Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Share
    avatar
    George1

    Posts : 10222
    Points : 10710
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  George1 on Thu Dec 01, 2016 8:07 am

    Russian Ground Forces will hold drills with India, Pakistan, CSTO countries in 2016

    More:
    http://tass.com/defense/915796


    _________________
    "There's no smoke without fire.", Georgy Zhukov

    avatar
    George1

    Posts : 10222
    Points : 10710
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  George1 on Sun Dec 04, 2016 1:47 pm

    New motor rifle division to guard Russia’s southern frontiers

    Over 1,500 conscripts will serve in the new division

    MOSCOW, December 2. /TASS/. Russia’s new 150th motor rifle division has started defending the country’s southern frontiers, Defense Minister Army General Sergei Shoigu said on Friday.

    "I want to note that the 150th motor rifle division has started performing tasks for the defense of frontiers in the country’s south since yesterday," Shoigu said.

    The division’s first cantonment was erected within short time limits thanks to new construction technologies, the defense minister said.

    As Russia’s Southern Military District reported earlier, over 1,500 conscripts will serve in the new division.

    As the Defense Ministry reported earlier, the 150th Idritsa-Berlin Kutuzov Order of the 2nd Degree Motor Rifle Division being established in Russia will start planned combat training from December 1, 2016.

    The division will comprise motor rifle and tank regiments, an artillery regiment, an antiaircraft missile regiment, signals units, reconnaissance and logistics formations. The division will be armed with modern types of combat hardware: T-90A tanks, BMP-3 infantry fighting vehicles and BTR-80 armored personnel carriers.


    More:
    http://tass.com/defense/916438


    _________________
    "There's no smoke without fire.", Georgy Zhukov


    par far

    Posts : 1403
    Points : 1560
    Join date : 2014-06-26

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  par far on Wed Dec 07, 2016 8:09 pm

    "RUSSIA OFFICIALLY CREATES ‘SUPER-LIGHT BATTALION’, ARMS IT WITH UAZ PATRIOT COMBAT VEHICLES (INFOGRAPHICS)."

    "The press service of Russia’s Central military district announced Wednesday that a super-light battalion with UAZ “Patriot” combat vehicles was deployed as a part of the newly formed motorized infantry brigade in the Samara region".

    "The battalion was created as result of analysis of the combat expirience gained by the Russian military in Syria".

    "90 units of UAZ “Patriot” combat vehicles equipped with machine guns are set to be delivered to the batalion until the end of 2017".




    https://southfront.org/russia-officially-creates-super-light-motorized-battalion-arms-it-with-uaz-patriot-combat-vehicles-infographics/


    avatar
    VladimirSahin

    Posts : 414
    Points : 432
    Join date : 2013-11-29
    Age : 26
    Location : Florida

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  VladimirSahin on Wed Dec 07, 2016 9:06 pm

    Please tell me that's some kind of sick joke.
    avatar
    franco

    Posts : 2388
    Points : 2426
    Join date : 2010-08-18

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  franco on Wed Dec 07, 2016 11:07 pm

    VladimirSahin wrote:Please tell me that's some kind of sick joke.

    I agree but the first battalion of a new brigade and there are plans for a second brigade of them.
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 1299
    Points : 1324
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  eehnie on Thu Dec 08, 2016 1:39 am

    franco wrote:
    VladimirSahin wrote:Please tell me that's some kind of sick joke.

    I agree but the first battalion of a new brigade and there are plans for a second brigade of them.

    It is also very rare for me. It would be a mistake in my view.

    Outside of Syria, where the adversary is very low armed, the survival rate of this kind of unit would be very low in my view.

    This combat style seems more for the type of adversary of the Security Forces than for the Armed Forces.
    avatar
    VladimirSahin

    Posts : 414
    Points : 432
    Join date : 2013-11-29
    Age : 26
    Location : Florida

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  VladimirSahin on Thu Dec 08, 2016 3:31 am

    franco wrote:
    VladimirSahin wrote:Please tell me that's some kind of sick joke.

    I agree but the first battalion of a new brigade and there are plans for a second brigade of them.

    I'm thinking someone in the MoD maybe drank too much or something. 2 Brigades of these??!!! That's embarrassing. Looking forward to NATO soldiers laughing at the toyota brigades in a possible future war, they'll probably wonder if they're in Afghanistan or Iraq seeing such units.
    avatar
    miketheterrible

    Posts : 1093
    Points : 1093
    Join date : 2016-11-06

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  miketheterrible on Thu Dec 08, 2016 3:49 am

    VladimirSahin wrote:
    franco wrote:
    VladimirSahin wrote:Please tell me that's some kind of sick joke.

    I agree but the first battalion of a new brigade and there are plans for a second brigade of them.

    I'm thinking someone in the MoD maybe drank too much or something. 2 Brigades of these??!!! That's embarrassing. Looking forward to NATO soldiers laughing at the toyota brigades in a possible future war, they'll probably wonder if they're in Afghanistan or Iraq seeing such units.  

    You are aware the purpose of these right?  Recon and quick run and gun.  Such tactics have been used often and without proper equipment.  Add in the equipment and they will have no problem.

    Most of the US forces casualties are due to such tactics.  I don't think the US forces laughed so hard when they were getting blown up or overran but I know I sure did especially when it happened in Iraq where they had a lot of heavy equipment in.  But I see you are from the US.

    It is highly maneuverable unit, it is intended to conduct lightning fast raids on the enemy from the flanks and unprotected areas. Also highlights a significant increase in mobility during operations in settlements.

    So in other words, used in soft areas that doesn't need a heavy hand.  Because we all know Russia's experience in placing heavy equipment in city centers in lets say Grozny.
    avatar
    SeigSoloyvov

    Posts : 515
    Points : 519
    Join date : 2016-04-08

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  SeigSoloyvov on Thu Dec 08, 2016 4:31 am

    VladimirSahin wrote:
    franco wrote:
    VladimirSahin wrote:Please tell me that's some kind of sick joke.

    I agree but the first battalion of a new brigade and there are plans for a second brigade of them.

    I'm thinking someone in the MoD maybe drank too much or something. 2 Brigades of these??!!! That's embarrassing. Looking forward to NATO soldiers laughing at the toyota brigades in a possible future war, they'll probably wonder if they're in Afghanistan or Iraq seeing such units.  

    Um no I serve in the United States Military, Ground Forces. Lightning fast units with high mobility are very very deadly if used correctly. These units aren't meant to attack defended positions but raid unprotected or lightly defended areas.

    Go in destroy shit and get out before a force can get in range and react. These tactics utterly trashed the Army and the marines themselves had a hard time dealing with it, mind you I was a marine for over eight years. So unless you have more than ten years combat experience than I do (doubt that) I can without a doubt say you have no idea what a REAL battlefield is like or what the situation is like on them.

    Fun fact I have been to Syria with the kurds, I have been to Iraq. I've even had the Ruskies drop a couple of air strikes near my position (didn't know we was there).

    Still let me tell you a story of WW2 how in Africa. The Brit would load up jeeps with machine guns drive into the German airfields and destroy the aircraft on the ground while dealing with meager resistance in a real war not even base will have hundreds of armed guards. Then drove away before anyone could stop them.

    The creation of such units does serve a tactical point granted, if the Russians can utilize them properly well that's another story.

    Units like these require targets of opportunity is the thing they aren't made for direct fighting.

    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 1299
    Points : 1324
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  eehnie on Thu Dec 08, 2016 1:36 pm

    miketheterrible wrote:You are aware the purpose of these right?  Recon and quick run and gun.  Such tactics have been used often and without proper equipment.  Add in the equipment and they will have no problem.

    SeigSoloyvov wrote:Go in destroy shit and get out before a force can get in range and react. These tactics utterly trashed the Army and the marines themselves had a hard time dealing with it, mind you I was a marine for over eight years. So unless you have more than ten years combat experience than I do (doubt that) I can without a doubt say you have no idea what a REAL battlefield is like or what the situation is like on them.

    Fun fact I have been to Syria with the kurds, I have been to Iraq. I've even had the Ruskies drop a couple of air strikes near my position (didn't know we was there).

    This is useful only vs low armed adversaries, With the current weapon range, the use of these units in scenarios like the Donbass is far more difficult, if not impossible. In this kind of scenarios, it is run, gun and die, because after the attack the unit is fairly exposed to all the types of mid-long range weapons (man portable antitank weapons, artillery of all the types, MRLS,...).
    avatar
    miketheterrible

    Posts : 1093
    Points : 1093
    Join date : 2016-11-06

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  miketheterrible on Thu Dec 08, 2016 3:26 pm

    Uh, no.

    In Donbass, they are usually using light forces like standard ground troops with atgm's and heavier weapons like recoiless rifles and mortars to hit positions. Their heavier units - T-64's with BTR's and BMP-2's are used more on front line.
    avatar
    SeigSoloyvov

    Posts : 515
    Points : 519
    Join date : 2016-04-08

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  SeigSoloyvov on Thu Dec 08, 2016 7:32 pm

    eehnie wrote:
    miketheterrible wrote:You are aware the purpose of these right? Recon and quick run and gun. Such tactics have been used often and without proper equipment. Add in the equipment and they will have no problem.

    SeigSoloyvov wrote:Go in destroy shit and get out before a force can get in range and react. These tactics utterly trashed the Army and the marines themselves had a hard time dealing with it, mind you I was a marine for over eight years. So unless you have more than ten years combat experience than I do (doubt that) I can without a doubt say you have no idea what a REAL battlefield is like or what the situation is like on them.

    Fun fact I have been to Syria with the kurds, I have been to Iraq. I've even had the Ruskies drop a couple of air strikes near my position (didn't know we was there).

    This is useful only vs low armed adversaries, With the current weapon range, the use of these units in scenarios like the Donbass is far more difficult, if not impossible. In this kind of scenarios, it is run, gun and die, because after the attack the unit is fairly exposed to all the types of mid-long range weapons (man portable antitank weapons, artillery of all the types, MRLS,...).

    Not every area will have these you seem to think every single unit is afforded these things they REALLY aren't. Most units have minimal shit, only the units expected to push are given heaven weapons. This is a Fairy tale among civi's that everywhere you go on a battlefield you will find a tank or ATGM.

    The type of things these guys would attack would be targeted with small arms. The US doesn't give every unit half the shit you spoke of only the frontline units get that stuff, rear line units don't.
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 1299
    Points : 1324
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  eehnie on Thu Dec 08, 2016 8:08 pm

    SeigSoloyvov wrote:
    eehnie wrote:
    miketheterrible wrote:You are aware the purpose of these right?  Recon and quick run and gun.  Such tactics have been used often and without proper equipment.  Add in the equipment and they will have no problem.

    SeigSoloyvov wrote:Go in destroy shit and get out before a force can get in range and react. These tactics utterly trashed the Army and the marines themselves had a hard time dealing with it, mind you I was a marine for over eight years. So unless you have more than ten years combat experience than I do (doubt that) I can without a doubt say you have no idea what a REAL battlefield is like or what the situation is like on them.

    Fun fact I have been to Syria with the kurds, I have been to Iraq. I've even had the Ruskies drop a couple of air strikes near my position (didn't know we was there).

    This is useful only vs low armed adversaries, With the current weapon range, the use of these units in scenarios like the Donbass is far more difficult, if not impossible. In this kind of scenarios, it is run, gun and die, because after the attack the unit is fairly exposed to all the types of mid-long range weapons (man portable antitank weapons, artillery of all the types, MRLS,...).

    Not every area will have these you seem to think every single unit is afforded these things they REALLY aren't. Most units have minimal shit, only the units expected to push are given heaven weapons. This is a Fairy tale among civi's that everywhere you go on a battlefield you will find a tank or ATGM.

    The type of things these guys would attack would be targeted with small arms. The US doesn't give every unit half the shit you spoke of only the frontline units get that stuff, rear line units don't.

    With the range of the current MRLSs of the current heavy artillery pieces and of the current man-portable anti-tank, rockett and missile launchers, outside of scenarios with adversaries with very small density of these weapons like Syria or Iraq, it is almost impossible to find a unit totally uncovered, unless a big strategic mistake of the adversary.

    These configurations for the UAZ-3163 Patriot as "combat" vehicle are in my view only valid vs adversaries with very low density of powerful weapons. In the case of Russia it would be right to be used by the Russia Security forces, because their adversaries are of this condition, or to export.

    I doubt this new is accurate. Maybe only some plan of someone officer. It means modifications of the originally accepted UAZ-3163 that surely should face new tests to be accepted for the proposed purpose, that is also different of the original.
    avatar
    SeigSoloyvov

    Posts : 515
    Points : 519
    Join date : 2016-04-08

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  SeigSoloyvov on Thu Dec 08, 2016 10:16 pm

    eehnie wrote:
    SeigSoloyvov wrote:
    eehnie wrote:
    miketheterrible wrote:You are aware the purpose of these right? Recon and quick run and gun. Such tactics have been used often and without proper equipment. Add in the equipment and they will have no problem.

    SeigSoloyvov wrote:Go in destroy shit and get out before a force can get in range and react. These tactics utterly trashed the Army and the marines themselves had a hard time dealing with it, mind you I was a marine for over eight years. So unless you have more than ten years combat experience than I do (doubt that) I can without a doubt say you have no idea what a REAL battlefield is like or what the situation is like on them.

    Fun fact I have been to Syria with the kurds, I have been to Iraq. I've even had the Ruskies drop a couple of air strikes near my position (didn't know we was there).

    This is useful only vs low armed adversaries, With the current weapon range, the use of these units in scenarios like the Donbass is far more difficult, if not impossible. In this kind of scenarios, it is run, gun and die, because after the attack the unit is fairly exposed to all the types of mid-long range weapons (man portable antitank weapons, artillery of all the types, MRLS,...).

    Not every area will have these you seem to think every single unit is afforded these things they REALLY aren't. Most units have minimal shit, only the units expected to push are given heaven weapons. This is a Fairy tale among civi's that everywhere you go on a battlefield you will find a tank or ATGM.

    The type of things these guys would attack would be targeted with small arms. The US doesn't give every unit half the shit you spoke of only the frontline units get that stuff, rear line units don't.

    With the range of the current MRLSs of the current heavy artillery pieces and of the current man-portable anti-tank, rockett and missile launchers, outside of scenarios with adversaries with very small density of these weapons like Syria or Iraq, it is almost impossible to find a unit totally uncovered, unless a big strategic mistake of the adversary.

    These configurations for the UAZ-3163 Patriot as "combat" vehicle are in my view only valid vs adversaries with very low density of powerful weapons. In the case of Russia it would be right to be used by the Russia Security forces, because their adversaries are of this condition, or to export.

    I doubt this new is accurate. Maybe only some plan of someone officer. It means modifications of the originally accepted UAZ-3163 that surely should face new tests to be accepted for the proposed purpose, that is also different of the original.


    Again no it was rare you could arty cover when I was in Iraq during operation Freedom and beyond. The artillery guns including self-propelled are hardly ever able to cover when needed. This is again another civi illusion that arty is always there and always ready guess what it's not, in fact, you learned not to depend on arty.

    Again you are assuming EVERY single unit under the sun will have these weapons when in reality they do not. I have experience here, I know how the military works. I have done NATO, I have trained with Brits, Japanese and more. If you avoid the main lines and shock units very few have heavy weapons of that type and the arty won't be around to save your ass if you get attacked in rear lines like that either they never did for me when I was in the marine.

    Fuck I had many cases where I was stuck in a goddam hole for days at a time with those bastards all around us.

    Hell the CIA gave the rats thousands of AT weapons and consider their size (manpower) every man should have one by your logic guess what they don't either. So what you are saying isn't accurate at all in how stuff goes down on the BF again. There is a difference between how you think this stuff works and how it really goes down.
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 1299
    Points : 1324
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  eehnie on Thu Dec 08, 2016 11:05 pm

    SeigSoloyvov wrote:
    eehnie wrote:
    SeigSoloyvov wrote:
    eehnie wrote:
    miketheterrible wrote:You are aware the purpose of these right?  Recon and quick run and gun.  Such tactics have been used often and without proper equipment.  Add in the equipment and they will have no problem.

    SeigSoloyvov wrote:Go in destroy shit and get out before a force can get in range and react. These tactics utterly trashed the Army and the marines themselves had a hard time dealing with it, mind you I was a marine for over eight years. So unless you have more than ten years combat experience than I do (doubt that) I can without a doubt say you have no idea what a REAL battlefield is like or what the situation is like on them.

    Fun fact I have been to Syria with the kurds, I have been to Iraq. I've even had the Ruskies drop a couple of air strikes near my position (didn't know we was there).

    This is useful only vs low armed adversaries, With the current weapon range, the use of these units in scenarios like the Donbass is far more difficult, if not impossible. In this kind of scenarios, it is run, gun and die, because after the attack the unit is fairly exposed to all the types of mid-long range weapons (man portable antitank weapons, artillery of all the types, MRLS,...).

    Not every area will have these you seem to think every single unit is afforded these things they REALLY aren't. Most units have minimal shit, only the units expected to push are given heaven weapons. This is a Fairy tale among civi's that everywhere you go on a battlefield you will find a tank or ATGM.

    The type of things these guys would attack would be targeted with small arms. The US doesn't give every unit half the shit you spoke of only the frontline units get that stuff, rear line units don't.

    With the range of the current MRLSs of the current heavy artillery pieces and of the current man-portable anti-tank, rockett and missile launchers, outside of scenarios with adversaries with very small density of these weapons like Syria or Iraq, it is almost impossible to find a unit totally uncovered, unless a big strategic mistake of the adversary.

    These configurations for the UAZ-3163 Patriot as "combat" vehicle are in my view only valid vs adversaries with very low density of powerful weapons. In the case of Russia it would be right to be used by the Russia Security forces, because their adversaries are of this condition, or to export.

    I doubt this new is accurate. Maybe only some plan of someone officer. It means modifications of the originally accepted UAZ-3163 that surely should face new tests to be accepted for the proposed purpose, that is also different of the original.


    Again no it was rare you could arty cover when I was in Iraq during operation Freedom and beyond. The artillery guns including self-propelled are hardly ever able to cover when needed. This is again another civi illusion that arty is always there and always ready guess what it's not, in fact, you learned not to depend on arty.

    Again you are assuming EVERY single unit under the sun will have these weapons when in reality they do not. I have experience here, I know how the military works. I have done NATO, I have trained with Brits, Japanese and more. If you avoid the main lines and shock units very few have heavy weapons of that type and the arty won't be around to save your ass if you get attacked in rear lines like that either they never did for me when I was in the marine.

    Fuck I had many cases where I was stuck in a goddam hole for days at a time with those bastards all around us.

    Hell the CIA gave the rats thousands of AT weapons and consider their size (manpower) every man should have one by your logic guess what they don't either. So what you are saying isn't accurate at all in how stuff goes down on the BF again. There is a difference between how you think this stuff works and how it really goes down.

    No, Im not assuming that every single unit has these weapons. I'm saying that there are them in a distance shorter to the range of fire of the weapons. This in the refered to the heavy weapons. In the refered to the man-portable weapons, every unit of a decent army has something enough vs unarmoured trucks.

    Also I said: It is almost impossible to find a unit totally uncovered, unless a big strategic mistake of the adversary. Now you can explain me all the strategic mistakes commited by your army or your adversaries.

    cheesfactory

    Posts : 49
    Points : 49
    Join date : 2015-01-01

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  cheesfactory on Fri Dec 09, 2016 1:33 am

    eehnie wrote:
    SeigSoloyvov wrote:
    eehnie wrote:
    SeigSoloyvov wrote:
    eehnie wrote:
    miketheterrible wrote:You are aware the purpose of these right?  Recon and quick run and gun.  Such tactics have been used often and without proper equipment.  Add in the equipment and they will have no problem.

    SeigSoloyvov wrote:Go in destroy shit and get out before a force can get in range and react. These tactics utterly trashed the Army and the marines themselves had a hard time dealing with it, mind you I was a marine for over eight years. So unless you have more than ten years combat experience than I do (doubt that) I can without a doubt say you have no idea what a REAL battlefield is like or what the situation is like on them.

    Fun fact I have been to Syria with the kurds, I have been to Iraq. I've even had the Ruskies drop a couple of air strikes near my position (didn't know we was there).

    This is useful only vs low armed adversaries, With the current weapon range, the use of these units in scenarios like the Donbass is far more difficult, if not impossible. In this kind of scenarios, it is run, gun and die, because after the attack the unit is fairly exposed to all the types of mid-long range weapons (man portable antitank weapons, artillery of all the types, MRLS,...).

    Not every area will have these you seem to think every single unit is afforded these things they REALLY aren't. Most units have minimal shit, only the units expected to push are given heaven weapons. This is a Fairy tale among civi's that everywhere you go on a battlefield you will find a tank or ATGM.

    The type of things these guys would attack would be targeted with small arms. The US doesn't give every unit half the shit you spoke of only the frontline units get that stuff, rear line units don't.

    With the range of the current MRLSs of the current heavy artillery pieces and of the current man-portable anti-tank, rockett and missile launchers, outside of scenarios with adversaries with very small density of these weapons like Syria or Iraq, it is almost impossible to find a unit totally uncovered, unless a big strategic mistake of the adversary.

    These configurations for the UAZ-3163 Patriot as "combat" vehicle are in my view only valid vs adversaries with very low density of powerful weapons. In the case of Russia it would be right to be used by the Russia Security forces, because their adversaries are of this condition, or to export.

    I doubt this new is accurate. Maybe only some plan of someone officer. It means modifications of the originally accepted UAZ-3163 that surely should face new tests to be accepted for the proposed purpose, that is also different of the original.


    Again no it was rare you could arty cover when I was in Iraq during operation Freedom and beyond. The artillery guns including self-propelled are hardly ever able to cover when needed. This is again another civi illusion that arty is always there and always ready guess what it's not, in fact, you learned not to depend on arty.

    Again you are assuming EVERY single unit under the sun will have these weapons when in reality they do not. I have experience here, I know how the military works. I have done NATO, I have trained with Brits, Japanese and more. If you avoid the main lines and shock units very few have heavy weapons of that type and the arty won't be around to save your ass if you get attacked in rear lines like that either they never did for me when I was in the marine.

    Fuck I had many cases where I was stuck in a goddam hole for days at a time with those bastards all around us.

    Hell the CIA gave the rats thousands of AT weapons and consider their size (manpower) every man should have one by your logic guess what they don't either. So what you are saying isn't accurate at all in how stuff goes down on the BF again. There is a difference between how you think this stuff works and how it really goes down.

    No, Im not assuming that every single unit has these weapons. I'm saying that there are them in a distance shorter to the range of fire of the weapons. This in the refered to the heavy weapons. In the refered to the man-portable weapons, every unit of a decent army has something enough vs unarmoured trucks.

    Also I said: It is almost impossible to find a unit totally uncovered, unless a big strategic mistake of the adversary. Now you can explain me all the strategic mistakes commited by your army or your adversaries.

    Seig, now you know, all the real life problems on the frontline are strategic mistakes of your army/adversaries. Be thankful for this lesson Laughing
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16293
    Points : 16924
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  GarryB on Fri Dec 09, 2016 2:16 am

    The problem with all your experience in combat and all sorts of shit holes around the world is that it does not qualify you to talk about russian units the way someone who has actually been in the Russian army might have experience with.

    Your talk of artillery not being available all the time is amusing as it is my understanding that Tank divisions and Motor rifle divisions have their own organic artillery including mortars and artillery pieces and rocket launchers.

    They also have their own anti tank and anti aircraft components too.

    I am sure opposition to very light vehicles in a division is based on the USS Liberty Syndrome... take soft vessels armed only with a couple of HMGs into a war zone and don't be surprised if they get all shot up....

    Those dune buggy things covered in MGs and grenade launchers used by special forces suggests there is scope for their use, but certainly they would not be that useful everywhere.


    _________________
    “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
    avatar
    VladimirSahin

    Posts : 414
    Points : 432
    Join date : 2013-11-29
    Age : 26
    Location : Florida

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  VladimirSahin on Fri Dec 09, 2016 9:58 pm

    Okay look ten years of experience I can respect that, but the Russian way of battle is not the same as NATO's. If these brigades are made for unconventional roles I'd understand but that's a waste of manpower for no reason. UAZ Patriots look like f***** technicals. When I was in the VDV even with our arguably lighter armored IFVs we still relied on mobility and firepower as our main distinct function. We could still do all that stuff the MOD supposedly learned in Syria without the idiotic waste of manpower.

    Seriously... Look at what the f*** they are talking about. In Crimea we had units deployed in GAZ Tigrs which was a quick intervention with light forces... I wonder with the Technicals are we planning on going Guerrilla mode? Maybe we took lessons from the FSA? The Russian army does not need these units, as we already have light mobile forces... We need build our conventional pool up. The Russian territories are huge, the more actual useful units we can have the better. Honestly the only thing these "super light" infantry brigades would be useful for is against low intensity insurgency.

    The Russian military doctrine since the USSR relies on heavy firepower in our Operational-Strategic operations; these are a key distinct feature in our forces. If we're going to fight a war we need actual ground forces equipped with heavy IFVs to do what is needed. If these are made for counter-insurgency operations then that's also stupid because we have many other options to use without these brigades anyways. My final thoughts on this are: waste of manpower.
    avatar
    franco

    Posts : 2388
    Points : 2426
    Join date : 2010-08-18

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  franco on Fri Dec 09, 2016 10:37 pm

    I agree. An unit made of the new Scorpion LMV and the new Wolf LMV would have been useful both in this role and against a regular army. This SUV based unit would take a shit kicking against any regular army IMO.


    Last edited by franco on Sat Dec 10, 2016 12:02 am; edited 1 time in total
    avatar
    miketheterrible

    Posts : 1093
    Points : 1093
    Join date : 2016-11-06

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  miketheterrible on Fri Dec 09, 2016 11:00 pm

    VladimirSahin wrote:Okay look ten years of experience I can respect that, but the Russian way of battle is not the same as NATO's. If these brigades are made for unconventional roles I'd understand but that's a waste of manpower for no reason. UAZ Patriots look like f***** technicals. When I was in the VDV even with our arguably lighter armored IFVs we still relied on mobility and firepower as our main distinct function. We could still do all that stuff the MOD supposedly learned in Syria without the idiotic waste of manpower.

    Seriously... Look at what the f*** they are talking about. In Crimea we had units deployed in GAZ Tigrs which was a quick intervention with light forces... I wonder with the Technicals are we planning on going Guerrilla mode? Maybe we took lessons from the FSA? The Russian army does not need these units, as we already have light mobile forces... We need build our conventional pool up. The Russian territories are huge, the more actual useful units we can have the better. Honestly the only thing these "super light" infantry brigades would be useful for is against low intensity insurgency.

    The Russian military doctrine since the USSR relies on heavy firepower in our Operational-Strategic operations; these are a key distinct feature in our forces. If we're going to fight a war we need actual ground forces equipped with heavy IFVs to do what is needed. If these are made for counter-insurgency operations then that's also stupid because we have many other options to use without these brigades anyways. My final thoughts on this are: waste of manpower.

    This I agree with. If they just went with Tigrs and armored trucks, then it wouldn't be a big deal. But going with light trucks does give question to these units. Now I just wonder what exactly the plan is with them? Are the trucks lightly armored? I have seen standard vehicles used by mercenaries with basic upgrades in the door panels and windows using material for dampening or stopping shots from going through. Does this have it? Don't know. By looks of it, no.
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 1299
    Points : 1324
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  eehnie on Sat Dec 10, 2016 5:27 am

    cheesfactory wrote:
    eehnie wrote:
    SeigSoloyvov wrote:
    eehnie wrote:
    SeigSoloyvov wrote:
    eehnie wrote:
    miketheterrible wrote:You are aware the purpose of these right?  Recon and quick run and gun.  Such tactics have been used often and without proper equipment.  Add in the equipment and they will have no problem.

    SeigSoloyvov wrote:Go in destroy shit and get out before a force can get in range and react. These tactics utterly trashed the Army and the marines themselves had a hard time dealing with it, mind you I was a marine for over eight years. So unless you have more than ten years combat experience than I do (doubt that) I can without a doubt say you have no idea what a REAL battlefield is like or what the situation is like on them.

    Fun fact I have been to Syria with the kurds, I have been to Iraq. I've even had the Ruskies drop a couple of air strikes near my position (didn't know we was there).

    This is useful only vs low armed adversaries, With the current weapon range, the use of these units in scenarios like the Donbass is far more difficult, if not impossible. In this kind of scenarios, it is run, gun and die, because after the attack the unit is fairly exposed to all the types of mid-long range weapons (man portable antitank weapons, artillery of all the types, MRLS,...).

    Not every area will have these you seem to think every single unit is afforded these things they REALLY aren't. Most units have minimal shit, only the units expected to push are given heaven weapons. This is a Fairy tale among civi's that everywhere you go on a battlefield you will find a tank or ATGM.

    The type of things these guys would attack would be targeted with small arms. The US doesn't give every unit half the shit you spoke of only the frontline units get that stuff, rear line units don't.

    With the range of the current MRLSs of the current heavy artillery pieces and of the current man-portable anti-tank, rockett and missile launchers, outside of scenarios with adversaries with very small density of these weapons like Syria or Iraq, it is almost impossible to find a unit totally uncovered, unless a big strategic mistake of the adversary.

    These configurations for the UAZ-3163 Patriot as "combat" vehicle are in my view only valid vs adversaries with very low density of powerful weapons. In the case of Russia it would be right to be used by the Russia Security forces, because their adversaries are of this condition, or to export.

    I doubt this new is accurate. Maybe only some plan of someone officer. It means modifications of the originally accepted UAZ-3163 that surely should face new tests to be accepted for the proposed purpose, that is also different of the original.


    Again no it was rare you could arty cover when I was in Iraq during operation Freedom and beyond. The artillery guns including self-propelled are hardly ever able to cover when needed. This is again another civi illusion that arty is always there and always ready guess what it's not, in fact, you learned not to depend on arty.

    Again you are assuming EVERY single unit under the sun will have these weapons when in reality they do not. I have experience here, I know how the military works. I have done NATO, I have trained with Brits, Japanese and more. If you avoid the main lines and shock units very few have heavy weapons of that type and the arty won't be around to save your ass if you get attacked in rear lines like that either they never did for me when I was in the marine.

    Fuck I had many cases where I was stuck in a goddam hole for days at a time with those bastards all around us.

    Hell the CIA gave the rats thousands of AT weapons and consider their size (manpower) every man should have one by your logic guess what they don't either. So what you are saying isn't accurate at all in how stuff goes down on the BF again. There is a difference between how you think this stuff works and how it really goes down.

    No, Im not assuming that every single unit has these weapons. I'm saying that there are them in a distance shorter to the range of fire of the weapons. This in the refered to the heavy weapons. In the refered to the man-portable weapons, every unit of a decent army has something enough vs unarmoured trucks.

    Also I said: It is almost impossible to find a unit totally uncovered, unless a big strategic mistake of the adversary. Now you can explain me all the strategic mistakes commited by your army or your adversaries.

    Seig, now you know, all the real life problems on the frontline are strategic mistakes of your army/adversaries. Be thankful for this lesson Laughing

    I was rude first without reason. Sorry. Still the argument is valid. While to have a unit uncovered is a strategic mistake, other problems are possible, but are not sure enough to make an attack with these light Patriots vs a weak unit of a regular army like the Ukranian (not better). It is suicidal in my view. Run, gun and die.

    In the case of the Russian Armed Forces:

    In overall terms my position is critic with the light unarmoured or semiarmoured vehicles for roles in contested areas, because I think the soldiers are too exposed on them. I'm far from convinced about these vehicles. Neither the Tigr, the Iveco LMV, the Patriot, the Vodnik, the Skorpion, the BPM-97 4x4, the Typhoon 4x4 or the Falkatus convince me except for light utility vehicle role in uncontested areas, and here the value of including some armor on them is doubtful.

    In overall terms Russia is doing better than other countries in this chapter. I see these vehicles having troubles to be accepted for roles in contested areas. Russia would have better standards than other countries on this.

    In this case I would take the Typhoon 6x6 that are enough armoured and can reach 105 Km/h.

    In the case of the Russian security forces:

    For other security forces all can be fine. The solution would be to select the best of them.
    avatar
    SeigSoloyvov

    Posts : 515
    Points : 519
    Join date : 2016-04-08

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  SeigSoloyvov on Sat Dec 10, 2016 6:39 am

    @Eehnie

    First off tactical mistake of my army? a battle changes faster than you can imagine one second everything is going according to plan the next just twenty men fucked everything up. There is no battle where a tactical mistake isn't made. The thing is how big is the mistake.

    Now these vehicles, I highly doubt these will be the final production versions (That is a Syrian vehicle) if so that is a rather large mistake. I never committed on the vehicles themselves merely the formation of the unit does have it's place on a battlefield not the equipment they are given. I am not saying you are wrong but you are also under some misguided notions a battlefield is like how you think it is.

    Now if the picture we seen is the final Russian production version then yes that is beyond foolish give me a grenade launcher and that truck is dead. Now I will use a Syrian example for you. The Rebels for example. I know their equipment general numbers of what they had at one point in time they had MORE than enough light AT to cover every single unit, yet int he spaces where operations against them took place only around 40 percent of the space had these weapons present. Only the places that had the heaviest fighting where the SAA had the most armor, or that was critical in terms of strategic land was given these weapons. The areas where no combat was expected at most had small arms like rifles, even the SAA supply lines had areas where just guys with machine guns defended it.

    If a big enough force was detected they would send men from a reserve area to counter it. The rats used this against them really the SAA lost more supplies to this then will be admitted by them or the Russians. They got in fast hit hard and got out. Now you can argue "Well the SAA does have limited manpower..." sure but every army does this. Even Mother Russia.

    Now you can take my experience for what you want. I personally do not care, I just sought to inform you.

    @GarryB

    Again no, these units would be Hyena's basically attacking targets of opportunity. It's quite easy to find an uncovered line granted this depends on how large the area is. If it's a good amount of volume, not everything will be covered period if it's a small amount of space a unit like this is quite useless.

    These units will NOT be attacking Tank divisions and motorized divisions that would be suicide lol, when did I EVER say that's their MOS. You are putting words in my mouth and I don't care for that. Their targets are lightly defended rear lines. Guess what if they force the enemy to keep a sizeable formation to cover these lines they STILL did their job by averting manpower away from the front.

    Hm but I guess you have experience in a war outside of a screen?. I am not trying to be rude here, even if in the past I have found your attitude poor. However again wars hardly go how you like and on a battlefield things never go how you want 100 percent of the time. Welcome to the Unknown factors of war, so you can preach and preach and preach to me all you want on how this works and that works understand all I am doing here is shaking my head. Since I know first hand it does not.

    Consider I've been able to predict what the SAA will do considering they are Russian-trained and have been right 100 percent, I have a fairly good idea of how The Russian Army will react. I have studied them for years the battles in chech and such.

    I am most impressed by their win over Georgia however. Nothing but 10k conscripts defeated a professional trained Georgian military?. I worked with some of the men who helped train them. They won despite the sorry shit of excuse their army was at that point vehicles breaking down, shooting down your own aircraft and using cellphones to communicate?. So do not assume I do not take Russia has a threat. I hold them in a high regard one must know their enemy after all. It was a war Russia should have lost but they won in so little time.

    It was at that point Russia became a threat for me (nukes excluded). Granted I was an 18-year-old kid when I when they sent us for the first time into the wars. So sure I've made my fair share of blunders, I don't deny that but my experience and the fact I was in syria does allow me to speak. Then again, I don't remember talking how the unit will perform just that it does serve a tactical point and I then explained why. Then you once more proceed to say I was talking about how RUSSIAN units act or should act. When I wasn't I honestly SHOULDNT have replied to you. You stating things I never committed on, so please keep saying I made comments I never did.

    @Sahin

    You served in the the VDV? well, you guys are what I consider the biggest ground threat Russia has so hats off to you mate and I respect your service also.

    Are you saying the VDV is meant for the kind of roles these units are far has I know you guys aren't? You are highly mobile, yes, but not meant for hit and run supply raids. Could you do this job? yes but still that takes away from your manpower.

    These units are dedicated for this purpose not can do it to a lower degree if needed. The vehicles are shit, I agree I hope to see a final production version soon the one we are shown was Syrian after all. Crimea well Ukraine didn't want to start a conflict with you guys had they fought back things wouldn't have gone well for you guys. Sure you still would have taken it over but the losses would have quite noticeable. You guys did well taking it over with only one death that is QUITE impressive but the large factor is the Ukrainians didn't fight back and let your forces walk over them also but that was the correct choice they would have merely died in the end. Those light units you spoke of would have been forced back waiting for heavier forces had they fired back.

    So do not use Crimea has an example with me since the Army did not to fend those light interventions forces off and they could have easily if they wanted your GAZ Tigrs wouldn't have helped had the fighting started. I do not say this to discredit what happened. Crimea was a very good operation, excellent planning and execution TOP NOTCH by all accounts. also the biggest factor was you had the support of the people if you guys didn't have the people behind you, you would have NEVER done it.
    avatar
    VladimirSahin

    Posts : 414
    Points : 432
    Join date : 2013-11-29
    Age : 26
    Location : Florida

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  VladimirSahin on Sat Dec 10, 2016 4:35 pm

    @Seig I think there was maybe a misunderstanding, that's exactly the point I was trying to get across the light units aren't what's needed. During the Crimean operations however there were BTR-80s used as well. But the thing is these light units don't serve a multi-role function at all, basically limited to what you've said.

    As for hitting supply lines, or rear areas: Yes the VDV can be used for these roles as well, and operating in the rear lines of the enemy is a plausible mission scenario if possible.
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 1299
    Points : 1324
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  eehnie on Sat Dec 10, 2016 7:10 pm

    SeigSoloyvov wrote:@Eehnie

    First off tactical mistake of my army? a battle changes faster than you can imagine one second everything is going according to plan the next just twenty men fucked everything up. There is no battle where a tactical mistake isn't made. The thing is how big is the mistake.

    Now these vehicles, I highly doubt these will be the final production versions (That is a Syrian vehicle) if so that is a rather large mistake. I never committed on the vehicles themselves merely the formation of the unit does have it's place on a battlefield not the equipment they are given. I am not saying you are wrong but you are also under some misguided notions a battlefield is like how you think it is.

    Now if the picture we seen is the final Russian production version then yes that is beyond foolish give me a grenade launcher and that truck is dead. Now I will use a Syrian example for you. The Rebels for example. I know their equipment general numbers of what they had at one point in time they had MORE than enough light AT to cover every single unit, yet int he spaces where operations against them took place only around 40 percent of the space had these weapons present. Only the places that had the heaviest fighting where the SAA had the most armor, or that was critical in terms of strategic land was given these weapons. The areas where no combat was expected at most had small arms like rifles, even the SAA supply lines had areas where just guys with machine guns defended it.

    If a big enough force was detected they would send men from a reserve area to counter it. The rats used this against them really the SAA lost more supplies to this then will be admitted by them or the Russians. They got in fast hit hard and got out. Now you can argue "Well the SAA does have limited manpower..." sure but every army does this. Even Mother Russia.

    Now you can take my experience for what you want. I personally do not care, I just sought to inform you.

    If my comment has been more focused in the vehicle is because the original new was focused in the vehicle.

    There are two potential strategic mistakes that I would not bet to find in armies with minimal organization:
    - To have units without man-portable equipment of all the types.
    - To have units totally uncovered by heavy weapons.

    The first is obviously a question strategic nature. It is a question of equipment. It can be enough to defeat an attack with Patriots armed like explained in the news. The second also helps to the unit attacked by the Patriots, but still the result of the initial fight can depend also of tactic questions. Even a best case situation of victory for the Patriot unit in the initial attack, only a miracle can save them after it, if the adversary meets well the second strategic point, and has the area covered by heavier and longer range weapons. Today the range of fire of the heavy artillery and of the MRLSs is obscene.

    To use Typhoons 6x6 instead of Patriots with this combat configuration can make a difference in the initial attack, but after it something else is required too.
    avatar
    SeigSoloyvov

    Posts : 515
    Points : 519
    Join date : 2016-04-08

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  SeigSoloyvov on Sun Dec 11, 2016 3:54 pm

    eehnie wrote:
    SeigSoloyvov wrote:@Eehnie

    First off tactical mistake of my army? a battle changes faster than you can imagine one second everything is going according to plan the next just twenty men fucked everything up. There is no battle where a tactical mistake isn't made. The thing is how big is the mistake.

    Now these vehicles, I highly doubt these will be the final production versions (That is a Syrian vehicle) if so that is a rather large mistake. I never committed on the vehicles themselves merely the formation of the unit does have it's place on a battlefield not the equipment they are given. I am not saying you are wrong but you are also under some misguided notions a battlefield is like how you think it is.

    Now if the picture we seen is the final Russian production version then yes that is beyond foolish give me a grenade launcher and that truck is dead. Now I will use a Syrian example for you. The Rebels for example. I know their equipment general numbers of what they had at one point in time they had MORE than enough light AT to cover every single unit, yet int he spaces where operations against them took place only around 40 percent of the space had these weapons present. Only the places that had the heaviest fighting where the SAA had the most armor, or that was critical in terms of strategic land was given these weapons. The areas where no combat was expected at most had small arms like rifles, even the SAA supply lines had areas where just guys with machine guns defended it.

    If a big enough force was detected they would send men from a reserve area to counter it. The rats used this against them really the SAA lost more supplies to this then will be admitted by them or the Russians. They got in fast hit hard and got out. Now you can argue "Well the SAA does have limited manpower..." sure but every army does this. Even Mother Russia.

    Now you can take my experience for what you want. I personally do not care, I just sought to inform you.

    If my comment has been more focused in the vehicle is because the original new was focused in the vehicle.

    There are two potential strategic mistakes that I would not bet to find in armies with minimal organization:
    - To have units without man-portable equipment of all the types.
    - To have units totally uncovered by heavy weapons.

    The first is obviously a question strategic nature. It is a question of equipment. It can be enough to defeat an attack with Patriots armed like explained in the news. The second also helps to the unit attacked by the Patriots, but still the result of the initial fight can depend also of tactic questions. Even a best case situation of victory for the Patriot unit in the initial attack, only a miracle can save them after it, if the adversary meets well the second strategic point, and has the area covered by heavier and longer range weapons. Today the range of fire of the heavy artillery and of the MRLSs is obscene.

    To use Typhoons 6x6 instead of Patriots with this combat configuration can make a difference in the initial attack, but after it something else is required too.

    Then you would be wrong, I saw this from the SAA when I was alongside the Kurds, I seen this from ISIS, from the Rebels who had more than enough of both to do what you state. You are viewing things in a perfect world not how reality works. Again this is my personal experience in Syria which is only what 6 months old?. Typhoons would be the best choice for a unit like this, the success of the attack would depend on positioning and timing alone. Even if they spent just 10 minutes there, provided they did the attack correctly. That's all you need. I raided lines in this time frame with vehicles like this and caused enough damage. This also depends on what point of the enemies force are you seeking to attack these units will require independent recon forces to find the ample location for their attack. These units are mean't for prolonged fighting to the point they would require heavier stuff.

    The main objective for a unit like this is three things.

    1. Attack weak spots in supply lines, no supply line has a perfect defense most have many weak spots.

    2. Divert manpower away from the Frontline force the enemy to keep more men than they would like.

    3. Take advantage of a tactical error by the enemy and exploit it for the main's forces benefit.

    Part of my job Sides fighting with the Kurds was teaching/training them. They used these examples to great benefit ISIS had more armor than them but they still won by using maneuver tactics to exploitISIs positioning which is what these kinds of units will be doing.

    Now if they can do it right thats another story,

    Sponsored content

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Fri Aug 18, 2017 6:28 pm