Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Question Thread: Russian Army

    Share

    Austin
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5678
    Points : 6084
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Age : 40
    Location : India

    Re: Question Thread: Russian Army

    Post  Austin on Fri Jun 17, 2011 6:46 pm

    A nice upgrade for BMP-2

    KBP-designed modernized fighting compartment of the BMP-2 - an efficient way of upgrading armoured vehicles

    Kornet-E ATGW armour penetration increase up to 1000-1200mm provides the reliable engagement of advanced ERA-protected tanks (Leclerc, Abrams, Leopard

    At 1200 mm RHA penetration should this be good for frontal penetration of western tanks with ERA ?

    medo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3052
    Points : 3150
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: Question Thread: Russian Army

    Post  medo on Fri Jun 17, 2011 9:07 pm

    Berezhok turret is good product from KBP, but I don't know if Russian army order any of them, maybe for BTR-90 prototypes.

    nightcrawler
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 559
    Points : 687
    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...

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: Question Thread: Russian Army

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

    At 1200 mm RHA penetration should this be good for frontal penetration of western tanks with ERA ?

    You have to keep in mind that there are many variables to penetration for HEAT warheads... if the missile does not hit at the correct angle penetration figures are greatly reduced.

    Of course the angle of the vehicle also effects what armour is exposed and how it is exposed... a tank driving down a steep slope could easily expose its very vulnerable roof to missiles.

    In combat choke points are often used for traps... for example a single bridge over a river too deep to ford would be an ideal place for an ambush where ATGM launchers are set up down the river to fire upon tanks on the bridge or just getting off it.

    Trapping a large number of tanks on the bridge and then blowing up the bridge is an example of using tactics to defeat armour.


    Smart use of missiles should mean that you don't need to penetrate the front of tanks.

    In combat you might focus your missiles on IFV and deliver anti tank mines to deal with the heavier vehicles for example.

    Berezhok turret is good product from KBP, but I don't know if Russian army order any of them, maybe for BTR-90 prototypes.

    It was standard Russian tradition to apply upgrades to vehicles during overhaul... this upgrade would certainly be cheaper than buying a BMP-3M. The point is that with a new vehicle in development for production in 2015 do you spend money on the old or save it to buy more new. The other issue is the C4IR system they are working hard on... an upgrade to use this on standard BMP-2s will cost money anyway. Giving them this upgrade combined with a C4IR upgrade will give valuable experience that could be applied to the design of the new tracked IFVs they are working on.

    I rather suspect some will receive this upgrade.

    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.

    nightcrawler
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 559
    Points : 687
    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:

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    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
    Private
    Private

    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.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: Question Thread: Russian Army

    Post  GarryB on Sat Jul 02, 2011 3:12 am

    Sorry, this is not an answer to your question, but has more information about the new German training simulator the Russians are buying that I mentioned in another thread.

    France and Germany are establishing a closer military co-operation with Russia
    2011-06-29 | Andrzej Wilk

    Russia and France on 17 June signed a contract for the construction of two Mistral class helicopter carriers for the Russian Navy. On the same day, in the shade of the Russian-French agreement, a Russian-German deal on building a modern combat training centre was struck. The centre will be based on the Russian army’s training ground in Mulino near Moscow, which is the largest in Europe. While the contract of sale of the French ships to Russia – which has been commented on by the press worldwide from the very beginning – is mainly of political significance and bears no significant impact on the condition of the Russian fleet, the implementation of the Russian-German deal – which has not been given any publicity – will fundamentally improve the combat capacity of the Russian armed forces.



    France is selling helicopter carriers to Russia

    Negotiations concerning Russia’s purchase of Mistral class ships from France, which are capable of transporting an equipped battalion (units of this class are capable of transporting 40 tanks, 450 soldiers and 16 heavy helicopters) started in November 2009. The purchase of the amphibious assault carriers – the first ones in its fleet – was not most important for Russia since they are not sufficiently grounded from the point of view of the navy use doctrine (this has been confirmed by contradictory Russian reports on the future allocation of the units and their tasks). What was most important were the modern command and communication systems which the ships are equipped with. One proof for the fact that Russian demands regarding the electronic equipment of the ships have been satisfied at least partly (contrary to the reservations which have been voiced also in France) was the concern expressed by the French Defence Ministry, which has announced it will examine the details of this contract. This may mean that the ship equipment issues will still be a subject of complicated negotiations.
    Finally, the parties reached an agreement on building two ships in France in co-operation with Russian companies (they will supply for example elements of the hull and the ship-borne attack helicopters); the estimated value of the contract is 1.2 billion euros. The ships will be built by the French-Russian DCNS-OSK shipbuilding consortium, which has been established specially for this purpose. The shares of Russian shipbuilders in the construction of the first two ships at the French Saint-Nazaire shipyard will reach 20% and 40% respectively. The first Mistral class ship for Russia is to be ready in late 2013/early 2014, and the second one is expected one year later. The option of building a further two such units, which has been announced in Russia on numerous occasions, appears purely hypothetical at the moment. The Russian armament programme by 2020 allocates no funds for the purchase of more Mistral ships. However, it is worth noting that on 17 June Russia signed one more contract with the French-Korean shipbuilding corporation, STX (the owner of DCNS), which provides for the construction of a shipway to be used for the construction of large combat ships at the Admiralteyskaya Verf shipyard in Saint Petersburg. It is likely to be used by Russia to build completely different units for the Russian navy, for example a new aircraft carrier, which is currently being designed.


    Germany is building a modern combat training centre for the Russian army

    The creation of a Russian new-generation combat training centre in co-operation with Germany is one of the key elements of the Russian army’s modernisation process. The centre is to enable comprehensive training – both with the use of 3D simulators and in training ground conditions – for an expanded tactical formation (brigade), including an exercise engagementbetween two brigades. This will be the first facility of this kind in the Russian army (very few Western armies have similar training centres) and will change fundamentally the way and the nature of the training of the Russian ground forces as well as the air forces and airborne forces which co-operate with them. The centre will enable the Russian army to shorten and improve the security of the training process, to evaluate more precisely the level achieved by the trained units and to substantially cut expenses.
    Progress in the work on the creation of this centre is unusually rapid; the decision to create it in co-operation with Germany was made in December 2010, the Russian Defence Ministry and Germany’s Rheinmetall company signed a contract to design the centre in February 2011 and an agreement on 17 June envisaging the centre’s construction by 2013, when it is expected to commence its training activity (the centre is to reach complete readiness in 2014). The estimated value of the contract is 280 million euros, which includes simulators ordered by the Russian army in Germany, the same as those used at the Bundeswehr training centres. However, the nature of this co-operation is not strictly commercial; as progress in the implementation of the project to construct the centre is made, co-operation is being intensified between the Russian armed forces and the German army (they signed a memorandum of co-operation in the training of officers and non-commissioned officers in February this year), and the contracts are preceded by talks between senior officials representing the defence ministries of the two countries. According to some Russian sources, the Mulino combat training centre is also to be used in future by the Bundeswehr, which does not have such a large facility.


    Conclusion

    The deals with France and Germany constitute a small part of the Russian army’s modernisation programme currently underway. They confirm, however, that the Russian defence sector is still backward in selected areas, mainly those involving electronics, in comparison to the arms industries of the leading Western countries. On the other hand, the deals are a sign of regularly increasing Russian expenditure on military purposes, which are currently close to 3% of the country’s GDP. The Russian Federation intends to spend some 500 billion euros on the development and purchase of weapons and military equipment by 2020.
    It is worth noting the level of publicity the two deals have been given; the press has devoted a large amount of attention to the talks on the purchase of the French ships by Russia since their commencement, and some countries which believe that the Russian army poses a potential threat to them (mainly Estonia and Georgia) have also protested against the possibility this contract being signed. In turn, the German-Russian co-operation on the building of the combat training centre has never been an issue discussed in the press. In Germany this is a taboo subject like the previous signs of the Bundeswehr’s military co-operation with the Russian armed forces (for example, during the putting into orbit of a group of German military satellites).
    The two contracts clearly show the differences in the approaches of France and Germany to military co-operation with Russia. In the case of Paris this co-operation is mainly of a business and political nature, while Berlin is focusing on the business and military aspects which in future may offer benefits to both parties – regardless of the training co-operation between the Russian Armed Forces and the Bundeswehr, German firms are counting on more contracts linked to the technical modernisation of the Russian army. This is the reason why the process of reaching agreement and consequently the levels of publicity given to those two deals in the press worldwide have been different.

    Andrzej Wilk, co-operation Piotr Żochowski


    Copyright © 1996-2011 OSW | Centre for Eastern Studies | ul. Koszykowa 6A, 00-564 Warszawa, Poland | phone: (+48 22) 525 80 00 | fax: (+48 22) 525 80 40 | e-mail: info@osw.waw.pl

    Source: http://www.osw.waw.pl/en/publikacje/eastweek/2011-06-29/france-and-germany-are-establishing-a-closer-military-cooperation-rus

    Pervius
    Senior Sergeant
    Senior Sergeant

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

    Re: Question Thread: Russian Army

    Post  Pervius on Sat Jul 02, 2011 7:52 pm

    Russia buying a training simulator from Germany?

    Oh that will end well. The Stuxnet virus that hit the IRanian reactor targeted the German components.

    That simulator could end up taking down Russia's networks....give others an eye to see how Russian Commanders plan to act in war.

    What a stupid purchase. Russia could have made it's own training simulator...reach out and get some of those unemployed Chinese code writers..hire them to make it in Russia...then just kill them when it's done. Very cheap to make things this way. And keep security.

    So Russian Army soldier should not act as they train. Do what's not expected because the other side already knows what you will do.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: Question Thread: Russian Army

    Post  GarryB on Sun Jul 03, 2011 7:06 am

    It is a training simulator... there is no need to connect it to the air defence network or any other military network.

    They can put trojans and viruses and bugs all through the system... it wont matter.

    Most of the software can be rewritten anyway... the Russians have plenty of computer simulation game programmers and they can write the software to suit the hardware being attached to the system.

    I rather doubt the Russians will want to share military technical performance data with Germany so they can program the system to accurately simulate the performance of certain hardware.

    I think this is a brilliant purchase for Russia that will allow two brigade sized formations train and practise without burning fuel, wearing out tanks, or using expensive new guided ammo. It will allow them to train from individual vehicles or weapon stations (ie manpads and ATGMs teams) right up to armoured units and entire brigades against entire brigades.

    Performance can be monitored and checked and recorded for later analysis, and new weapons and command and control systems can be tested without needing the actual hardware in service.

    They can develop new hardware and create simulators for it and test it with the simulator for ease of use before a test deployment to check to make sure the users are using it as intended (remember all training is recorded and can be reviewed and analysed).
    They can also train on any terrain in any conditions day or night and any weather, without threat of cancellation or frostbite cases.
    They can recreate scenarios to test forces to be sent into places like the Caucuses.

    Most NATO countries don't have this simulation capability...

    ...and the US is grumpy about Russia buying 4 helicopter carriers from France!

    The point is that once they have bought this simulator it can be used as a model for future Russian designed and made simulators with Russian code, Russian military symbology and Russian hardware.

    This system will need replacing or seriously upgrading in 2015 anyway because of the new hardware that will be entering service will require all new hardware simulators developed so that will be a good opportunity to upgrade the electronic hardware and software too.

    I am so incredibly jealous that new Russian recruits will get a chance to play the ultimate LAN games, before using the real thing in real exercises. pirat

    ehtesham
    Private
    Private

    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

    Vladimir79
    Grand Marshal
    Grand Marshal

    Posts : 2193
    Points : 3099
    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?

    ehtesham
    Private
    Private

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

    Re: Question Thread: Russian Army

    Post  ehtesham on Tue Oct 04, 2011 3:41 am

    Thanks for the reply. In fact, I want Parts seller of APC BTR 80. I do not have surplus any.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: Question Thread: Russian Army

    Post  GarryB on Tue Dec 06, 2011 12:45 pm

    If you are considering buying a second hand BTR-80 and you want to make sure you can get parts for it can I suggest you contact Rosoboronexport, their webpage is http://www.roe.ru/

    They will likely have lots of BTR-60s, BTR-70s, and BTR-80s available for sale, or know who to contact with a serious interest.

    It is pretty unlikely you will get a super cheap bargain one, but also less chance you will end up double crossed.

    If you don't buy you vehicle from them then it is unlikely they will feel obliged to help you with support.

    Keep in mind the BTR-60s and BTR-70s had two engines and had a complicated drive train, but with the right manuals and training they should be relatively simple to maintain.

    The BTR-80 will have just one larger single diesel engine.

    AFAIK they might have options like custom civilian modifications on new or old vehicles.

    Obviously there are also other issues like getting it road legal and even just getting it into your country.

    I have seen some interesting civilian modifications of the BRDM-2 with enlarged windows and side doors, but retaining the belly wheels and central tire regulation system and amphibious capability.

    Looked fun, but were not cheap.

    Of course as Vlad pointed out the makers of the BTR-80 would be the best people to contact for spare parts.

    http://www.amz.ru/

    Of course because you are in Bangladesh, perhaps contacting your local Army base to enquire who they have their spares supplied by might be worth a crack... the worst result is they don't reply...

    If you are after a cheap vehicle, then Rosoboronexport might be a good place to start... Russia is moving from a mish mash of BTR-60s, BTR-70s, and BTR-80s, to BTR-82 and later Boomerang ( a 25 ton wheeled vehicle), so they will likely be thinking about what they are going to do with their older vehicles.

    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: Question Thread: Russian Army

    Post  George1 on Wed Feb 15, 2012 10:16 pm

    BMP-3 is going to be replaced with a more modern IFV?

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: Question Thread: Russian Army

    Post  GarryB on Wed Feb 15, 2012 10:46 pm

    Yes.

    The Kurganets-25 will be a tracked 25 ton amphibious vehicle family similar to the current BMP-3 in role but likely with newer firepower options (talk of 45mm and 57mm guns) and a rear ramp door.

    In medium tracked brigades the tank, the APC, the artillery, the Air defence, and all the other vehicles in the unit will be based on the Kurganets-25.

    In medium wheeled brigades the Boomerang wheeled 25 ton amphibious vehicle family similar to the BTR-90 but 5 tons heavier and with a rear ramp and side doors will be used as the tank, the APC, the artillery, the air defence etc etc vehicles.

    The Navy is also getting a developed version of the Kurganets-25 with better rough sea keeping capabilities and propeller drive in water.

    flamming_python
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3182
    Points : 3310
    Join date : 2012-01-30

    Re: Question Thread: Russian Army

    Post  flamming_python on Wed Feb 15, 2012 10:59 pm

    I wonder what the VDV will get. Somehow they need to get something with enough armour that they won't be afraid to stay inside of, but at the same time something that won't drop like a stone through water when it's paradropped from the back of an Il-76.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: Question Thread: Russian Army

    Post  GarryB on Thu Feb 16, 2012 12:57 am

    Amphibious and air dropable and with excellent firepower.

    There was a video somewhere where the makers of the new medium vehicles were interviewed and they talked about Kurganets-25 and Boomerang, and they mentioned that these "light" vehicles were made of expensive materials that gave them added protection above the level current vehicles enjoy.

    First off the BMP-3 is 18 tons so the 25 ton Kurganets-25 is 7 tons heavier... and I really don't see how the armament of the Kurg can be heavier than the BMP-3 as it is already rather heavy, so the vast majority of the extra weight will be a bigger engine and extra armour.

    The BMD-4M is probably in the 18 ton weight range too.

    The Kurganets-25 will be designed to operate in rivers and lakes without modification, but to operate in heavy sea states the Navy is ordering their own version of the tracked vehicle with propeller drive for use in the water and the ability to operate in rough water.

    It would not be beyond imagination that the VDV do something similar and order a Kurganets-25 that is perhaps slightly redesigned to suit airborne operations.

    I suspect with Slat armour and NERA fitted they will actually be very capable vehicles.

    In the mean time the last report I read said the vast majority of VDV vehicles were BMD-2s, so I think a purchase of BMD-4Ms is overdue... and when any new vehicle based on the Kurganets-25 is ready then the BMD-4Ms in service could be transferred to other duties... with excellent firepower and communications and vision devices and excellent mobility I am sure they will find another use for them... even as a border patrol vehicle in arctic regions...

    Of course they could always go the other way and look at the Typhoon light vehicle and go for a combination of speed and firepower

    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Soviet "Big 7". Russian Big-7??

    Post  George1 on Fri Apr 27, 2012 3:26 pm

    In 1981 U.S. military published this poster illustrating 7 types of Red Army equipment that were expected to inflict the most damage on NATO should a war with Warsaw Pact break out.




    1.ZSU-23-4 anti-aircraft weapon
    2.T-72 tank
    3.SA-8 Gecko surface-to-air missile system
    4.Mi-24 Hind-D gunship
    5.BMP-1 ainfantry combat vehicle
    6.2S1 Gvozdika 122mm self-propelled gun
    7.2S3 Akatsiya 152mm self-propelled gun



    What about the new Russian Big-7. Which systems would include?


    Last edited by George1 on Mon Feb 15, 2016 11:31 am; edited 1 time in total

    George1
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: Question Thread: Russian Army

    Post  George1 on Fri Apr 27, 2012 3:37 pm

    1. Tunguska-M1 anti-aircraft weapon
    2. T-90 Main Battle Tank
    3. Tor-M2 SAM System
    4. Mi-28 Attack Helicopter
    5. BMP-3 Infantry Fighting Vehicle
    6. Tornado-G MRLS
    7. 2S19 Msta self-propelled howitzer

    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: Question Thread: Russian Army

    Post  TR1 on Fri Apr 27, 2012 10:11 pm

    Russia has no Tor-M2 in service

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: Question Thread: Russian Army

    Post  GarryB on Sat Apr 28, 2012 12:42 am

    After their experience in Afghanistan I rather suspect a list like this:

    Pecheneg,
    RPG-28,
    RPG-29,
    Kornet,
    Smerch/Tornado,
    Iskander,
    Igla-S

    medo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3052
    Points : 3150
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: Question Thread: Russian Army

    Post  medo on Sat Apr 28, 2012 9:44 am

    TR1 wrote:Russia has no Tor-M2 in service

    No? Interesting. In December last year they reported, that first Tor-M2U were deployed in south military district.

    http://www.itar-tass.com/en/c154/307597.html

    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: Question Thread: Russian Army

    Post  TR1 on Sat Apr 28, 2012 11:59 pm

    medo wrote:
    TR1 wrote:Russia has no Tor-M2 in service

    No? Interesting. In December last year they reported, that first Tor-M2U were deployed in south military district.

    http://www.itar-tass.com/en/c154/307597.html

    Well, this is one of those cases where I default to "Pics or I am suspicious".
    Thanks for link though.

    flamming_python
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3182
    Points : 3310
    Join date : 2012-01-30

    Re: Question Thread: Russian Army

    Post  flamming_python on Sun Apr 29, 2012 4:29 pm

    War with NATO?

    Voyevoda
    Topol-M
    Tu-160
    Tu-95
    Tu-22M3
    Iskander-M
    Sineva

    There you have it. The Big 7 Very Happy

    Sponsored content

    Re: Question Thread: Russian Army

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 12:52 pm


      Current date/time is Thu Dec 08, 2016 12:52 pm