Russian Ground Forces ORBAT-Structure

Found some proofs and clues on modern russian tank division structure.

As I said it's two tank regiments (three tank battalions plus one motorised rifle battalion), one SP artillery regiment and one AA regiment (must have common support like maintainance battalion, recon battalion as well).

Interesting news is T-80E (modernised version of T-80) MBT the division is armed with.

So there was reversal on decision to retire all t-80? why "E" designation? that was usually used for export products.

Anyhow, that's a fairly small division. Closer to an enlarged brigade than a division, really. 31 tanks in a battalion, i presume?

Link for the news?

So there was reversal on decision to retire all t-80?

Correction: all t-80 in the Ground forces ('coastal defence' motorised rifle units and naval infantry units are the Fleet subordinates, for example). But it dosen't matter, many of Serdukov's decisions were changed since 2009-2010.

why "E" designation? that was usually used for export products

 I can say it's a different letter in russian which stands for 'export' (Э instead of E). So it isn't a Т-80Э (export), it's rather T-80E(or T-80UE). So I can't say for sure, may be it's just a next letter unused, as T-80A, T-80B(V) and T-80D are already exist. Russian alphabet is like 'A', 'B', 'V', 'G', 'D', and then 'E'

Anyhow, that's a fairly small division. Closer to an enlarged brigade than a division, really.

No, you are not right, it's like two tank brigades with it's artillery, AA, recon and maintanance are partly separated and reorginised into the divisional-subordinated units. I think it has sligthly more artillery (every reginment must have at least a tube artillery battalion plus two tube artillery battalions in the artillery regiments so it's four tube artillery battalions altogather, and a single tank brigade only have one tube artilley battalion unlike a motorised rifle brigade which has two artillery battalions) and recon (a divisional recon battalion plus atleast a recon company per tank regiment), but it isn't that overwhelming difference.

It was the trend in late soviet divisions to strip out a forth maneuver regiment, and nowadays VDV is happy with only two. I think that's because of battalion tactical groups being the actual units of maneuver now and it's too difficult for a divisional headquaters to manage more than 6-8 BTGs plus over support formations.

31 tanks in a battalion, i presume?

Most likely.

Link for the news?

Coming soon, can't copypast it from my workplace 

thanks, that's good info! (when you're ready, we can discuss the potential of chinese versus potential of russian air forces in another topic )

when you're ready, we can discuss the potential of chinese versus potential of russian air forces in another topic

I'm quite ready as I no expert in military aircraft tactics   
I don't think we can get actual numbers of aircrafts and such, only wikipedia nonsence. And that's why our discussion will be pointless.

If we speak on wiki info basis about, say, fighters, in general China have slightly more aircrafts than Russia do but much of them are outdated. And don't forget Russia have superior ground AA which is an essential part of the russian doctrine of air superiority.

Of course it all boils down to sources. One source to use could be IISS's military balance, however imprecise it may be, but at least it's fairly neutral and a singular source for both sides.

More up to date assesment could be gained from long term data collection. I am sure there are people following the photos of ruaf forces and deducing the orbat using those and various news bits. Something could be interpolated from all that. Sadly, most of those are in russian speaking forums only so they are not available to me, so i get only second hand stuff, probably not up to date, that gets written up on in english.

For chinese forces i personally like to use the combination of scramble.nl orbat, then doublecheck it with available google earth imagery, then help myself with available images of different serial numbers. Luckily, there's a bunch of english speaking enthusiasts to help with that task.

With russian air forces it's actually a bit harder, since they don't have unique serial numbers clearly visible, aside for the RF tail numbers but those are either in really small print or are even missing on a fair number of aircraft.

I'd put anti air systems into a different category from the air force though but that's a personal opinion. Looking at AA systems, i would concur russia has the upper hand in that particular regard.

Here's the source article about 'Kantemorovskaya' division (russian blog with source-link to interview with the division 2iC). The division seems to include 9 subordinate units: 2 tank regiments, 1 SP rtillery regiment, AA regiment + imho recon battalion, engeneer battalion, medical battalion, maintainance battalion, supply battalion (or may be maintainance and supply battalion and independant signals battalion)

click

One famous russian expert told on his forum the Russian MoD have rejected planned "light", "medium" and "heavy" brigades concept. Now it will be motorised rifle brigades on BMP and motorised rifle brigades on BTRs plus motorised rifles for special conditions (e.g. mountain, arctic, ect). BMP- and BTR-mounted MR brigades will have tank battalions, "special condition" ones won't. A MR brigade on BMP will have three MR battalions plus two tank battalions.

But with the new vehicle families there will be four BMPs and four BTRs... so which ones would they use?

Traditionally the BMP would be the medium tracked Kurganets in the 25 ton class, and the BTR would probably be the wheeled Typhoon in the 10 ton class, but they could just as easily choose the BTR as being the armata APC in the 55 ton class.

described brigade composition actually describes three different brigade types, each with less/more heavy equipment. So in a way one could say there will indeed be heavy, medium and light brigades.

Am i to understand that btr equipped brigades will have one tank batallion, since bmp brigade was accented with having two?

Am i to understand that btr equipped brigades will have one tank batallion, since bmp brigade was accented with having two?

And how many tank batallions in the tank brigades?

will there be BTR and BMP tank brigades?

described brigade composition actually describes three different brigade types, each with less/more heavy equipment. So in a way one could say there will indeed be heavy, medium and light brigades.

Personally, I think generals just returned back to more habitual vehicle-based unit's namings. More interesting change is a five manuever batallion structure of a brigade, which corresponds with soviet brigades structure heavily.

Am i to understand that btr equipped brigades will have one tank batallion, since bmp brigade was accented with having two?

Don't know exactly, but most likely it's so.

And how many tank batallions in the tank brigades?

No info. 3 tank batallions and 2 motor rifle batallions, I suppose. Or may be they will be just the same

will there be BTR and BMP tank brigades?

I don't think so. It was always a bmp-mounted MR battalion in a soviet tank regiment, and I suppose tank brigades will be all-Armata units.

Actually, it's very interesting question on that platform will be a new "BMP brigade" as there will be two different tracked BMP platforms. It is possible to have, say, one MR batallion on heavy Armata BMPs and other two on Kurganets.

The whole point of vehicle families is to reduce the logistics tail, so mixing vehicle families within one grouping will only recomplicate the logistics...

Of course having said that the logistics tail had to cater for dozens of different vehicles from ACRVs and BMPs and BTRs and MBTs to all sorts of other vehicle platforms like Tunguska and MTLB and SA-13 and Sa-9 and Sa-8 etc etc. even just reducing to four main vehicle families will reduce the logistics problems.

But plans to have standard armour protection and mobility amongst vehicles within a unit mean the APCs wont be picked off leaving the MBTs to fight for themselves.

Any BMPTs that are built will be used in conventional units with T-90s and BMP-3Ms, because the Armata units will have IFVs with IFV firepower able to elevate, yet with MBT level protection and mobility.

A typhoon unit MBT should be able to be picked off with the APC as the armour and APS levels will be similar.

I rather suspect that because of cost the vast majority of vehicles will be wheeled and most will be boomerang and typhoon because of their mobility and lower cost.

The firepower increase over previous units will be enormous and will largely offset the reduction in actual protection, while mobility will be greatly increased.

I have estimated on other threads and will repeat them here, that 20 percent of the Russian Armys new vehicles will be heavy tracked armatas, while I think 20 percent will be wheeled Typhoons and I think of the remaining 60 percent that 20 percent will be Kurganets tracked vehicles and 40% will be Boomerang.

Meaning a total of 60% of the new vehicles fielded will be wheeled because of lower procurement costs and lower operating costs.

Also the Boomerang is in the same weight class as the Kurganets and will likely have similar armour levels and similar armament.

In Afghanistan one of the favourite vehicles was the BMP-2 as it had better armour and better firepower than the BTR or BMP-1 with better elevation of the main gun

With Kurganets and Boomerang the main difference will be speed over different types of terrain with tracks better of soft ground and wheels better on roads and hard surfaces...

Just my opinion of course.

The whole point of vehicle families is to reduce the logistics tail, so mixing vehicle families within one grouping will only recomplicate the logistics...

there is no other MBT platform than 'Armata'. As well as I doubt there will b, say, bridging vehicles based on Boomerang. And still 2 different platforms is better than 4-5 in one brigade/regiment (say, BTR for infantry + T72 for tanks + MT-LB for artillery and command vehicles + T-80 chassis of Msta-S + different special platforms for engeneering and AA vehicles. Not to mention two different truck types).

Any BMPTs that are built will be used

There is no decision to use BMPT yet

A typhoon unit MBT

There will be NO tanks other than on Armata platforms. Kurganets and Boomerang, having large-bore gun module, won't be MBTs, as they wont have it's level of protection. It will be just self-propelled artillery, so it won't be used on MBTs role.

the APCs wont be picked off leaving the MBTs to fight for themselves.

It's a matter of brigade's staff work to decide if a batallion tactical group need high firepower and protection provided by MBTs given to the BTG or a BTG need high mobility instead, leaving it only with lighter vehicles and keeping MBTs in reserve.
If you took normal MBT out of a brigade, even giving it 'light tanks', you will cut its combat self-sufficiency (the brigade won't be able to conduct many types of operations it's intended to). It will never happen! Not with MR brigades we are talking about. The Russian military already have VDV and Naval Infantry for lighter roles, MR brigades are supposed to be an all-purpose hammer units able to withstand and engage hostile heavy formations. Imagine what will be with a MR brigade, which only have 'typhoon MBTs' and is supposed to assault, say, positions of americal ABTC.

The firepower increase over previous units will be enormous

Lighter vehicles will suck to MBTs as if they even will have comparable firepower, they will loose because of lack of defence.

I have estimated on other threads and will repeat them here, that 20 percent of the Russian Armys new vehicles will be heavy tracked armatas, while I think 20 percent will be wheeled Typhoons and I think of the remaining 60 percent that 20 percent will be Kurganets tracked vehicles and 40% will be Boomerang.

Don't know that numbers you've used as the basis. Nowadays most of the MR brigades are equipped with tracked infantry vehicles (BMPs and MT-LBs) and 100% of them have MBTs. It's because of russian terrain in the first place, so you just can't switch to wheeled vehicles that easy.

Meaning a total of 60% of the new vehicles fielded will be wheeled because of lower procurement costs 

Not sure about that) Boomerang is very complex.

I believe it was last year, 2016, when we first heard of the Russian military's plan to reform the 1st Guards Tank Army. This was a very significant development in the opinion of many notable observers, which is not at all surprising. I definitely found it interesting, and would certainly like to hear any new information relating to it.

Brushing the light dust off of the following:




Russia Prepares for a Big War: The Significance of a Tank Army
Patrick Armstrong, 4/10/16

https://patrickarmstrong.ca/2016/04/10/russia-prepares-for-a-big-war-the-significance-of-a-tank-army/

^ Okay, well, what do you think of this paragraph from Patrick Armstrong's article that I linked:

"In short, if you stop at independent brigades, you are telling the world that you expect, and are planning for, relatively small wars. If you go to divisions you are expecting something larger and if you construct a corps (or army in Russian terminology) you are telling the world that you are preparing for a big war."

So, according to this, in the 1GTA, the unit-level capability for independent action has been pushed up the span of command and control from the brigade level to the corps level (or "army" in Russian terms). So, this would show concretely that Russia is concerned enough by western US/NATO hostility to reform a military structure that has been moribund for over two decades, and is specifically-suited to fighting large-scale conflicts (against NATO, obviously).

How does that reconcile with the TOE you posted (if I'm using the right term there). Honest question, because I don't know if it substantiates Armstrong's assertion or not. Also, where did you get that information? Can you link it? Thanks.