ult wrote:They have optics. They are in the armory. It's a standard practice. Usually officers are shit scared to give soldiers an expensive equipment unless it's an actual combat mission, because if it's damaged or lost they will personally be held responsible. And considering that optics cost a fortune, like 1PN93 for example, they rarely see the light of day. It's an outdated practice, sure. But still. We should be happy that everyone is in VKPO and not in "сменка" - the old, spare uniform that they wear to not damage a new one.zg18 wrote:par far wrote:Why does rifles that the soldiers have, have no optics? I am just curious because most the west countries will have that for thier soldiers.
Is that necessary for conscripts? I mean these are not professional soldiers.
You are wrong. Those are not conscripts. There are no conscripts on the Russian - Ukrainian border.
Every brigade now has a battalion tactical group, which fully consists of professional soldiers and are always on high alert.
Indeed there's been a serious acquisition program regarding optics from 2006 to 2010. Obzor, Rakurs,Kashtan PK's, PO's bought by the freaking ton. This made redundant many PO/PSO/PSU sights that you see flooding the ranks of "volunteers" in Ukraine. They simply sit in the armoury or get out in manoeuvre day, like in Crimea.
Furthermore, as I posted, there are some new optics coming in (like the PSU1/4) that are on par with the best the West can throw and at a fraction of the price. It isn't bad per se. Since I believe that before training with optics you should be able to hit with IS. Soviet BDC (reticule) is also a big crutch once you know the insides of it. So no sweat.