Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Question Thread: Russian Army

    Share
    avatar
    medo

    Posts : 3194
    Points : 3284
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: Question Thread: Russian Army

    Post  medo on Fri May 06, 2011 3:56 pm

    The best option for Russia and also for others is to have combination of professional units and conscript units. For small wars and fast reaction you have professional units and also for high technology units. But for defending homeland you need conscript units, which also could give larger reserve for longer time wars. Problem of professional armies is, that they are very expensive, small and have very limited reserves. They could not replace lost units.
    avatar
    Viktor

    Posts : 5672
    Points : 6321
    Join date : 2009-08-25
    Age : 36
    Location : Croatia

    Re: Question Thread: Russian Army

    Post  Viktor on Fri May 06, 2011 5:34 pm

    Agreed. Making people go to army for a year is a good idea. People get familiar with weapons, tactics, systems

    etc, althrow in combat even a most inexpirienced solder/civil becomes very combat capable or dies in very

    short period of time.
    avatar
    nightcrawler

    Posts : 535
    Points : 651
    Join date : 2010-08-20
    Age : 27
    Location : Pakistan

    Re: Question Thread: Russian Army

    Post  nightcrawler on Fri May 06, 2011 9:13 pm

    The word Conscript is very disturbing literally. Can a conscript operate a tank or an S-300 battery? I love you
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16334
    Points : 16965
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Question Thread: Russian Army

    Post  GarryB on Sat May 07, 2011 12:41 am

    The word Conscript is very disturbing literally. Can a conscript operate a tank or an S-300 battery?

    Of course they can.

    A conscript is someone who is in the army because they have to be there.
    A student is someone who is in a School and at lower levels is there because they have to be there.

    Suggesting a conscript can't control a tank is like saying he probably can't read or write either... he was forced into the army but was also forced to go to school as a child as well.
    avatar
    IronsightSniper

    Posts : 454
    Points : 468
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: Question Thread: Russian Army

    Post  IronsightSniper on Sat May 14, 2011 9:08 am

    Conscripts generally never work out well. IMO it's best to make it voluntary as then you have the most willing people to whom you can most easily shape to your military ideals in your army, rather than a bunch of scared kids.
    avatar
    medo

    Posts : 3194
    Points : 3284
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: Question Thread: Russian Army

    Post  medo on Sat May 14, 2011 11:01 am

    Conscripts generally never work out well. IMO it's best to make it voluntary as then you have the most willing people to whom you can most easily shape to your military ideals in your army, rather than a bunch of scared kids.

    Israel army never work well? Israel have conscript army of both genders. Conscript army give you large reserve and in case of war you could mobilize reserves and those reservists are not scared kids, but adult males. When you defend your country, conscript units with capable officers and NCOs will work as good as professional units, but they are numerically larger.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16334
    Points : 16965
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Question Thread: Russian Army

    Post  GarryB on Sun May 15, 2011 4:36 am

    When war is for fun and foreign conquest then it makes sense to take only volunteers because normal human nature is not to kill other people.

    When was is to defend your country from invasion then it is every ones responsibility to learn how to do that.

    There are plenty of countries that have a conscript army including Israel.
    avatar
    IronsightSniper

    Posts : 454
    Points : 468
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: Question Thread: Russian Army

    Post  IronsightSniper on Mon May 16, 2011 12:38 am

    The Israeli Army is actually an exception to the rule that conscripts never work well :v
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16334
    Points : 16965
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Question Thread: Russian Army

    Post  GarryB on Mon May 16, 2011 3:50 am

    The Israeli Army is actually an exception to the rule that conscripts never work well :v

    They are the exception because of the nature of the situation for Israel.

    One could argue that the hostile nature of Israels neighbours is reflected in the encroachment of Russias borders by NATO.

    Conscript armies are fine for self defence but of course how they are used will effect how they perform.

    The Russian experience during WWI was that even highly trained forces kept in the rear can lose morale and become useless where the top forces were kept back to guard the major cities and ended up leading the revolt that overthrew the Tsar.

    The result was that the Soviets tended to throw fresh conscript units straight into battle rather than keep them in safe areas and let their fears of what combat might be like get the better of them.

    What is the right way to teach a man to kill?

    Austin

    Posts : 6237
    Points : 6643
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: Question Thread: Russian Army

    Post  Austin on Thu May 26, 2011 2:19 pm

    Hi Garry a question for you , sorry if this has been asked before.

    1 ) The fundamental problem with T-90 or any T series tank is the loose ammo in the crew compartment , if there is a penetration of turret the molten fragment will hit the loose ammo and will cause secondary explosion in the turret but before that the crew could also die from fragments ?

    2 ) Western Tank barring Abrams carry ammo in turret but they are place in ammo containers which makes them safer then carrying loose ammo in the turret.

    But there is still the fundamental problem of ammo close to crew which can explode for many reasons and kill the crew

    3 ) So the option is to isolate it from crew and put it in rear turret bustle , though turret bustle is not as heavy armoured but it isolated crew from ammo , if the ammo explodes the crew may still be safe as they are located in heavy armour.

    4 ) T-90AM will still have the problem of ammo close to crew because even though loose ammo moves to turret bustle , there is still ammo below the crew compartment though protected by heavy armour , but the crew still sits above it.

    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16334
    Points : 16965
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Question Thread: Russian Army

    Post  GarryB on Fri May 27, 2011 5:03 am

    1 ) The fundamental problem with T-90 or any T series tank is the loose ammo in the crew compartment , if there is a penetration of turret the molten fragment will hit the loose ammo and will cause secondary explosion in the turret but before that the crew could also die from fragments ?

    Very few anti tank weapons are actually as accurate as you might think.
    Most will simply hit a random point on the target if they hit at all.

    This means the idea of aiming for the commanders position or the gunners position is simply a nonsense. A round can hit almost anywhere and at a range of angles.

    Replace the penetrator with a very long pole or spear.

    Put 3 people in the tank and start thinking about how small those three people are in comparison with the entire tank.

    Be aware that while there might be a few vulnerable parts from the front that the vast majority of weak points are the side and rear of the tank for most conventional missile weapons. The belly and roof are of course even more vulnerable, but hard to aim for in most combat environments.

    The point is that most tank crew have flak jackets and helmets that will stop fragments so unless the penetration goes through a crew member then for most penetrations they should actually be OK.

    It is a bit like a soldier being fired at with 50 cal HMG ammo... a miss will do no damage at all.

    A .22lr round in the face can kill and a 120mm APFSDS round through the tip of your finger is a trivial wound.

    Most tanks have anti spall liners that reduce the amount of material flying around inside a tank when penetrated.

    2 ) Western Tank barring Abrams carry ammo in turret but they are place in ammo containers which makes them safer then carrying loose ammo in the turret.

    The Abrams has a compartment in the rear turret that is walled off from the crew compartment with armoured doors to separate the ammo from the crew. The compartment has blow out doors so if hit the explosion will be directed up and out of the turret rather than into the crew compartment.

    The T-90AM takes that a step further and has an autoloader in the turret bustle so the crew is separate from the ammo plus the ammo is still autoloaded so they only need two crewmen in the turret.

    But there is still the fundamental problem of ammo close to crew which can explode for many reasons and kill the crew

    Think in terms of the bulkheads in a ship or submarine. These armoured walls are designed to keep separate sections of a vessel separate so that fire or water or explosions are blocked between sections.

    Explosives only detonate perfectly spherically when in open air. When contained the blast is directed and deflected from hard surfaces.

    Think of a rifle.

    The propellent in the round in the chamber will try to explode in all directions at once.
    However it can't explode back towards the shooter because of the bolt. The sides of the chamber supporting the shell case stop it from expanding sideways.

    The direction of least resistence is down the barrel but it has a bullet in the way. The resistence of the bullet is nothing compared with the resistence of the bolt and chamber so the bullet is blown down and out the barrel and the gas expands behind it.

    Wield the barrel shut and it is likely the bolt will be the component that fails next.

    In the Abrams and the T-90AM it is the roof of the ammo compartment that is designed especially to fail.

    When it fails the explosion is directed up and out which greatly reduces the pressure in the other directions and in normal circumstances once the roof fails the pressure drops and other potential weak spots are not put under pressure and therefore do not fail too.

    3 ) So the option is to isolate it from crew and put it in rear turret bustle , though turret bustle is not as heavy armoured but it isolated crew from ammo , if the ammo explodes the crew may still be safe as they are located in heavy armour.

    Yes.

    4 ) T-90AM will still have the problem of ammo close to crew because even though loose ammo moves to turret bustle , there is still ammo below the crew compartment though protected by heavy armour , but the crew still sits above it.

    Real combat experience shows that the most common places tanks are hit is the turret front.
    Real combat experience shows that the ammo in the T-72 in the under floor armoured autoloader is safe from penetrations as very few penetrations hit the floor under the turret crew.
    Real combat experience shows that the problem is loose ammo and propellent stubs in the crew compartment that start fires that cause explosions in T series tanks.

    Adding a turret bustle autoloader and keeping the underfloor autoloader gives the crew 54 odd rounds of ready to fire ammo that is armoured and separated from the crew compartment. If the crew does not feel safe they don't need to load the under floor autoloader if they are happy going into battle with 32 rounds.

    In the second conflict in Chechnia they were not happy with loose ammo and went into combat only with ammo in the autoloader, which means 22 rounds so the bustle autoloader means they can take more in even if they don't trust the underfloor autoloader.

    Also keep in mind that explosives don't always explode upwards. They could design the floor so that an explosion in the underfloor autoloader could be directed down away from the crew.

    It certainly raises the question about the threat of mines... but then most tanks are vulnerable to mines.

    Austin

    Posts : 6237
    Points : 6643
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: Question Thread: Russian Army

    Post  Austin on Fri May 27, 2011 6:50 am

    The point is that most tank crew have flak jackets and helmets that will stop fragments so unless the penetration goes through a crew member then for most penetrations they should actually be OK.

    The issue is when a KE or HEAT round hits the turret there is first and foremost a tremendous shock effect , it is possible the shock effect would disorient the crew or worst could blow the ammo , that is inspite of the fact it has kelvar spall.

    If there is penetration the molten fragments from armour and ke would fly in many direction in the crew compartment killing the crew instantly in most direction , the jet could still continue and hit a loose ammo or ammo in a canister and could cause explosion.

    I have my own reservations over flak jackets and helmets being of any use incase of penetration , if he is lucky he would get out from burn wounds of spall , toxic gas and a shock effect that would take time to recover.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16334
    Points : 16965
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Question Thread: Russian Army

    Post  GarryB on Sun May 29, 2011 6:28 am

    The issue is when a KE or HEAT round hits the turret there is first and foremost a tremendous shock effect , it is possible the shock effect would disorient the crew or worst could blow the ammo , that is inspite of the fact it has kelvar spall.

    The penetration of the crew compartment will obviously make the crew compartment uncomfortable, but unless hit by fragments or inhaling metal in a hot gas state it is not going to kill. To blow the ammo it needs to come into contact with the ammo and if the ammo is in an armoured area under the floor the penetration would need to be near vertical to penetrate the armoured ammo compartments... so no, it wont blow the ammo.

    If there is penetration the molten fragments from armour and ke would fly in many direction in the crew compartment killing the crew instantly in most direction , the jet could still continue and hit a loose ammo or ammo in a canister and could cause explosion.

    Then why do we hear about penetrations of Challanger tanks where the Driver just loses a foot but the rest of the crew is fine?
    Why do we hear about penetrations of Abrams from the side where one crew man is injured and the rest are fine?

    The laws of physics are the same for everyone.

    A penetrator... and it might surprise you but HEAT penetrators actually work like APFSDS penetrators at the speeds and energies involved... everything is treated like a liquid, because at above a km per second that is how armour reacts to penetrations of solids (APFSDS at 1.5-2km/s) and much higher speed liquids (HEAT rounds with liquid metal beams of material at 4-5km/s).

    Very simply both are designed to penetrate armour and if they both spread out and killed everything inside it wouldn't have been concentrated enough to penetrate the armour in the first place.

    The only time everyone dies in an armoured vehicle is when ammo and fuel is ignited and there is an internal explosion.

    I have my own reservations over flak jackets and helmets being of any use incase of penetration , if he is lucky he would get out from burn wounds of spall , toxic gas and a shock effect that would take time to recover.

    The material thrashing around inside a tank is made of irregular shaped material very poorly designed to penetrate and generally fairly light weight.
    In other words a very poor penetrator.

    Think in terms of a shotgun... lots of power, but most flak jackets are very effective against all but solid slugs because small round balls have poor penetration characteristics. Flak is the same.


    Austin

    Posts : 6237
    Points : 6643
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: Question Thread: Russian Army

    Post  Austin on Sun May 29, 2011 1:47 pm

    GarryB wrote:The penetration of the crew compartment will obviously make the crew compartment uncomfortable, but unless hit by fragments or inhaling metal in a hot gas state it is not going to kill.

    And it might well happen , the crew might inhale toxic fumes and the shock from hit might disorient him , the kevlar spall might break and fly around and kill.


    To blow the ammo it needs to come into contact with the ammo and if the ammo is in an armoured area under the floor the penetration would need to be near vertical to penetrate the armoured ammo compartments... so no, it wont blow the ammo.

    In case of T-90A ,T-72 or earlier T series ammo is loose in crew compartment and it might blow at it hits it , with T-90AM it will be much safer as there is no loose ammo.

    Then why do we hear about penetrations of Challanger tanks where the Driver just loses a foot but the rest of the crew is fine?
    Why do we hear about penetrations of Abrams from the side where one crew man is injured and the rest are fine?

    How many times were challenger and Abrams got penetrated by KE or HEAT rounds ? On how many instance did the casulty were restricted to one crew member.

    From what I understand Abrams were never penetrated till date and Challenger had one penetration but do you have any stastics ?

    A penetrator... and it might surprise you but HEAT penetrators actually work like APFSDS penetrators at the speeds and energies involved... everything is treated like a liquid, because at above a km per second that is how armour reacts to penetrations of solids (APFSDS at 1.5-2km/s) and much higher speed liquids (HEAT rounds with liquid metal beams of material at 4-5km/s).

    From what I understand the KE penetrators would could more over all destruction compared to HEAT that would blow a hole and kill any one inside if its in its path.

    Very simply both are designed to penetrate armour and if they both spread out and killed everything inside it wouldn't have been concentrated enough to penetrate the armour in the first place.

    Thats a valid argument but even if their concentrate their force at one spot , these molten metal would still fly inside the tank and not outside as they try to penetrate , if the molten mentals do fly and crew end up in their path it would injure them badly.

    The only time everyone dies in an armoured vehicle is when ammo and fuel is ignited and there is an internal explosion.

    Or the explosive blow up due to direct hit from fragements or due to shock.

    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16334
    Points : 16965
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Question Thread: Russian Army

    Post  GarryB on Mon May 30, 2011 8:11 am

    And it might well happen , the crew might inhale toxic fumes and the shock from hit might disorient him , the kevlar spall might break and fly around and kill.

    Kevlar is a fabric like clothing... if it broke apart it would be like threads of cotton.

    In case of T-90A ,T-72 or earlier T series ammo is loose in crew compartment and it might blow at it hits it , with T-90AM it will be much safer as there is no loose ammo.

    The tank crew itself has the choice of what ammo to carry and where.

    Even the Abrams has about 8 rounds normally stored in the crew compartment, which if penetrated could explode.

    From what I understand Abrams were never penetrated till date and Challenger had one penetration but do you have any stastics ?

    Remember that article about a side hull penetration of an Abrams by some unknown weapon. They suggested it was some super weapon because standard RPGs shouldn't be able to penetrate and how the penetrator metal was unusual?
    It didn't fill the vehicle with shrapnel and lethal super hot metal gas that killed everyone.

    That RPG book posted a while back even mentions that it takes dozens of RPGS to take out an APC because of the low lethality of the weapons if it does not detonate internal ammo or fuel.

    From what I understand the KE penetrators would could more over all destruction compared to HEAT that would blow a hole and kill any one inside if its in its path.

    Both are lethal to anything they travel through physically... but a KE or HEAT warhead going through someones leg is not an immediately lethal hit... they might bleed to death, but it is very unlikely to kill them outright.

    Thats a valid argument but even if their concentrate their force at one spot , these molten metal would still fly inside the tank and not outside as they try to penetrate , if the molten mentals do fly and crew end up in their path it would injure them badly.

    A KE penetrator will push aside armour to penetrate and so it is pretty much the penetrator and spall from the inner layer of armour that is the problem with KE penetrations. Anti Spall liners deal with most spall so the threat to the crew is the remaining penetrator which will largely still be very concentrated to continue to penetrate armour.
    A HEAT softens the material it is penetrating and as it penetrates into air cavities it will tend to spread a little but spaced armour can be used so that the first time it breaks through the armour and reaches an airpocket it is still inside the main armour and as it spreads slightly on exiting the first piece of armour the beam of penetraing metal is spread when it hits the next layer of armour reducing its penetration. Only the concentrated central portion of the beam will have the energy to get through the next section of armour layers so when it finally penetrates into the crew compartment it has less energy. It is still travelling very fast but remains a fairly focused beam that will not fill the tank with death. In many ways it will act like a kinetic penetrator with the spreading material around it caught by the anti spall liner.

    Or the explosive blow up due to direct hit from fragements or due to shock.

    Step away from Hollywood movies here. The only things inside a tank that will blow up and kill everyone have to be able to blow up. 30 cal mg ammo is not enough... it will just burn and pop. You need diesel heated to past its flashpoint, or propellent or explosive. The diesel is present in fuel form and the propellent and explosive are main gun ammo. There is nothing else inside a tank that will explode when hit.

    The only alternative is APHE ammo where the projectile delivers its own explosive... and for most modern weapons that is becoming more necessary.

    Look at the rise of anti material rifles.

    Great for shooting light armoured and unarmoured vehicles like trucks and humvees.

    Except that now the light armoured vehicles like MRAPs are getting better armour and unarmoured vehicles like trucks and jeeps are becoming very rare beasts indeed.

    The 50 APDS might penetrate it at long range but that is all it will do... punch a hole in and out.

    Hense the 30mm Russian weapon recently revealed. 30mm would normally be overkill on such vehicles for penetration, but it means that an APHE can be developed that is very effective.

    The smaller cheaper 50 cal weapons will penetrate but are too small and light to both penetrate and carry a decent HE charge.

    The 30mm round on the other hand has plenty of penetration while allowing room for a decent HE charge so that as the round penetrates the armour of an MRAP vehicle the fuse will sense when it is through the armour and detonate a small charge to fill the vehicle with lethal fragments.

    Explosions inside vehicles are much more effective at killing people because you get the blast and the fragments but you also get a sudden increase in pressure from the contained explosion and also blast waves bounce of the inside of the armour so you get the main blast and then reflected blast energy from the internal walls of the vehicle as they bounce around.

    Compare that with a tiny armour piercing core that goes in one side of the vehicle and out the other side.

    njb1

    Posts : 17
    Points : 17
    Join date : 2011-03-24

    Re: Question Thread: Russian Army

    Post  njb1 on Wed Jun 01, 2011 3:30 pm

    Not seen anything in the 'plan' for ground forces on buying / developing the improved AK200 assault rifle - or am I missing some thing?


    Austin

    Posts : 6237
    Points : 6643
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: Question Thread: Russian Army

    Post  Austin on Wed Jun 01, 2011 3:46 pm

    njb1 wrote:Not seen anything in the 'plan' for ground forces on buying / developing the improved AK200 assault rifle - or am I missing some thing?


    Ak-200 is not a major system that would come under "plan" like a ssbn , it would be part of future soldier system and eventually after clearing all trial it would be inducted without much fanfare.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16334
    Points : 16965
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Question Thread: Russian Army

    Post  GarryB on Thu Jun 02, 2011 5:56 am

    Ak-200 is not a major system that would come under "plan" like a ssbn , it would be part of future soldier system and eventually after clearing all trial it would be inducted without much fanfare

    Exactly...

    Just like the Pecheneg PKP light machinegun has been entering service replacing the RPK-74M in some roles without media coverage.

    In many ways the AK-200 seems to be an upgrade to fix some of the obvious and easy to fix problems with the rifle before the full next gen replacement is ready.

    In many ways it is the T-90AM/BTR-82/Su-35 to a Armata/Boomerang/Pak Fa... we just don't know anything at all about what will replace it... liquid or gel propellent? Caseless ammo? Bullpup or standard design?

    Knowing the Russians will will be cool.
    avatar
    nightcrawler

    Posts : 535
    Points : 651
    Join date : 2010-08-20
    Age : 27
    Location : Pakistan

    Re: Question Thread: Russian Army

    Post  nightcrawler on Fri Jun 17, 2011 9:09 pm

    I have a question regarding front mounted tanks fo instance Merkava. Among the many problems associated with this technique one particularly trouble me is heat-shimmering. Back in 80s the thermal imaging equipment got busted by heat shimmers but are the modern ones too inherit this flaw. I mean will there be any sighting problems for the crew at night when their front-engine is fully thermally active...
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16334
    Points : 16965
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Question Thread: Russian Army

    Post  GarryB on Sat Jun 18, 2011 8:04 am

    I have a question regarding front mounted tanks fo instance Merkava. Among the many problems associated with this technique one particularly trouble me is heat-shimmering. Back in 80s the thermal imaging equipment got busted by heat shimmers but are the modern ones too inherit this flaw. I mean will there be any sighting problems for the crew at night when their front-engine is fully thermally active...

    I have had long arguments over front mounted engines in tanks on the internet... some think that if you don't do this then you don't care about the crew.

    My arguments against is that an engine is not armour and is a poor substitute for armour. Engines in front greatly increase frontal IR signature and can effect IR optics under some circumstances.
    And thirdly the advantage of the engine in front is that it allows either more ammo to be carried in the hull or passengers can be carried like a super APC.

    Israeli experience has shown using it like an APC is not a good idea, and I would suggest that putting lots of ammo in the rear hull is asking for trouble.
    avatar
    nightcrawler

    Posts : 535
    Points : 651
    Join date : 2010-08-20
    Age : 27
    Location : Pakistan

    Re: Question Thread: Russian Army

    Post  nightcrawler on Sun Jun 19, 2011 8:41 pm

    Thnx;
    One other factor that if you may want to discuss that using front mounted engine the turret position is displaced rearwards. Isn't this also increase the 'body exposure' of the crew member handling the top gun for neutralising threats from front:
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16334
    Points : 16965
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Question Thread: Russian Army

    Post  GarryB on Mon Jun 20, 2011 10:02 am

    That is actually a factor I didn't really consider.

    An external gun mount could be used to raise the gun and allow better weapon depression, but shifting the gun rearward will limit its depression capabilities.

    AlexanderGiorev

    Posts : 1
    Points : 4
    Join date : 2011-06-30

    RUSSIAN ARMY SOLDIER BATTLE PREPARATION

    Post  AlexanderGiorev on Fri Jul 01, 2011 10:47 pm

    Excuse me can someone please answer. Is the tactical shooting ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yj8ATqtJ1a0&feature=channel_video_title ) and the moving in group ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zxdxx5iqLtw&feature=relmfu ) and the so called high speed shooting ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KRqrQDk16_k&feature=related ) only trained to special units or do the russian commanders train the regular army soldier to the tactical and high speed shooting ?? Thank you.

    ehtesham

    Posts : 3
    Points : 7
    Join date : 2011-10-03

    APC BTR 80

    Post  ehtesham on Mon Oct 03, 2011 7:42 pm

    Can any one help me finding manufacturers/Suppliers of Spare Parts for APC BTR 80 from Russia. Would be very helpful. Thanks
    avatar
    Vladimir79

    Posts : 2180
    Points : 3072
    Join date : 2009-07-10

    Re: Question Thread: Russian Army

    Post  Vladimir79 on Tue Oct 04, 2011 2:51 am

    You can contact the makers at Arzamas...

    http://www.amz.ru/

    You have a surplus BTR-80?

    Sponsored content

    Re: Question Thread: Russian Army

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Wed Aug 23, 2017 9:37 pm