Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Russian Army equipment compared to NATO standards

    Share

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5666
    Points : 6072
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Russian Army equipment compared to NATO standards

    Post  Austin on Tue Mar 15, 2011 12:35 pm

    Quite a statement from the Army chief against T-90
    link

    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.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5666
    Points : 6072
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Russian Army equipment compared to NATO standards

    Post  Austin on Tue Mar 15, 2011 1:03 pm

    New Russian Army weaponry 'inferior' to NATO's, overpriced

    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.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5666
    Points : 6072
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Russian Army equipment compared to NATO standards

    Post  Austin on Wed Mar 16, 2011 7:32 am

    The chief is certainly doing a great deal of disservice to Rosoboronexport by saying T-90 is inferior to NATO and worst even China , not sure what his motives are.

    But this will make export prospect for T-90 that much harder and from PR prospective its a big dent , coming from the chief I am sure the bosses of Rosoboronexport will be fuming.

    Well in forum war the Indian Forums are already taking this news to heart and making a big deal from it.

    I still fail to understand why would he do that or he could have chosen a better word like we need a better tank then T-90.

    In the end he makes a fool of himself and the position he is holding by making loose statement by saying he could buy 3 Leo for 1 T-90 , doesnt agur well for an army chief.

    But I have heard in the past such weird things like the Cruiser Peter the Great was about to explode though it was some minor fire onboard and later I read the Navy Chief did not like the guy who commanded those ships and came with loose statements that dents the Navys image , ofcourse he was fired later on after some months but the damage was done.

    Now with such loose statements from the Army Chief , he has done a damage that his rival competing company can just dream about.

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5666
    Points : 6072
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Russia's ground forces weaponry compared to NATO standards

    Post  Austin on Wed Mar 16, 2011 6:11 pm

    Ministry of Industry for the fact that Russia has retained its own arms production

    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.

    AbsoluteZero
    Corporal
    Corporal

    Posts : 81
    Points : 105
    Join date : 2011-01-29
    Age : 28
    Location : Canada

    Russia's ground forces weaponry compared to NATO standards

    Post  AbsoluteZero on Sat Mar 19, 2011 6:58 pm

    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

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15465
    Points : 16172
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Army equipment compared to NATO standards

    Post  GarryB on Sat Mar 19, 2011 10:35 pm

    First of all there is zero chance of all new Russian Army weaponry being better or worse than NATOs.

    Some items will be better and some the same and some worse.

    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.

    Very simply the Russians have two problems... updating the equipment within their Army AND updating their MIC.

    Just buying all new equipment is expensive because new high tech stuff is by definition expensive.

    Having to upgrade the MIC however adds further costs as well and will also not happen overnight either.

    The Army is not the priority here... they have plenty of equipment even if most of it should be replaced.

    The Navy needs vessels and the Air Force needs modern guided munitions and new aircraft as well.

    The conflict in Georgia showed that the Russian Army is short of Recon assets and C2 gear and communications. It didn't show the need for a new rifle or tank or type of ATGM or MANPAD etc.

    IronsightSniper
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 496
    Points : 520
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: Russian Army equipment compared to NATO standards

    Post  IronsightSniper on Sun Mar 20, 2011 12:51 am

    GarryB wrote:

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

    We have SMAW.

    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.

    There's a difference between a bouncing grenade and an air burst grenade. The GP-34 fires bouncing grenades and the guns from the OICW program are air burst.

    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.

    The 5.45 and 5.56 ammo are great for their wound enducing capabilities. The "ineffectiveness" of the 5.56 turned out to be reporter error. Big rounds like the 7.62x39 are not great for wound creation but are great for cover penetration, which is something 5.45/5.56 lacks.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15465
    Points : 16172
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Army equipment compared to NATO standards

    Post  GarryB on Sun Mar 20, 2011 1:16 am

    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 GP-34 fires bouncing grenades and the guns from the OICW program are air burst.

    The bounding grenade has been in widespread service since the mid 1980s and is cheap.

    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.

    IronsightSniper
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 496
    Points : 520
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: Russian Army equipment compared to NATO standards

    Post  IronsightSniper on Sun Mar 20, 2011 2:15 am

    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?

    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.

    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.

    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)

    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.

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


    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15465
    Points : 16172
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Army equipment compared to NATO standards

    Post  GarryB on Mon Mar 21, 2011 8:21 am


    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.

    IronsightSniper
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 496
    Points : 520
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: Russian Army equipment compared to NATO standards

    Post  IronsightSniper on Mon Mar 21, 2011 11:47 pm

    [quote="GarryB"]

    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.

    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.

    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.

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


    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.

    Which is a fair comparison, but most targets don't come from 400m, they either are closer or farther (700+ m). 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.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15465
    Points : 16172
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Army equipment compared to NATO standards

    Post  GarryB on Tue Mar 22, 2011 1:30 am

    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.

    IronsightSniper
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 496
    Points : 520
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: Russian Army equipment compared to NATO standards

    Post  IronsightSniper on Tue Mar 22, 2011 2:38 am

    [quote="GarryB"]
    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.

    But as I just said, you can't take that man for his word, he doesn't really mean that 'everything' Russia has is inferior. A lot is, but like we've pointed out, many in Russia's arsenal is unique.

    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.

    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.

    Batteries do not need to be switched out for some duration. Each magazine a XM-25 gunner has can hold 5 or 6 25 mm grenades.

    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.

    I never said I disagreed with you, I was simply refuting your original points.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15465
    Points : 16172
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Army equipment compared to NATO standards

    Post  GarryB on Tue Mar 22, 2011 3:53 am

    But as I just said, you can't take that man for his word, he doesn't
    really mean that 'everything' Russia has is inferior. A lot is, but like
    we've pointed out, many in Russia's arsenal is unique.

    By implication he is implying everything to make a point. His point would be better made if he was more realistic and specified some and mentioned specific examples.
    Instead he tarnishes all Russian products because he perceives problems with some items.

    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.

    Personally I hope they go with the new Balkan 40mm grenade launcher as its grenades look very large and it uses the same design as the 40mm underbarrel grenade design except being designed for an AGL it is much more powerful and would not fit in the under barrel launchers.

    Basically instead of having a stub shell case containing propellent like the 40mm and 25mm western rounds and the 30mm Soviet rounds the new 40mm rounds have propellent in their base along with a primer so it acts rather like a mortar shell in that there is no shell case left to extract during fire.

    Here is some info on it:

    http://world.guns.ru/grenade/rus/balkan-e.html

    Vladimir79
    Grand Marshal
    Grand Marshal

    Posts : 2193
    Points : 3099
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: Russian Army equipment compared to NATO standards

    Post  Vladimir79 on Tue Mar 22, 2011 5:31 am

    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

    Wow, those are harsh words from commander of Russia's troops. To buy 3 Leopards you have to get them used. They certainly don't meet NATO standards but the T-90S with its French upgrades are superior to Chinese.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15465
    Points : 16172
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Army equipment compared to NATO standards

    Post  GarryB on Tue Mar 22, 2011 8:35 am

    Well the guy is a total hypocrite... currently UVZ are apparently working on T-72 upgrades... so while saying the T-90 is a deathtrap and too expensive he is spending money on T-72 upgrades and has cancelled the T-95 which was designed from the outset to address crew survival problems.

    If he wants Leopards... even second hand Leopards then they would cost 10 million a piece... not to buy, but with all the changes and spares and ammo and other bits and pieces that would be needed to support the operation of a totally different tank, not to mention the cost of training crews and support personel... and for what... a tank with inferior thermals and pretty much comparable armour from most aspects.

    Not just a Hypocrite... clearly an idiot too.

    And when the Indians read his comments and cancel their orders UVZ will become a train making company and Russia will have to get all its tanks from overseas... maybe China might sell some of its super tanks... quarter the price of European tanks and 3 out of 4 of them will probably work properly so you are still saving money...

    runaway
    Master Sergeant
    Master Sergeant

    Posts : 351
    Points : 372
    Join date : 2010-11-12
    Location : Sweden

    Re: Russian Army equipment compared to NATO standards

    Post  runaway on Tue Mar 22, 2011 5:00 pm

    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.

    He`s right about that, actually. But totaly wrong if he thinks NATO or Chinese weapons are better.
    Like Gary said, some are better some not. But not chinese stuff, cheap and lousy.

    Dont forget that M1A2 is a modification of the M1, made in late -70:ies.

    About Nato weapons vs Russian, Nato weapons are made by the cheapest company, and for the firing range. Russian weapons are made for war.

    Now sweden hasnt got a tank of its own, just the Leo2, which i think is way to heavy. But we had a program of Stridsvagn 2000, a huge armoured monster with a 140mm gun. It was to expensive...


    AbsoluteZero
    Corporal
    Corporal

    Posts : 81
    Points : 105
    Join date : 2011-01-29
    Age : 28
    Location : Canada

    Re: Russian Army equipment compared to NATO standards

    Post  AbsoluteZero on Tue Mar 22, 2011 5:09 pm


    Interesting, this video suddenly came up at the RIA Novosti website to answer the guy's criticism of the T-90, although I'll have to say that its a bit difficult to verify whether the commentator's statements here are factual.

    http://en.rian.ru/video/20110322/163146273.html

    IronsightSniper
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 496
    Points : 520
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: Russian Army equipment compared to NATO standards

    Post  IronsightSniper on Wed Mar 23, 2011 12:59 am

    [quote="GarryB"]

    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.

    Actually, it has been shown a while ago that the Soviet 30 mm grenade has about the same HE mass as the 40 mm we use.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15465
    Points : 16172
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Army equipment compared to NATO standards

    Post  GarryB on Wed Mar 23, 2011 4:39 am

    The older grenades do but they have a max ballistic range of 1.7km which is slightly short of the 40mm grenades used in US AGLs. The new GPD-30 round has better fragmentation and a range of 2.1km due to improved aerodynamics.

    Its main claim to fame however is the weapon weight.
    The Mk-19 weighs 35kg with another 20kgs for the tripod or 9kgs for a light tripod mount.
    The Mk-47 is a potential replacement with weight reduced to 41kgs with tripod and video sight.
    The AGS-17 weighs 18kgs plus a 12kg tripod.
    The current standard weapon is the AGS-30 that weighs 16kg including its tripod.

    Ironically the BALKAN weighs 32kgs with its bipod but is a much more compact design... I would think the BALKAN would be ideal for external gun mounts on armoured vehicles with the extra range and increased payload making it more useful.

    It is so compact it could actually be used as a coaxial weapon... perhaps with separate elevation to allow it to be fitted to a tank, or to elevate with high elevation weapons like the weapons on the BMP and BTR.

    It would be an interesting replacement or supplement to the 14.5mm HMG on the BTR. A longer barrelled model might further increase range, but 2.5km is already pretty good, and its compact nature might be ruined.
    The current setups I have seen with AGS-30 grenade launchers added to BMP turrets could easily be reworked to accommodate the smaller Balkan grenade launchers.

    Pervius
    Senior Sergeant
    Senior Sergeant

    Posts : 259
    Points : 287
    Join date : 2011-03-08

    Re: Russian Army equipment compared to NATO standards

    Post  Pervius on Mon Mar 28, 2011 8:57 pm

    Apparently he hasn't studied the American humvee's liberated from Georgia very well yet.

    THOSE vehicles are inferior military vehicles. The Chinese copy has a cummins diesel engine which is better and they put a better transmission behind it and get better horse power, better miles per gallon, and there's no stupid computer crap controlling anything.

    The Chinese copied Humvee is better than the American's.

    NATO's achille's heal is reliance on too much computers in things like vehicles...which fail. And the average monkey wrench turner can't fix it right away as someone smart enough to diagnose the electrical problem is needed.

    NATO's vehicles went down the tube when they started putting computers to control engines/transmissions in military vehicles when there was no reason to do so. Especially on a diesel engine. If it wasn't for ships full of money supplying vast amounts of money to contractors to fix NATO's vehicles in war....they wouldn't roll. How many tire companies now make tires in NATO countries? All made in China now. So now if NATO wants to go to war they either need to pre-order ships full of tires or get China appeased to keep supplying tires to support NATO's fight.

    If Chinese got smart they could start putting RFID tags inside tires with tiny copper coil. If China detected their tires in say Libya they could direct an energy from satellite which RFID would receive and send to copper coil heating it up causing tire to fail. time will tell if Chinese get smart enough to do such with their product to deny use...nobody would ever figure it out. Globalization and Free Trade allows States to do secret things with exported goods of which nobody really expects.

    Hopefully Russia is smart enough to really analyze all imported goods down to every piece...opting for foreign assets could expose you to unseen problems denying you the ability to use that item. Plus everyone would know what you have...and how to defeat it.

    Russian weaponry not inferior to NATO. It's NATO who's taking great risk. Russia just needs to counter NATO's financial trickery being used to overbuild military hardware..only thing inferior in Russia is financial heads unable to adopt West's crooked financial strategies to fund a war machine.


    IronsightSniper
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 496
    Points : 520
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: Russian Army equipment compared to NATO standards

    Post  IronsightSniper on Wed Mar 30, 2011 1:35 am

    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.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15465
    Points : 16172
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Army equipment compared to NATO standards

    Post  GarryB on Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:35 am

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

    I don't think anyone does... the energy required to generate enough heat to actually damage a tire would require enormous amounts of energy... especially when it is not focused or concentrated at the target.

    SerbNationalist
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 37
    Points : 39
    Join date : 2010-09-03
    Age : 28
    Location : Београд

    Re: Russian Army equipment compared to NATO standards

    Post  SerbNationalist on Fri May 06, 2011 1:53 am

    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

    This fellow is either demented or a moron, because a modern Leopard 2A6 costs 5,2 million US$ Earlier models around 4,2-4,5 million US$. So I would like someone to explain how would he buy three Leopards for 4 million US$??? This is a really cheap undermining and really didn't work on anyone with at least half of his/her's grey mass!
    Unless over the night the price of T-90 jumped to around 15 million US$...then yes, he's right, in any other case this is subversive and very stupid, very transparent too!

    SerbNationalist
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 37
    Points : 39
    Join date : 2010-09-03
    Age : 28
    Location : Београд

    Re: Russian Army equipment compared to NATO standards

    Post  SerbNationalist on Fri May 06, 2011 1:55 am

    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.

    1 billion???? They have 1,3 billion population and they are going to attack you with 1 billion??? Really??? Wow...if you were sarcastic ok, if not...wow dude!!!
    Their army is about 4 million so no billions there.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Russian Army equipment compared to NATO standards

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 9:37 pm


      Current date/time is Mon Dec 05, 2016 9:37 pm