Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Russian Military Reforms [Command-Structure-Personnel]

    Share

    Cyberspec
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1946
    Points : 2117
    Join date : 2011-08-08
    Location : Terra Australis

    Re: Russian Military Reforms [Command-Structure-Personnel]

    Post  Cyberspec on Sat Nov 10, 2012 9:27 pm

    Thanks

    flamming_python
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3183
    Points : 3311
    Join date : 2012-01-30

    Re: Russian Military Reforms [Command-Structure-Personnel]

    Post  flamming_python on Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:49 pm

    Strange, I did remember reading that Shamanov was assigned to the post. I'll find the article tommorow

    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9443
    Points : 9935
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Serdykov is canned.

    Post  George1 on Thu Nov 15, 2012 2:07 pm

    Russia Fires Deputy Defense Ministers

    MOSCOW, November 15 (RIA Novosti) - The Russian government fired Deputy Defense Ministers Dmitry Chushkin, Alexander Sukhorov and Tatyana Shevtsova on Thursday, the Kremlin announced, in a wave of sackings following last week's removal of Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov.

    Moscow Region Deputy Prime Minister Ruslan Tsalikov has been appointed Deputy Defense Minister, the Kremlin said.

    Tsalikov previously served in the Moscow regional government under Sergei Shoigu, who replaced Anatoly Serdyukov as Defense Minister last week.

    Tsalikov will replace Shevtsova, taking on responsibility for financial issues within the ministry, a RIA Novosti defense source said.

    Yury Borisov, First Deputy of the Government's Military-Industrial Commission, replaces General Alexander Sukhorukov as Deputy Defense Minister, the Kremlin said.

    Borisov's appointment had already been announced by the press office of Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin, who heads the Military-Industrial Commission. Borisov will take on responsbility for armaments issues, Rogozin's press office said.

    Serdyukov was fired last week following a financial scandal at the Defense Ministry involving the Oboronservis defense property management company. An investigation is continuing into embezzlement at the company and several top managers have been arrested following searches at the company's offices.

    http://en.rian.ru/military_news/20121115/177482677.html

    Viktor
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5630
    Points : 6283
    Join date : 2009-08-25
    Age : 36
    Location : Croatia

    Army AirForce

    Post  Viktor on Sat Apr 26, 2014 3:30 am

    Something is happening  thumbsup 

    Shoigu: in the structure of the Russian Air Force began to form a new helicopter regiments

    Anyone familiar with the ORBAT here?

    Asf
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 488
    Points : 515
    Join date : 2014-03-27

    Russian Military Reforms plan (Command, Structure, Units)

    Post  Asf on Tue May 20, 2014 1:19 pm

    It was a hot topic of the russian internet segment for some time ago, but it seems there were no discussion on this forum.

    I'm a supporter of the modern, so called "new image", military organisation (abolishing divisions for example). Is anyone interested in the discussion? I'm, really want to know that people think about it. Did you ever hear of russian army reorganisation later?

    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5840
    Points : 5892
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: Russian Military Reforms [Command-Structure-Personnel]

    Post  TR1 on Tue May 20, 2014 9:40 pm

    You mean splitting of divisions into brigades?

    Yes it was big and controversial news. It has been marred as I understand in Serdykov-era reform criticism in general.
    They talked about reforming some of the old divisions back, but I don't think they actually went through with it.

    Morpheus Eberhardt
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1967
    Points : 2092
    Join date : 2013-05-20

    Re: Russian Military Reforms [Command-Structure-Personnel]

    Post  Morpheus Eberhardt on Wed May 21, 2014 3:38 am

    Asf wrote:It was a hot topic of the russian internet segment for some time ago, but it seems there were no discussion on this forum.

    I'm a supporter of the modern, so called "new image", military organisation (abolishing divisions for example). Is anyone interested in the discussion? I'm, really want to know that people think about it.

    Of course, it hasn't been just about abolishing the divisions; all the other formations were abolished too. All of this was expected.

    I am interested in this topic, also about the VDV organization; read your post on that topic earlier.

    As you would expect there is a huge amount of misinformation (and disinformation) about this topic.

    Asf wrote:Did you ever hear of russian army reorganisation later?

    Can you clarify this please?


    Last edited by Morpheus Eberhardt on Wed May 21, 2014 4:32 am; edited 2 times in total

    magnumcromagnon
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 4468
    Points : 4659
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Re: Russian Military Reforms [Command-Structure-Personnel]

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Wed May 21, 2014 4:03 am

    TR1 wrote:You mean splitting of divisions into brigades?

    Yes it was big and controversial news. It has been marred as I understand in Serdykov-era reform criticism in general.
    They talked about reforming some of the old divisions back, but I don't think they actually went through with it.

    Whats the pros and cons of such reorganization? I could speculate but I rather just ask people who are more informed.

    Asf
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 488
    Points : 515
    Join date : 2014-03-27

    Re: Russian Military Reforms [Command-Structure-Personnel]

    Post  Asf on Wed May 21, 2014 3:31 pm

    You mean splitting of divisions into brigades?
    Generally, yes.

    These brigades are like regimental combat groups of old soviet divisions, similar to those formed on a main axis of advance. A division could form only one such combat group, as all other regiments (without needed support) stayed on on their positions for defence or attacked not to archive a success but only to draw enemy reserves from the main forces of the division.

    After the dissoltion of the Soviet Union, Russia left with only second-grade reserve divisions with only one combat-ready regiment (plus some divisional assests) as other units were manned with reservists in a war time. So most of the divisions just shaked off those so called "cadre" units and became brigades.

    The main reason for this was a calculation showed that on a modern battlefield big divisions with it's regiments not able to advance outside the main axis because of the lack of support is too vulnerable to precise-guided and nuclear weapons.

    Organisation reform mostly concerns ground forces: russian backbone infantry, known as "motostrelki" (literally "motorised infantry/riflemen"), and tank forces, plus VVS. VDV and Strategic Missle forces have saved their divisioanl organisation, and the Fleet too specific to touch it. Ground forces has been switched to brigades, and VVS were switched "airbases", which means old air regiments and air divisions was united with airfield commands (one or several), on which they were based on. Nowadays VVS is switched back to air regiments and air divisions with airfield commands separated in a different administrative units.

    So, I'll speak of ground forces organisation primarily.

    Nowadays russia have "brigades" as basic tactics-level units, "armies" ((joint) forces groups (or groups of forces) in case of a temporary brigade/battalion formation, compare joint forces group in Chechnia during chechenian wars) as operation-level units and joint strategic commands (I think, they are still called fronts in case of a large war) as basic strategic units
    It has been marred as I understand in Serdykov-era reform criticism in general.
    If we speak of organisation reform not touching all other aspects, there was two main points: critics told that transition to brigades was a mindless copying of NATO standarts and that brigade organisation was optimised for counter-insurgent actions in the first place, and now the Russian Army has no conventional army in case of a conflict with NATO or China.

    Here's what I think of it:

    1) Russian brigades organisation is quite unique and based upon soviet post WWII expirience. NATO brigades is similar to soviet/russian regiments (btw, soviet units of the same kind during WWII were also called brigades), and NATO still have divisions. I've already told about regimental combat groups. Let's see typical organisation of motorised infantry brigade:

    - Brigade HQ
    - 3x motorised infantry battalion
    - Tank battalion
    - Tube artillery battalions
    - MLRS battalion/company (most likely company know)
    - AA battalions
    - Engeneer battalion
    - Recon battalion
    + brigade support units (forward support and field maintainence, chemical and biological units, ect.)

    And US Armored BCT (roughly the equivalent of Motostrelki brigade):

    - Brigade HQ
    - Two combined arms battalions (roughly a two 4-company battalions (one IFV infantry battalion and one tank battalion) compared to four 3-company battalions of russian battalions, but russian companies have less men)
    - Recon battalion (squadron)
    - Tube artillery battalion
    - Engeneer battalion
    + brigade support units

    As we see, most of the US fire support is on a divisional level redy to be attached to one or several brigades if needed (as in a soviet/russian division, though there were differences), and actually one russian brigade has more AA assets than a whole US division (yankees do believe in USAF, I think).

    2) As shown previously, russian brigade has plenty of AA and artillery and quite a few foot soldiers needed for non-conventional warfare: to patrol large areas, create checkpoints, clean rough terrain such as woods or hills for insurgents, ect. So I don't think brigade structure is designed for contr-insurgent operations

    Asf
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 488
    Points : 515
    Join date : 2014-03-27

    Re: Russian Military Reforms [Command-Structure-Personnel]

    Post  Asf on Wed May 21, 2014 4:50 pm

    They talked about reforming some of the old divisions back, but I don't think they actually went through with it.
    They actually does. Two divisions (one motorised infantry and one tank division) are now near the Moskow, with organisation very similar to VDV divisions (two 3-battalion regiments plus divisional support: artillery regiment, recon battalion, AA regiment, ect.). It's about three more "combat" battalions (infantry and tank) and one artillery and AA battalions over a brigade (plus, regiments only have a recon company, not a battalion, and fewer maintainence and support as they relies on the division's rear).
    Whats the pros and cons of such reorganization?
    The main drawback of the brigade-style "new image" army is a small HQs. With disbanding of divisional HQs, regiment-style bregade HQs are overloaded with work. But MoD and the General Staff is still working on the command structure as the recreation of two divisions shows. VDV experience is quite a big and respected throughout the military. We can see more changes by 2015-2016 years (new wave of changes started by creating of the new weapons - Armata, ect.)


    Last edited by Asf on Wed May 21, 2014 4:54 pm; edited 2 times in total

    Asf
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 488
    Points : 515
    Join date : 2014-03-27

    Re: Russian Military Reforms [Command-Structure-Personnel]

    Post  Asf on Wed May 21, 2014 4:51 pm

    I am interested in this topic, also about the VDV organization; read your post on that topic earlier.
    We can discuss smaller unit organisation, battalions for example. I'm interested in finding differences in russian and NATO experience.

    akd
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 23
    Points : 26
    Join date : 2014-06-02

    Re: Russian Military Reforms [Command-Structure-Personnel]

    Post  akd on Wed Jun 04, 2014 12:15 am

    Asf wrote:
    And US Armored BCT (roughly the equivalent of Motostrelki brigade):

    - Brigade HQ
    - Two combined arms battalions (roughly a two 4-company battalions (one IFV infantry battalion and one tank battalion) compared to four 3-company battalions of russian battalions, but russian companies have less men)
    - Recon battalion (squadron)
    - Tube artillery battalion
    - Engeneer battalion
    + brigade support units

    Just to note: the ABCT now has three combined arms battalions.

    Asf
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 488
    Points : 515
    Join date : 2014-03-27

    Re: Russian Military Reforms [Command-Structure-Personnel]

    Post  Asf on Wed Jun 04, 2014 7:34 am

    Just to note: the ABCT now has three combined arms battalions.
    I'm actually missed it, thanks. Seems to be a rational move as three maneuver batallions per regiment/brigade is a proven standard. Than did they change the organisation? Is it the result of units inactivisation made not long ago? Any other organisation changes?

    Btw, russian Ground forces seems to increase the number of smaller units from 3 to 4 part structure: 4 vehicles in a platoon and 4 platoons in a company for motorised infantry, 4 tank companies in a tank batallion. I suppose it will be logical to have 4 tanks in a tank platoons as well. Don't know is it already a standart or just plans for future light, medium and heavy brigades (I noticed it when read about planned heavy brigade organisation).

    Here is rumored heavy brigade organisation:

    HQ
    Signal battallion
    2x motorised infanry batallions:
    - HQ
    - Signal platoon
    - 3x motorised infantry companies (seems to have 4 platoons with 4 squads each plus an AGL squad)
    - Self-propelled gun battery (120 mm mortar/cannon similar to 2S31)
    - AT platoon (ATGMs)
    - Support company (maintainance, medical, support platoons, I think).
    2x tank batallions
    - HQ
    - Signal platoon
    - 4x Tank companies (seems like 3 platoons with 3 tanks each, but may be more)
    - Support platoon
    2x Tube artillary batallions
    1x MLRS battary
    AA battalion (seems to have AA artillery battery with Tunguskas and Strela-10M or similar vehicles, AA battery with Tors, MANPADs battery)
    AT battery (ATGMs and Sprut-like vehicles)
    Recon Batallion
    - HQ
    - Recon command platoon (intel processing unit, may be subordinate to a brigade HQ like an artillery command platoon)
    - Signal platoon
    - Recon company ("Tigr"-mounted)
    - Recon company (armoured recon vehicles)
    - Recon company (armoured recon vehicles, this company is intended to directly support maneuver battalions)
    - Technical intelligence company (radio intelligence)
    - Close-range recon UAV platoon
    - Short-range recon UAV platoon
    - Medical platoon
    yes, it seems a pretty huge batallion
    Engeneer batallion
    ECM company
    Medical company

    plus some other not what important units

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Military Reforms [Command-Structure-Personnel]

    Post  GarryB on Wed Jun 04, 2014 1:07 pm

    Very interested in this topic even if I can't contribute much...

    I do remember reading about those trying to justify the reforms of structure as saying that it will lead to better readiness as the old structure had three types of units with three very different levels of readiness and three very different levels of equipment.

    The top tier were 80-100% manned with new equipment and would be ready for combat within days of getting the call up.

    The second tier had mostly reservists and perhaps 50% equipment and would take 3-4 weeks to assemble and would be equipped with mostly previous generation equipment.

    The third tier was unmanned with all equipment in reserve stocks and would take 2-3 months to get ready for war with soldiers that had not had service for 15-20 years or more, and with equipment from a similar period so the troops would be familiar with it.

    the justification for the reforms was to get rid of the two lower tiers and to focus on the top tier to make it more combat ready and to equip it with new equipment and improve training etc etc.

    For a defensive role we saw how quickly they organised themselves for the south ossetian war, which suggests to me that there has been progress even without the new equipment and new training and new C4IR structure in place.



    _________________
    “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

    Asf
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 488
    Points : 515
    Join date : 2014-03-27

    Re: Russian Military Reforms [Command-Structure-Personnel]

    Post  Asf on Wed Jun 04, 2014 2:57 pm

    as the old structure had three types of units with three very different levels of readiness
    For a defensive role we saw how quickly they organised themselves for the south ossetian war, which suggests to me that there has been progress even without the new equipment and new training and new C4IR structure in place.
    It was a Soviet structure. After the fall of the Union, there were no full combat-ready division at all, as all of them there deployed in a former republics and became their national military forces. All russian divisions had to create so called force groups from units they had available to assemble Joint Group of forces which fought in the first chechen war.
    So the MoD had to men 58th Army to full-strenght army, from that time it was the only 100% combat-ready army in the Russian Army with real combat experience.

    Most of other armies of the Russian Army now is still "on a peace-time organisation" (e.g. do not have all units they need to operate on they own), but at least tactical units is fully operational and can be deployed under the command of any army (operational command) in days as the "complex military testings" showed

    akd
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 23
    Points : 26
    Join date : 2014-06-02

    Re: Russian Military Reforms [Command-Structure-Personnel]

    Post  akd on Fri Jun 20, 2014 5:55 pm

    Asf wrote:
    Just to note: the ABCT now has three combined arms battalions.
    I'm actually missed it, thanks. Seems to be a rational move as three maneuver batallions per regiment/brigade is a proven standard. Than did they change the organisation? Is it the result of units inactivisation made not long ago?

    Yes, inactivated units allowed the increase in battalions while the overall force is shrinking.

    Any other organisation changes?

    Brigades gain expanded engineer battalions (which also contain other support units) and additional fires batteries (including a 155 battery for infantry/airborne brigades). The infantry/airborne brigade also gains a third rifle battalion (Stryker brigades already had 3).

    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 9443
    Points : 9935
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: Russian Military Reforms [Command-Structure-Personnel]

    Post  George1 on Wed Jul 30, 2014 5:44 pm

    14 aviation brigades and helicopter regiments will be established by the Russian air forces
    Russian Aviaton » Wednesday July 30, 2014 19:21 MSK

    14 aviation brigades and helicopter regiments will join the Russian air forces in the near term. It was stated by the Commander-in-Chief of the Russian air forces, Viktor Bondarev, at Pogonov firing range located in Voronezh Region, Rossiyskaya Gazeta reports.

    According to him, each of ten combined-arms armies of the Russian armed forces will have its own helicopter regiment. Moreover, each of four military districts will have its own aviation brigade. "A total of 14 brigades and regiments", - Bondarev explained.

    Helicopter regiments will operate Ka-52, Mi-28N, Mi-8MTV-5, Mi-8AMTSh and Mi-26 helicopters. According to Bondarev, each regiment will operate 66 helicopters, each brigade - 84-88 vehicles.

    Bondarev added that the brigades and regiments are being established in order to develop the armed forces: combined-arms armies and troops deployed in the territory of a military district need air support.

    The Commander-in-Chief of the Russian air forces stated that the brigades of army aviation may also be involved in other operations if necessary.

    GuyFromSerbia
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 49
    Points : 50
    Join date : 2014-09-16

    Russian Modernisation plans

    Post  GuyFromSerbia on Tue Sep 16, 2014 1:36 pm

    Hello guys,

    I just joined today,hoping I would get some help from you.I`m a big fan of Russian military vehicles.Now,off to the questions

    1.One of the forum moderators,GarryB,mentioned in one post that new Russian systems like Coalition Artillery and Pantsir S1 will be implemented into the new light/medium/heavy brigade system by making them on different vehicles (For example,Pantsir S1 for heavy brigades will be based on an Armata tank platform,but Pantsir S1 for medium brigades will be placed on a wheeled platform for Medium brigades).Is Russian army going to have enough funds for this plan?I`m not so sure,even though its only a slight modification,it might cause some problems and delays.
    2.I am one of the editors of the List of equipment of the Russian ground forces (wikipedia page).I need some help.Warfare.be website is down,and me and my friend from Australia took it as one of the only good sources for the number of the vehicles.If you can,please suggest a new website,mainly regarding the number of the vehicles in Russian ground troops.Also,please check if we listed all the equipment used,I`m sure there are some more rare trucks and small arms.
    3.Regarding the future vehicles of the Russian army,I`m not sure about the codename TYPHOON.As I see,it is a name used both by the Kamaz and Ural factories.Also,what happened to Triumf?
    4.As I see,the new MoD didn`t like the reforms made by Serdykov,so he changed some formations.For example,some brigades were again made into divisions,and some divisons were not seperated into brigades.Won`t this hurt the new plan of the three brigade versions?

    I will be happy to hear your opinions

    All the best,

    Ilija

    Mike E
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2789
    Points : 2853
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: Russian Military Reforms [Command-Structure-Personnel]

    Post  Mike E on Tue Sep 16, 2014 8:16 pm

    GuyFromSerbia wrote:Hello guys,

    I just joined today,hoping I would get some help from you.I`m a big fan of Russian military vehicles.Now,off to the questions

    1.One of the forum moderators,GarryB,mentioned in one post that new Russian systems like Coalition Artillery and Pantsir S1 will be implemented into the new light/medium/heavy brigade system by making them on different vehicles (For example,Pantsir S1 for heavy brigades will be based on an Armata tank platform,but Pantsir S1 for medium brigades will be placed on a wheeled platform for Medium brigades).Is Russian army going to have enough funds for this plan?I`m not so sure,even though its only a slight modification,it might cause some problems and delays.
    2.I am one of the editors of the List of equipment of the Russian ground forces (wikipedia page).I need some help.Warfare.be website is down,and me and my friend from Australia took it as one of the only good sources for the number of the vehicles.If you can,please suggest a new website,mainly regarding the number of the vehicles in Russian ground troops.Also,please check if we listed all the equipment used,I`m sure there are some more rare trucks and small arms.
    3.Regarding the future vehicles of the Russian army,I`m not sure about the codename TYPHOON.As I see,it is a name used both by the Kamaz and Ural factories.Also,what happened to Triumf?
    4.As I see,the new MoD didn`t like the reforms made by Serdykov,so he changed some formations.For example,some brigades were again made into divisions,and some divisons were not seperated into brigades.Won`t this hurt the new plan of the three brigade versions?

    I will be happy to hear your opinions

    All the best,

    Ilija
    welcome

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Military Reforms [Command-Structure-Personnel]

    Post  GarryB on Wed Sep 17, 2014 11:36 am

    Armata is not a tank... it is a heavy tracked vehicle platform upon which all the vehicles in a heavy brigade will be based upon.

    There will be Armata based MBT, Armata based IFV, Armata based command vehicle.... etc etc.

    Every vehicle in a heavy brigade will be armata based and will have similar mobility and protection.

    There wont be armata MBTs in every unit... only heavy units, which will not be optimised for sweeping across Europe to the English channel. It will be optimised for very difficult fighting in built up areas against enemies well equipped with anti armour support.

    The logistic chain for the heavy brigade will only carry parts and spares for armata vehicles.

    Medium tracked brigades will be kurganets based with kurganets based MBTs and IFVs and command vehicles etc.

    The station design within all the vehicles will be unified and standardised so a soldier trained on an Armata MBT will have the same controls and sensors and weapons as the soldier in the Boomerang MBT. The electronics, sensors and weapons will be standardised where possible though within reason.

    I rather suspect the heavy and medium tracked and the medium wheeled MBTs could have a 125mm gun, but the Typhoon might have a high velocity 57mm gun as used on the heavier vehicles IFVs.

    Equally I suspect the artillery support vehicle for the lighter units will be 120mm rifled gun/mortar, while the heavy brigade would use the 152mm Coalition...


    _________________
    “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

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Military Reforms [Command-Structure-Personnel]

    Post  GarryB on Wed Sep 17, 2014 11:40 am

    Is Russian army going to have enough funds for this plan?I`m not so sure,even though its only a slight modification,it might cause some problems and delays.

    They are getting funds to replace 70% of Soviet equipment by 2020 and the money doesn't stop there.

    The likely result will be highly mobile cheaper medium and light wheeled units, plus a few heavier more capable models available when needed, plus a reserve of old but useful vehicles.

    They are trying to get to a point where their forces are rather more mobile and rather more well informed about what their enemy is doing using advanced C4ISTAR... Just the current upgrades of modern night vision and digital datalink communications will improve training and performance of getting commands to the troops and getting information back to HQ.


    _________________
    “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

    GuyFromSerbia
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 49
    Points : 50
    Join date : 2014-09-16

    Re: Russian Military Reforms [Command-Structure-Personnel]

    Post  GuyFromSerbia on Wed Sep 17, 2014 12:32 pm

    GarryB wrote:Armata is not a tank... it is a heavy tracked vehicle platform upon which all the vehicles in a heavy brigade will be based upon.

    Yes,but isn`t most of the project focused on the tank itself?Even in the case of T-55s and T-72s,when only the tanks were developed,soon APC versions followed,with some artillery using some T-72 parts as well.What I`m trying to say is that even though this project is called a `platform`,in cases when only tanks were developed on the start,other vehicles like APCs soon followed.

    Regarding my first question,I just wanted to say that making a vehicle,like for example Coalition SPG,and then making it on three platforms (Armata,Boomerang and Kurganets) will surely cost more and make some delays.For example,you made a SPG on a truck.Everything is balanced and fine,but you want to get it on a tank hull so that it can follow tanks.Well,you will surely need to do a lot of work to get the hull and the gun itself to work properly.

    I think that the idea of 3 brigades made for each task is pretty good,but it requires a lot of vehicles developed and a lot of money spent,and we know where the money supposed for the troops ended (in someone`s pocket it seems).

    Also,I like the reform plan with the operational command replacing the higher formations,which means that orders go quickly to the brigade,and support from the Navy and the AF can come much faster.Ratnik will pretty much fix every infantry problem:weapons,uniform,bulletproof vests,radio etc...

    Can somebody please tell me what is the Kangaroo?As far as I know the medium brigades are supposed to get Kurganets-25 and Boomerang vehicles,but somebody on this forum mentioned the Kangaroo

    Can anyone please answer the other questions?Thank you Smile

    Mike E
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2789
    Points : 2853
    Join date : 2014-06-19
    Location : Bay Area, CA

    Re: Russian Military Reforms [Command-Structure-Personnel]

    Post  Mike E on Wed Sep 17, 2014 4:02 pm

    GarryB wrote:Armata is not a tank... it is a heavy tracked vehicle platform upon which all the vehicles in a heavy brigade will be based upon.

    There will be Armata based MBT, Armata based IFV, Armata based command vehicle.... etc etc.

    Every vehicle in a heavy brigade will be armata based and will have similar mobility and protection.

    There wont be armata MBTs in every unit... only heavy units, which will not be optimised for sweeping across Europe to the English channel. It will be optimised for very difficult fighting in built up areas against enemies well equipped with anti armour support.

    The logistic chain for the heavy brigade will only carry parts and spares for armata vehicles.

    Medium tracked brigades will be kurganets based with kurganets based MBTs and IFVs and command vehicles etc.

    The station design within all the vehicles will be unified and standardised so a soldier trained on an Armata MBT will have the same controls and sensors and weapons as the soldier in the Boomerang MBT. The electronics, sensors and weapons will be standardised where possible though within reason.

    I rather suspect the heavy and medium tracked and the medium wheeled MBTs could have a 125mm gun, but the Typhoon might have a high velocity 57mm gun as used on the heavier vehicles IFVs.

    Equally I suspect the artillery support vehicle for the lighter units will be 120mm rifled gun/mortar, while the heavy brigade would use the 152mm Coalition...
    I simply can't wait...

    It will be nice to finally see an organized vehicle selection in the Russian inventory.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Military Reforms [Command-Structure-Personnel]

    Post  GarryB on Thu Sep 18, 2014 8:12 am

    We have already discussed most of this to death on several threads... very simply, the Russian tank producer was busy putting the finishing touches on the T-95 when the Russian military sprang the idea of unified families of vehicles on them.

    The unified families are Armata (heavy tracked), Kurganets (Medium tracked), Boomerang (Medium Wheeled), Typhoon (light wheeled). For a brief period Typhoon was called Kangaroo, but was still a light wheeled vehicle family.

    Armata, Kurganets, Boomerang, and Typhoon/Kangaroo are vehicle bases and a brigade would consist of one vehicle family type to increase mobility (all vehicles have the same engine and basic mobility) same levels of protection, and same logistics support chain.

    When the lead units of a Boomerang brigade get to a river they just find a suitable entry point and swim across. When Armata units come to a river they find a good crossing point and snorkle across.

    Yes,but isn`t most of the project focused on the tank itself?Even in the case of T-55s and T-72s,when only the tanks were developed,soon APC versions followed,with some artillery using some T-72 parts as well.What I`m trying to say is that even though this project is called a `platform`,in cases when only tanks were developed on the start,other vehicles like APCs soon followed.

    No.

    Experience showed in Chechnia that if the APCs and IFVs can't operate with tanks and tanks can't operate without APCS and IFVs then when a real MBT is needed then everyone should have that level of protection.

    The reality is that most of the time in most operations a MBT is massive overkill and a lighter cheaper vehicle would be better suited to the job.

    An example is that the Armata will have two basic models... one with the engine at the rear for MBTs etc, and one with the engine at the front for APC and IFV type vehicles...

    Regarding my first question,I just wanted to say that making a vehicle,like for example Coalition SPG,and then making it on three platforms (Armata,Boomerang and Kurganets) will surely cost more and make some delays.For example,you made a SPG on a truck.Everything is balanced and fine,but you want to get it on a tank hull so that it can follow tanks.Well,you will surely need to do a lot of work to get the hull and the gun itself to work properly.

    Coalition was developed with the Russian Navy and will be a standard naval weapon... likely fitted to destroyers and larger vessels. Having a cheaper lighter version that is truck based makes a lot of sense, though with its range it might be attached to medium and light brigades rather than operate as an organic part of them.

    I think that the idea of 3 brigades made for each task is pretty good,but it requires a lot of vehicles developed and a lot of money spent,and we know where the money supposed for the troops ended (in someone`s pocket it seems).

    I disagree, I think unifying the electronics and sensors and armament of the brigades makes enormous sense and will lead to a much more mobile more responsive force... don't think of Typhoon 10 ton class wheeled vehicles replacing MBTs in a unit... the previous structure would have had obsolete old T-55s for that role with nothing like the APS systems and modern communications and optics fitted to the Typhoon gun fire support vehicle.... and instead of having for 6 months to supply the unit and get its manning up to an operational level it will be ready to go in less than one hours notice.


    _________________
    “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

    GuyFromSerbia
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 49
    Points : 50
    Join date : 2014-09-16

    Re: Russian Military Reforms [Command-Structure-Personnel]

    Post  GuyFromSerbia on Thu Sep 18, 2014 1:42 pm

    No.Experience showed in Chechnia that if the APCs and IFVs can't operate with tanks and tanks can't operate without APCS and IFVs then when a real MBT is needed then everyone should have that level of protection.The reality is that most of the time in most operations a MBT is massive overkill and a lighter cheaper vehicle would be better suited to the job.An example is that the Armata will have two basic models... one with the engine at the rear for MBTs etc, and one with the engine at the front for APC and IFV type vehicles...

    I don`t think you understand me.What I`m trying to say is that the Russians could have just developed the T-95 and then make APCs and other vehicles based on it.But yes,this way it will be a lot easier,as the whole idea starts with one platform,on which more vehicles can be made (If they made the T-95,they would have to rearrange the inner space and some parts for the APC version).

    I disagree, I think unifying the electronics and sensors and armament of the brigades makes enormous sense and will lead to a much more mobile more responsive force... don't think of Typhoon 10 ton class wheeled vehicles replacing MBTs in a unit... the previous structure would have had obsolete old T-55s for that role with nothing like the APS systems and modern communications and optics fitted to the Typhoon gun fire support vehicle.... and instead of having for 6 months to supply the unit and get its manning up to an operational level it will be ready to go in less than one hours notice.

    As far as I know T-55s and T-64s left the army long ago,T-62s have recently been scrapped,and T-80s will soon follow.Russian BMPs heavy guns exactly made to support light troops against heavy armor.What I`m trying to say is that brigade system is basicly like 3 armies.Other countries just have one simple system.

    USA:2 types of forces:M1+Bradley
    Stryker
    Russia:3 types:Armata Tank+Armata APC+Heavy tracked vehicles
    Kurganets-25+Boomerang+Medium tracked vehicles or wheeled vehicles
    Boomerang+Typhoon+Light wheeled vehicles

    Surely,these kind of forces will improve the fighting capabilites.However,the cost will probably be higher compared other countries,which rely on one ground brigade scheme with a lot of support.I just fear Russia won`t be able to handle the amount of money spent on this scheme.


    Sponsored content

    Re: Russian Military Reforms [Command-Structure-Personnel]

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 5:05 pm


      Current date/time is Thu Dec 08, 2016 5:05 pm