Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Question Thread: Russian Army

    Share

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15495
    Points : 16202
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Question Thread: Russian Army

    Post  GarryB on Sun Nov 03, 2013 6:34 am

    The T-95 was like the Commanche.

    If the cold war had continued then it might have made sense but with the end of the cold war it was a very expensive tank that would have operated with a range of other vehicles that would be vulnerable to enemy fire... just like today most conflicts the US will operate attack helos in will not have extensive radar coverage so a radar evading helicopter makes little sense and is expensive.

    The Armata MBT will likely be a T-95BIS, or T-95SMT, fitted for but not with a more powerful 15xmm calibre gun.

    The difference is that now they will have entire brigades of armata vehicles that can operate in very dangerous environments.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    collegeboy16
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1207
    Points : 1234
    Join date : 2012-10-05
    Age : 20
    Location : Roanapur

    Re: Question Thread: Russian Army

    Post  collegeboy16 on Sun Nov 03, 2013 11:30 am

    SSDD wrote:Why this tank project was cancelled? This tank has to had 152 mm smooth bore gun as main armament and 30 mm autocannon as secondary weapon. It would be an extemely power full tank, why it was cancelled?dunno 

    Is there any thing to do with brain drain?confused 
    you waffen ss from dfi?
    anyway i think 125mm ETC gun is much better than humongous 152 mm gun. You could fire apfsds and HE with same muzzle energy as 152mm gun and you also have a lot of ammo, though 152 mm offers unparalleled HEAT weapons at standoff (arty) ranges.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15495
    Points : 16202
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Question Thread: Russian Army

    Post  GarryB on Mon Nov 04, 2013 8:56 am

    It is all about energy... for a given diameter of barrel and the same level of technology level of propellent, and materials and ways to make gun barrels when you reach the limits of the barrel and propellent technology and metalurgy for making gun barrels and penetrators then to make a large step up in performance you have to increase the calibre.

    The larger the calibre the more energy you can push down the barrel.

    Larger calibres also mean wider HEAT shells which means more effective HEAT shells, and in terms of gun launched missiles the larger calibres mean more efficient HEAT warheads and also more room for electronics and extra propulsion and guidance options.

    In other words a bigger missile means adding computerised guidance to allow fire and forget performance.

    Having said all that... a new calibre is expensive and larger and heavier which means new loading and handling equipment and fewer rounds per vehicle etc etc.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Rpg type 7v
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 420
    Points : 284
    Join date : 2011-05-01

    Re: Question Thread: Russian Army

    Post  Rpg type 7v on Mon Nov 04, 2013 7:21 pm

    well there is not much true information about t-95 for now , lets wait for armata and more data about t-95 ,then we can compare.

    flamming_python
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3193
    Points : 3321
    Join date : 2012-01-30

    Re: Question Thread: Russian Army

    Post  flamming_python on Mon Nov 04, 2013 8:02 pm

    Yes unfortunately the T-95s 'brain-drain gun', it's secondary turret weapon wasn't ready yet.

    They fitted it with the standard co-axial machine gun instead, but when taken altogether they realised that such a configuration wouldn't offer that much of an advantage over the competing Armata project while being considerably more expensive. So they halted the project.

    Zivo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1504
    Points : 1540
    Join date : 2012-04-13
    Location : U.S.A.

    Re: Question Thread: Russian Army

    Post  Zivo on Tue Nov 05, 2013 12:13 am

    Here's my conjecture...

    1] Object 195 was designed first and foremost as an MBT, with modular properties.

    2] Armata was designed from the beginning as a universal platform.

    I believe the MoD felt that by investing in Armata, they could modernize and replace a lot more vehicles for less cost. I also believe the restructuring of the Russian military is a necessity, and Armata was chosen to fill the requirement of high part-commonality required to keep modernization costs to a minimum. Performance of the vehicle had little importance in the decision.




    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15495
    Points : 16202
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Question Thread: Russian Army

    Post  GarryB on Tue Nov 05, 2013 10:42 pm

    T-95 was a tank program to replace the T-90/72 family of tanks... much the same way the PAK FA was to replace the Flankers and Fulcrums.

    The problem was that the conflict in Chechnia made them realise that mobility was important, as was protection and firepower, and that sometimes lighter, more mobile vehicles were needed and at other times heavy well protected vehicles were needed.

    This led to a change in thinking... instead of making one MBT (ie T-95) and one IFV (BMP-4) and one APC (BTR-82) and one light armoured vehicle (BRDM-4), that for each operational brigade you need all the vehicles to have similar levels of mobility and similar levels of protection, so they all should arrive together, and they should all be able to withstand similar levels of enemy fire.

    It means the MBTs wont be left on their own after the enemy have picked off all the light vehicles like BMPs and BTRs.

    The solution was a completely clean sheet of paper.

    There was only one T-95 and it was a main battle tank with a rear mounted engine.

    Armata is a vehicle family that includes vehicles with the engine at the back, a turret in the middle and crew in the front like the MBT, but it also includes IFVs and APCs which likely have front mounted engines so the troops can exit from rear ramps.

    A lot of things that were developed for T-95 will have been transfered directly to the T-99 (ie Armata MBT)... but the point is that there will likely be four T-99s... T-99h for heavy, T-99mw for medium wheeled, T-99mt for medium tracked and T-99l for light... the heavy model will be tracked and the light model will be wheeled, but they will all share electronics and sensors and weapons.

    The T-99l might have a 45/57mm gun because it is simply too light for a 125mm gun for instance but it will have Kornet-EM missiles to allow it to engage enemy MBTs if they stumble on them in combat.

    The brigade structure with the four vehicle types was theoretical and was pretty much passed to the Russian MIC when the T-95 was cancelled so they all started from scratch then, but the companies these design requirements were passed to started from scratch in terms of layout, but they could use existing things where useful... not everything needed to be made from scratch.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Werewolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5391
    Points : 5640
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    New Ammunition in Service?

    Post  Werewolf on Tue Mar 04, 2014 11:24 pm

    I wanted to know if there is somehwere reliable source or official source about ammunition that entered active service. Manufactors develope all kind of ammunitions but the problem is just because ammunition exists it doesn't mean it is in active service.

    An example: russia tried to introduce new 30 mm AP rounds (APDS) since early 00s and so far i couldn't find anything credible that this ammunition is in service. Majority of outdated information still state that russian army and vvs use old AP-T rounds with rather mediocre penetration capabilities compared with newer designs.

    collegeboy16
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1207
    Points : 1234
    Join date : 2012-10-05
    Age : 20
    Location : Roanapur

    Re: Question Thread: Russian Army

    Post  collegeboy16 on Wed Mar 05, 2014 5:38 am

    a new armour piercing round would be nice, tho imo its not that needed. A 30 mm round optimized for soft targets and lightly armored ones would be better.

    im42
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 21
    Points : 27
    Join date : 2014-09-04

    Efficent evolution of AK

    Post  im42 on Thu Sep 18, 2014 3:32 pm

    Greetings forumers
    I want to topic on the topic with no offshots to keep it clean na informative. As you know the AK rifle has its limitation due to the nature of design that bloomed back in late 40s. As the design hold and will to do so the efficent design it is far from being perfect and here comes the topic. What would you change if you could apart the caliber ie. 5.45x39, receiver and overall self loading system. I am hoping for viable ideas that are "easy" to accomodate. As firearms aren't of much importance in whole picture of full scale conflict they can be really beneficial in smaller ones or in certain scenarios. Move yer heads and lets start the brainstorm forumers ... there might be a jewel hiding in someones skull Wink.
    Cheers !

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15495
    Points : 16202
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Question Thread: Russian Army

    Post  GarryB on Sat Sep 20, 2014 5:54 am

    There can only be two replies to this sort of thread... make it a bolt action (ie the Mosin strong solution), and the turn it into an AR (ie the AR strong solution).

    Personally I think all the real and perceived issues and details of the AK-74 have been identified and addressed in the AK12 design and I also think that one should be sent to me immediately so that I can test it thoroughly and make a video of my observations and musings to post on the internet...


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Anas Ali
    Corporal
    Corporal

    Posts : 57
    Points : 104
    Join date : 2013-02-12
    Age : 28
    Location : Egypt

    9S18M1 Snow Drift , Buk-M2 and Tor-M2

    Post  Anas Ali on Mon Nov 10, 2014 3:35 pm



    i am need help finding detail information not just specs about the 9S18M1 Snow Drift and the Acquisition Radars and Engagement Radar of the Buk-M2 and Tor-M2

    thanks so much in advance

    zg18
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 872
    Points : 948
    Join date : 2013-09-26
    Location : Zagreb , Croatia

    Re: Question Thread: Russian Army

    Post  zg18 on Tue Nov 11, 2014 3:44 pm

    Anas Ali wrote:

    i am need help finding detail information not just specs about the 9S18M1 Snow Drift and the Acquisition Radars and Engagement Radar of the Buk-M2 and Tor-M2

    thanks so much in advance

    I would suggest starting from Russian Wikipedia

    https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/9%D0%A118

    or pvo.guns

    http://pvo.guns.ru/buk/buk_12.htm

    Hope it helps


    Anas Ali
    Corporal
    Corporal

    Posts : 57
    Points : 104
    Join date : 2013-02-12
    Age : 28
    Location : Egypt

    Re: Question Thread: Russian Army

    Post  Anas Ali on Tue Nov 11, 2014 6:20 pm


    ^^
    thanks a lot Wink

    r111
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 31
    Points : 39
    Join date : 2014-11-24

    The death of direct impingement .

    Post  r111 on Mon Nov 24, 2014 3:07 pm

    Marines had enough of a weapon that "throws up into his own mouth". Enter the M27.
    Surely Army is to follow. Spec ops already seem to be H&K mostly.

    Zee Germans (H&K) managed to add a simple piston to AR design with very minimal changes.
    The bolt, instead of gas port, now has an anvil - that piston rod strikes to cycle. The piston/rod is very thin and lightweight, compared to AK design.

    more or less the only change. Charging handle is the same.

    The rifling in standard issue is cold hammered.

    Visited a friend recently and we shot his AR. Was my first experience with it and I was amazed to see a number of jams in a very controlled and clean env. Can only imagine what it behaves like in real world conditions. Took US from Nam till now (half a century) to close this sad chapter.

    Anyway, i had this question - why we, the soviets/russians, never fielded a direct impingement weapon. Now I know Smile


    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15495
    Points : 16202
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Question Thread: Russian Army

    Post  GarryB on Tue Nov 25, 2014 4:53 am

    The irony is that with very modern very clear burning propellent the lack of a piston rod is not actually a bad thing.

    The real problem is that when the use of the M16 became popular and the demand for ammo increased by an order of magnitude the production capacity of the clean burning powder was exceeded by a wide margin... to some dork decided to change to standard ball powder and the rest, as they say, is history.

    With a new propellent a piston rod is not critical, but you need to have very clean burning powder.

    Obviously other solutions were worth a look... the SVD and FN FAL both have light weight piston rods that are not directly connected to the bolt carrier that greatly reduce weight and recoil as they only move a few cms.

    The FN FAL also has the separate upper and lower, with the mag well and barrel as the upper and the pistol grip and firing mechanism and recoil spring as the lower.

    The fact that the mag well is part of the upper means different calibre uppers can have different mags, so unlike the M16 uppers in 7.62 x 39mm the FN FAL upper could be made to use standard AK mags... that would be cool. Smile


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Zivo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1504
    Points : 1540
    Join date : 2012-04-13
    Location : U.S.A.

    Re: Question Thread: Russian Army

    Post  Zivo on Tue Nov 25, 2014 5:10 am

    Welcome to the forum.

    I've handled many AR-15's from various manufacturers. I must admit, I'm not an AR "expert" by any sense of the word, but I've got plenty of range time with them. I'm assuming you're Russian, and I don't know what AR's you have on that side of the world. In my experience if the AR is a unmodified mil spec rifle from a reputable manufacturer, shooting decent ammo, the rifle will have good reliability even if it isn't perfectly clean. If you change one of those factors, reliability will degrade.

    In the US, many manufacturers produce AR's modified with pistons. I've shot a few, and was never impressed by them. In regards to the AR, the tolerances seem to be more of a problem than where the rifle's gas ends up. The flimsy piston is just another part to clean, and another piece that gets covered in crap and stuck. Even AK's crap were they eat even though they have a piston, but the weight and loose fitting of the bolt carrier and piston just plows through the debris.

    Successful rifles are ones that can achieve a balance in reliability and performance, and there are multiple design solutions to achieve this.

    r111
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 31
    Points : 39
    Join date : 2014-11-24

    Re: Question Thread: Russian Army

    Post  r111 on Tue Nov 25, 2014 12:41 pm

    Bottom line - a weapon that is not 100% reliable is a no go for mil.

    One thing when u engage a rag tag (ISIS) from a distance and have puff-the-magic dragon overhead and steady supply of helos and A10s doing close air support. Occasional jam here and there aint a big deal.

    Another game altogether is spec ops deep in enemy territory ("lone survivor) or "black-hawk-down or "the outpost" (breach of def perim), where it has to work every single time or you're dead.

    Even with cleanest burning powder, there will inevitable impurities fouling up the bolt and that is the main/only(?) flaw of direct impingement.

    But good thing is that only minimal mod is required to convert DI-design into piston-operated weapon.

    And of course then one has to decide just how much gas to "steal" to power the piston and how heavy to make the carrier group. Less = less recoil, but less reliability in case of debris.

    higurashihougi
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2130
    Points : 2245
    Join date : 2014-08-13
    Location : A small and cutie S-shaped land.

    Re: Question Thread: Russian Army

    Post  higurashihougi on Tue Nov 25, 2014 1:20 pm

    The problem is that, the father and mother of AR-15, that is Eugene Stoner and Armalite company, had already thrown the DI into the waste basket.

    Eugene Stoner's Stoner 63 used the stroke-piston system similar to AK. Armalite AR-15 re-introduce the SVT gas-operated system with rectangular receiver chamber, foldable buttstock thanks to the spring DOES NOT lies in the buttstock.

    But the adopted father, Colt, had eaten the shit of propaganda and advertisement, and transmitted the shit into the American public that AR-15 (and the successor M16) has revolutionary design, is the best rifle, the most popular, the weapon of hero against terrorist AK-47... And as a result, the U.S. army has adopted the most hated rifle as its standard weapons.

    The famous service rifles of European countries, like FN FAl or HK G-xx, none of them use the DI. None of them used the cylindrical receiver chamber, and most of them do not put the spring into the buttstock to make the buttstock unfoldable (well, GarryB has pointed out that some European rifles put the spring into the buttstock, and I trust him).

    Being the slave and vassals of the U.S., European countries have to use U.S. barrel and U.S. standard of catridge, and even G36 has to use th 7 locking lugs bolt of Colt. But none of them accept the DI system.

    M16 goes into the history as the most hated gun in the world, and suffer the most humiliating defeat in the history of assault rifles as nobody in Europe accepts it.

    Look at around the world, the service rifles of all the countries in this world: ah, systems which are similar to or based on Russian and German ones. American legendary DI ? No.

    A good gun has to open fire when the user want it to. M16 legendary DI with legendary choking issues and deforming due to uneven heat ? No.

    Meanwhile AK's air vessel's diameter is equal to 2/3 of the caliber of M16. It can't choke.

    Look at the reality of Afganistan and Iraq. The U.S. tried its best to equipped M16 versions for the local troops. But then, even the U.S. troops started to hate the M16 and seek for AKs. U.S. has no choice but buying the AK versions of Eastern Europe allies. And since the Eastern Europe allies started to tag along with NATO standard, the U.S. had no choice but ask Russia for AKs. And it is said that 70000 Russian AKs had been made for the U.S. allies in the Middle East.

    r111
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 31
    Points : 39
    Join date : 2014-11-24

    Re: Question Thread: Russian Army

    Post  r111 on Tue Nov 25, 2014 2:20 pm

    Yep, indeed, another serious fault of DI is the inevitable heating up of the bolt by the gases. Most things tend to expand when heated.

    H&K actuator rod is disconnected from the piston to reduce heat transfer even further.

    higurashihougi
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2130
    Points : 2245
    Join date : 2014-08-13
    Location : A small and cutie S-shaped land.

    Re: Question Thread: Russian Army

    Post  higurashihougi on Tue Nov 25, 2014 3:53 pm

    The DI system and the inline buttstock of M16 is adapted with the expectation of reducing the recoil.

    But the problem is that, when you desire accuracy, you never open fire in full burst. You open fire in very short burst of 2-3 shot. To save the ammunition, and to make a very small effect of recoil.

    Real battlefield is not Rambo, not Hollywood. A solider can carry a very limited ammount of ammunition. You cannot waste your ammunition, you can't BAM BAM BAM like in Hollywood.

    You open fire in full burst in supressive fire, cover fire, or fire while you are running. In such case, scattering is desirable, or is already so large that recoil is not a problem.

    And the angled buttstock of the AK is designed so that the gunner and lean the gun into his cheek for a more proper aiming.

    That is how Russia designs a weapon. Not only the weapon, but also the doctrine and the training behind that weapon.

    Again, a good gun need to open fire when you want it to. aka it needs high reliablility.

    That is the reason why the BM-13 Katyusha use the rail, not the tube. The tube has many advantages, but in the 1940s there is not enough technology to provide a sufficient reliablility for the tube system. (probably this is the conservativeness that GarryB has mentioned many times)

    Stiangul
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 3
    Points : 9
    Join date : 2015-01-09

    Whats the name of the equipment in this picture??

    Post  Stiangul on Fri Jan 16, 2015 8:44 pm

    Hello, so my question is whats the name of the equipment the russian army had when they entered Crimea in 2014? Is it the new ratnik gear? Heres a picture: http://im.rediff.com/news/2014/mar/01sld2.jpg

    max steel
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 2980
    Points : 3014
    Join date : 2015-02-12
    Location : South Pole

    Re: Question Thread: Russian Army

    Post  max steel on Thu Apr 02, 2015 11:51 pm

    Analysts say Russia needs quality growth of its armed forces

    Analysts say Russia needs quality growth of its armed forces



    QUERY : Where does Russia armed forces lack as compared to US armed soldiers ? what quality do they lack unshaven ? Less experience ? scratch

    henriksoder
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 24
    Points : 41
    Join date : 2015-04-03

    Re: Question Thread: Russian Army

    Post  henriksoder on Sat Apr 04, 2015 7:43 am

    max steel wrote: Analysts say Russia needs quality growth of its armed forces  

    Analysts say Russia needs quality growth of its armed forces



    QUERY : Where does Russia armed forces lack as compared to US armed soldiers ? what quality do they lack unshaven  ? Less experience ? scratch

    I think US army got better got better equipment on the battlefield, for example high-technology drones, tanks and aircrafts with high precision and weapons which is stronger than Russia's. US army is better trained, they can better obtain a stronger offensive and defensive than the Russian army can. Still, Russia got almost three times more tanks, many well experinced soldiers and can almost control the sea with their many corvettes and warships. They can fulfil a stronger offensive than US army can, but US army is better equipped to face a Russian invasion than the Russian army are.

    sepheronx
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 7302
    Points : 7612
    Join date : 2009-08-06
    Age : 27
    Location : Canada

    Re: Question Thread: Russian Army

    Post  sepheronx on Sat Apr 04, 2015 7:47 am

    henriksoder wrote:
    max steel wrote: Analysts say Russia needs quality growth of its armed forces  

    Analysts say Russia needs quality growth of its armed forces



    QUERY : Where does Russia armed forces lack as compared to US armed soldiers ? what quality do they lack unshaven  ? Less experience ? scratch

    I think US army got better got better equipment on the battlefield, for example high-technology drones, tanks and aircrafts with high precision and weapons which is stronger than Russia's. US army is better trained, they can better obtain a stronger offensive and defensive than the Russian army can. Still, Russia got almost three times more tanks, many well experinced soldiers and can almost control the sea with their many corvettes and warships. They can fulfil a stronger offensive than US army can, but US army is better equipped to face a Russian invasion than the Russian army are.

    What?

    Do you know how they train in Russia?  Do you know the equipment they field?  Russia also has high quality tanks, aircrafts and drones with high percision weapons.  KAB missiles are all guided, Kh missiles are all guided and high percision.  Su-27's are all high tech.  T-90s and T-72B3's are all high tech.  Russian army has plenty of experience and their training is pretty much no difference.  Plenty of surprise drills, and now aircraft pilots train as much as US pilots per hour. Or are you the type to believe that M4's mean high tech and skills?

    Sponsored content

    Re: Question Thread: Russian Army

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 12:54 pm


      Current date/time is Sun Dec 11, 2016 12:54 pm