type of things these guys would attack would be targeted with small arms. The US doesn't give every unit half the shit you spoke of only the frontline units get that stuff, rear line units don't.

    With the range of the current MRLSs of the current heavy artillery pieces and of the current man-portable anti-tank, rockett and missile launchers, outside of scenarios with adversaries with very small density of these weapons like Syria or Iraq, it is almost impossible to find a unit totally uncovered, unless a big strategic mistake of the adversary.

    These configurations for the UAZ-3163 Patriot as "combat" vehicle are in my view only valid vs adversaries with very low density of powerful weapons. In the case of Russia it would be right to be used by the Russia Security forces, because their adversaries are of this condition, or to export.

    I doubt this new is accurate. Maybe only some plan of someone officer. It means modifications of the originally accepted UAZ-3163 that surely should face new tests to be accepted for the proposed purpose, that is also different of the original.


    Again no it was rare you could arty cover when I was in Iraq during operation Freedom and beyond. The artillery guns including self-propelled are hardly ever able to cover when needed. This is again another civi illusion that arty is always there and always ready guess what it's not, in fact, you learned not to depend on arty.

    Again you are assuming EVERY single unit under the sun will have these weapons when in reality they do not. I have experience here, I know how the military works. I have done NATO, I have trained with Brits, Japanese and more. If you avoid the main lines and shock units very few have heavy weapons of that type and the arty won't be around to save your ass if you get attacked in rear lines like that either they never did for me when I was in the marine.

    Fuck I had many cases where I was stuck in a goddam hole for days at a time with those bastards all around us.

    Hell the CIA gave the rats thousands of AT weapons and consider their size (manpower) every man should have one by your logic guess what they don't either. So what you are saying isn't accurate at all in how stuff goes down on the BF again. There is a difference between how you think this stuff works and how it really goes down.

    No, Im not assuming that every single unit has these weapons. I'm saying that there are them in a distance shorter to the range of fire of the weapons. This in the refered to the heavy weapons. In the refered to the man-portable weapons, every unit of a decent army has something enough vs unarmoured trucks.

    Also I said: It is almost impossible to find a unit totally uncovered, unless a big strategic mistake of the adversary. Now you can explain me all the strategic mistakes commited by your army or your adversaries.

    cheesfactory
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 49
    Points : 49
    Join date : 2015-01-01

    Re: State Armaments Program 2011-2020

    Post  cheesfactory Yesterday at 1:33 am

    eehnie wrote:
    SeigSoloyvov wrote:
    eehnie wrote:
    SeigSoloyvov wrote:
    eehnie wrote:
    miketheterrible wrote:You are aware the purpose of these right?  Recon and quick run and gun.  Such tactics have been used often and without proper equipment.  Add in the equipment and they will have no problem.

    SeigSoloyvov wrote:Go in destroy shit and get out before a force can get in range and react. These tactics utterly trashed the Army and the marines themselves had a hard time dealing with it, mind you I was a marine for over eight years. So unless you have more than ten years combat experience than I do (doubt that) I can without a doubt say you have no idea what a REAL battlefield is like or what the situation is like on them.

    Fun fact I have been to Syria with the kurds, I have been to Iraq. I've even had the Ruskies drop a couple of air strikes near my position (didn't know we was there).

    This is useful only vs low armed adversaries, With the current weapon range, the use of these units in scenarios like the Donbass is far more difficult, if not impossible. In this kind of scenarios, it is run, gun and die, because after the attack the unit is fairly exposed to all the types of mid-long range weapons (man portable antitank weapons, artillery of all the types, MRLS,...).

    Not every area will have these you seem to think every single unit is afforded these things they REALLY aren't. Most units have minimal shit, only the units expected to push are given heaven weapons. This is a Fairy tale among civi's that everywhere you go on a battlefield you will find a tank or ATGM.

    The type of things these guys would attack would be targeted with small arms. The US doesn't give every unit half the shit you spoke of only the frontline units get that stuff, rear line units don't.

    With the range of the current MRLSs of the current heavy artillery pieces and of the current man-portable anti-tank, rockett and missile launchers, outside of scenarios with adversaries with very small density of these weapons like Syria or Iraq, it is almost impossible to find a unit totally uncovered, unless a big strategic mistake of the adversary.

    These configurations for the UAZ-3163 Patriot as "combat" vehicle are in my view only valid vs adversaries with very low density of powerful weapons. In the case of Russia it would be right to be used by the Russia Security forces, because their adversaries are of this condition, or to export.

    I doubt this new is accurate. Maybe only some plan of someone officer. It means modifications of the originally accepted UAZ-3163 that surely should face new tests to be accepted for the proposed purpose, that is also different of the original.


    Again no it was rare you could arty cover when I was in Iraq during operation Freedom and beyond. The artillery guns including self-propelled are hardly ever able to cover when needed. This is again another civi illusion that arty is always there and always ready guess what it's not, in fact, you learned not to depend on arty.

    Again you are assuming EVERY single unit under the sun will have these weapons when in reality they do not. I have experience here, I know how the military works. I have done NATO, I have trained with Brits, Japanese and more. If you avoid the main lines and shock units very few have heavy weapons of that type and the arty won't be around to save your ass if you get attacked in rear lines like that either they never did for me when I was in the marine.

    Fuck I had many cases where I was stuck in a goddam hole for days at a time with those bastards all around us.

    Hell the CIA gave the rats thousands of AT weapons and consider their size (manpower) every man should have one by your logic guess what they don't either. So what you are saying isn't accurate at all in how stuff goes down on the BF again. There is a difference between how you think this stuff works and how it really goes down.

    No, Im not assuming that every single unit has these weapons. I'm saying that there are them in a distance shorter to the range of fire of the weapons. This in the refered to the heavy weapons. In the refered to the man-portable weapons, every unit of a decent army has something enough vs unarmoured trucks.

    Also I said: It is almost impossible to find a unit totally uncovered, unless a big strategic mistake of the adversary. Now you can explain me all the strategic mistakes commited by your army or your adversaries.

    Seig, now you know, all the real life problems on the frontline are strategic mistakes of your army/adversaries. Be thankful for this lesson Laughing

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15482
    Points : 16189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: State Armaments Program 2011-2020

    Post  GarryB Yesterday at 2:16 am

    The problem with all your experience in combat and all sorts of shit holes around the world is that it does not qualify you to talk about russian units the way someone who has actually been in the Russian army might have experience with.

    Your talk of artillery not being available all the time is amusing as it is my understanding that Tank divisions and Motor rifle divisions have their own organic artillery including mortars and artillery pieces and rocket launchers.

    They also have their own anti tank and anti aircraft components too.

    I am sure opposition to very light vehicles in a division is based on the USS Liberty Syndrome... take soft vessels armed only with a couple of HMGs into a war zone and don't be surprised if they get all shot up....

    Those dune buggy things covered in MGs and grenade launchers used by special forces suggests there is scope for their use, but certainly they would not be that useful everywhere.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    VladimirSahin
    Master Sergeant
    Master Sergeant

    Posts : 364
    Points : 384
    Join date : 2013-11-29
    Age : 25
    Location : Some redneck state in the US.

    Re: State Armaments Program 2011-2020

    Post  VladimirSahin Yesterday at 9:58 pm

    Okay look ten years of experience I can respect that, but the Russian way of battle is not the same as NATO's. If these brigades are made for unconventional roles I'd understand but that's a waste of manpower for no reason. UAZ Patriots look like f***** technicals. When I was in the VDV even with our arguably lighter armored IFVs we still relied on mobility and firepower as our main distinct function. We could still do all that stuff the MOD supposedly learned in Syria without the idiotic waste of manpower.

    Seriously... Look at what the f*** they are talking about. In Crimea we had units deployed in GAZ Tigrs which was a quick intervention with light forces... I wonder with the Technicals are we planning on going Guerrilla mode? Maybe we took lessons from the FSA? The Russian army does not need these units, as we already have light mobile forces... We need build our conventional pool up. The Russian territories are huge, the more actual useful units we can have the better. Honestly the only thing these "super light" infantry brigades would be useful for is against low intensity insurgency.

    The Russian military doctrine since the USSR relies on heavy firepower in our Operational-Strategic operations; these are a key distinct feature in our forces. If we're going to fight a war we need actual ground forces equipped with heavy IFVs to do what is needed. If these are made for counter-insurgency operations then that's also stupid because we have many other options to use without these brigades anyways. My final thoughts on this are: waste of manpower.

    franco
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1774
    Points : 1814
    Join date : 2010-08-18

    Re: State Armaments Program 2011-2020

    Post  franco Yesterday at 10:37 pm

    I agree. An unit made of the new Scorpion LMV and the new Wolf LMV would have been useful both in this role and against a regular army. This SUV based unit would take a shit kicking against any regular army IMO.


    Last edited by franco on Sat Dec 10, 2016 12:02 am; edited 1 time in total

    Sponsored content

    Re: State Armaments Program 2011-2020

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 12:14 am


      Current date/time is Sat Dec 10, 2016 12:14 am