Russian Army equipment compared to NATO standards

Postnikov: even the latest weapons for the Russian Army loses counterparts from NATO

The newest weapons systems for the Army (Army), RF does not correspond to the parameters of similar systems of NATO countries and even China, said Tuesday the Army Chief Alexander Postnikov.

"Those samples of weapons, which produces industry, including armored weapons, artillery and small arms, its parameters do not correspond to samples of NATO and even China," - said Col. Gen. Postnikov at a meeting of the Committee on Defense and Security Council of the Federation.

As an example, he said that the world-famous latest Russian T-90 tank is actually 17-modification of the second Soviet T-72. In this case, its value now stands at 118 million rubles per unit.( $4.1 million )

"It was easier to buy for the money three" Leopard "(main battle tank produced in Germany)," - said Postnikov.

He added that currently the share of modern samples of weapons and military equipment in the NE is 12%, and by 2020 this figure should rise to 70.

The most advanced weapon systems manufactured for Russia's ground forces are below NATO and even Chinese standards and are expensive, GF chief Col. Gen. Alexander Postnikov said on Tuesday.

"The weapon models that are manufactured by our industry, including armor, artillery and small arms and light weapons, fail to meet the standards that exist in NATO and even China," he said at a session of the Defense and Security Committee of the upper house of the Russian parliament.

He said that Russia's most advanced tank, the T-90, is in fact a modification of the Soviet-era T-72 tank [entered production in 1971] but costs 118 million rubles (over $4 million) per unit.

"It would be easier for us to buy three Leopards [Germany's main battle tanks] with this money," Postnikov said.

Director of Development Department, the military-industrial complex of the Ministry of Industry and Trade of Russia Igor Karavayev does not agree with the statement of representatives of the Ministry of Defence that the Russian military equipment is expensive and inferior to modern Western standards, according to Interfax. Objective assessment of tests, objective figures on the level of military-technical cooperation and the pace with which increases our exports of arms and military equipment, to suggest otherwise "- he said at a press conference in Moscow.

Loaves added that referred to the eve of the Commander in Chief Land Forces, Alexander Postnikov tank T-90A was tested in three climate zones and three countries - Saudi Arabia, India and Malaysia, having received a positive evaluation. "Those tests that were carried out in Saudi Arabia in an open tender, wholly and completely refute the allegations Commander in Chief" - the director of the department.

According to him, the only tank that has provided all the tests in Saudi Arabia, and also carried out after a march-throw defeat more than 60% of the targets was the Russian T-90A. "No" Leopard ", nor" Leclerc ", or" Abrams "to this level is not reached - explained Karavayev. Consequently, to say that our tanks worse western counterparts, it is not entirely reliable information. "

According to him, declared Commander of Land Forces of the cost of the machine, at least a half times the price for which the manufacturer is ready to deliver it in the interests of the Russian Defense Ministry. "The T-90A exceed at least a half times its nearest competitor -" Leopard "- said Karavayev.

The most advanced weapon systems manufactured for Russia's ground forces are below NATO and even Chinese standards and are expensive, GF chief Col. Gen. Alexander Postnikov said on Tuesday.

"The weapon models that are manufactured by our industry, including armor, artillery and small arms and light weapons, fail to meet the standards that exist in NATO and even China," he said at a session of the Defense and Security Committee of the upper house of the Russian parliament.

He said that Russia's most advanced tank, the T-90, is in fact a modification of the Soviet-era T-72 tank [entered production in 1971] but costs 118 million rubles (over $4 million) per unit.

"It would be easier for us to buy three Leopards [Germany's main battle tanks] with this money," Postnikov said.

GarryB wrote:

NATO has no decent equivalent of the RPO series of weapons for example.

The GP-34 underbarrel grenade launcher has longer range and is not less powerful than the M203 and it can be clipped onto pretty much most AK rifles as easily as clipping on and off a bayonet. It also already has airburst grenades in service... something NATO wants and is trying to achieve with 25mm grenades and complex electronics and fuses.

The 5.45mm ammo the Russians use has all the same light projectile problems of the 5.56 like deflecting off light cover, but has none of the barrel length lethality issues.

GarryB wrote:

We have SMAW.

And RPO is better.
How widespread is SMAW within NATO?
Does it come in multiple versions like the RPO with smoke, incendiary and FAE versions?

There's a difference between a bouncing grenade and an air burst grenade.

In practical terms there isn't, because the effect is the same... more efficient fragmentation distribution on target.

The "ineffectiveness" of the 5.56 turned out to be reporter error.

All the reports were errors? The ineffectiveness of the 5.56mm has been shown in lab testing.
It doesn't tumble on impact like the 5.45mm and like most conventional rounds will travel point forward for about 10cm before turning... for many targets it starts to turn as it starts to exit the target and results in a narrower wound channel than a 7.62x39mm bullet.
The 5.56mm rounds main claim to fame was when it fragments and it only fragments above a certain velocity... a velocity it does not achieve beyond about 250m for an M16 or other rifle with a similar length barrel. For shorter barrel models like the M4 there is no fragmentation of the bullet at any range.

True, but that's only because the RPO is a dedicated weapon. I'd
much rather have a modular platform like an RPG-7 or a SMAW that can
fire both AT, AP, and Thermobaric warheads.

The claim was that everything the Russians had or were putting into production now was inferior to NATO and Chinese equipment. RPO and indeed RPG-7 and RPG-29 are examples to the contrary.

In usage terms, there are. You can't bounce a grenade in every
environment but you can airburst a grenade in every environment. (by
environment I don't mean snow, desert, etc, I mean different obstacles
like 3m tall wall, or a 30x30cm window)

On paper the 25mm grenade with digital computer fire control system and laser range finder is better, but the Russian system has been in service for 25 years and is in widespread use today.

Average human torso thickness is 24 cm. For reference, the M855 FMJ is the standard 5.56x45mm in NATO use.

Yeah, nice chart, I have seen it before.

Problem is that change the barrel to the shorter barrel of the M4 and use a target 300-400m away and the penetrations look more like the paths for 7.62 x 51mm FMJ which seem to have been omitted from this chart that would show a very stable bullet travelling point forward for most of the penetration doing very little damage at all. The AKS-74U path on the other hand (assuming you hit a target at 400m with it) will have a path almost exactly the same as that for the AK-74.

It should also be remembered that this is penetration in a flesh simulent. Actual battlefield cases have shown the 5.45mm has good lethality at any range you can get a hit from, including one example of a man hit in the hip where the bullet was deflected 90 degrees and went through the thorax and out just below his shoulder having travelled up through his gut and lung. The wound was lethal. I am sure there are just as many cases where the bullet turned 90 degrees off a bone and exited without doing terminal damage... the point is that it does not travel point forward through someone without tumbling or turning... making it more effective most of the time to a non fragmenting 5.56mm from an M4.

Obviously you can't take that claim into total truth. There are some
dedicated weapons that Russians have, like a suppressed subsonic 12.7 mm
sniper rifle, that the West doesn't have. But the man portable
thermobaric role that the RPO possesses is something we have too.

We are discussing the claim that everything new the Russian military industrial complex is offering is inferior to NATO and Chinese equipment currently in service.
Regarding suppressed deployed weapons you are correct, the AS and VSS suppressed 9 x 39mm weapons have been in service more than 20 years and they also have a suppressed subsonic 12.7mm sniper weapon too, which have no equivelent within NATO. What I am saying is that the widely deployed RPO and RPG-7 and RPG-29 are not inferior to anything NATO or for that matter China has in service... and the new models are even better. The latest model of the RPO series... called the SHMEL-M ... http://kbptula.ru/eng/atgw/shmelm.htm has an aimed range of 800m and a max range of 1,700m while being 4 kgs lighter than the original RPO or SHMEL.... the original RPO was 12kgs and the new RPO-M is 8kgs per launch tube.

Obviously there are plenty of things the Russians are making that are likely not up to NATO standard, but their are usually good reasons for that. The BMP-3 is probably under armoured... just look at the weights of IFVs and you can see NATO IFVs are the weight of light tanks, while the Russian infantry vehicles max out at about 20-22 tons. Clearly the NATO IFVs must be better armoured, but that is not the fault of the Russian MIC... they could easily make their IFVs heavier if the Russian military decided amphibious and air drop capability is no longer a requirement.

Which doesn't change the fact that a 30/40 mm bouncing grenade isn't comparable to a 25 mm air burst grenade.

Of course they are comparable. The 40mm bounding grenade will come up short because the user still has to get the round on target without a laser range finder or ballistic computer showing him where to aim. The 25mm weapon will come up short with a much smaller grenade, and of course the requirement for a reliable source of batteries and ammo... which the person with the 40mm grenade launcher will not be short of.

At ranges under 300m, the 5.56 preforms fine v.s. a human target, so it
would be unfounded to say that either rounds are inferior or superior to
the other.

Firstly that proves my case... this idiot is saying that new Russian gear is not up to scratch for NATO or China, and you clearly agree it is as good as the NATO standard round.
I would suggest that from an SA80 or M16 the 5.56 is very effective out to 250-300m, but from an M4 carbine it will lack the velocity to fragment which makes its terminal ballistics similar to a .22 WMR.

Just came up with this article yesterday from RIA Novosti, well, I only
hope that the situation isn't that bad and that steps are being actively
taken to correct issues regarding this.

The most advanced
weapon systems manufactured for Russia's ground forces are below NATO
and even Chinese standards and are expensive, GF chief Col. Gen.
Alexander Postnikov said on Tuesday.

"The weapon models that are
manufactured by our industry, including armor, artillery and small arms
and light weapons, fail to meet the standards that exist in NATO and
even China," he said at a session of the Defense and Security Committee
of the upper house of the Russian parliament.

He said that
Russia's most advanced tank, the T-90, is in fact a modification of the
Soviet-era T-72 tank [entered production in 1971] but costs 118 million
rubles (over $4 million) per unit.

"It would be easier for us to buy three Leopards [Germany's main battle tanks] with this money," Postnikov said.

SOURCE

Vladimir79 wrote:He said that
Russia's most advanced tank, the T-90, is in fact a modification of the
Soviet-era T-72 tank [entered production in 1971] but costs 118 million
rubles (over $4 million) per unit.

It's not that. The 25 mm has a far greater velocity and thus flatter
trajectory than 30/40 mm grenade. The 25 mm grenade gets it's power from
it's air burst role. In that, it compensates for it's small size.

Actually it was the 30mm Soviet grenade for the Plamya that showed the US that smaller calibres are not necessarily less lethal. With relatively low velocity rounds like these grenades the nose generally has the fuse so it is the walls that contain most of the fragmentation material and it has been clearly shown that the 30mm grenades the Russians use in their AGLs are just as effective as the 40mm grenades the US used. The 30mm rounds are smaller calibre but the projectiles are longer and contain a larger area of pre fragmented material so the effective lethal radius is similar to the larger calibre US round.
The new 25mm round uses the same method for retaining lethality... its length, which also improves aerodynamics as well.

AbsoluteZero wrote:Just came up with this article yesterday from RIA Novosti, well, I only hope that the situation isn't that bad and that steps are being actively taken to correct issues regarding this.

The most advanced weapon systems manufactured for Russia's ground forces are below NATO and even Chinese standards and are expensive, GF chief Col. Gen. Alexander Postnikov said on Tuesday.

"The weapon models that are manufactured by our industry, including armor, artillery and small arms and light weapons, fail to meet the standards that exist in NATO and even China," he said at a session of the Defense and Security Committee of the upper house of the Russian parliament.

He said that Russia's most advanced tank, the T-90, is in fact a modification of the Soviet-era T-72 tank [entered production in 1971] but costs 118 million rubles (over $4 million) per unit.

"It would be easier for us to buy three Leopards [Germany's main battle tanks] with this money," Postnikov said.

SOURCE

IronsightSniper wrote:I don't think China has any satellites capable of doing that.

NATO's achilles heel is not our dependence on computers (which are a good thing) but rather our small numbers. If a 1 billion Chinese army attacked Taiwan right now there's nothing we have outside of a nuke that can stop them.