Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Share
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 775
    Points : 777
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  Isos on Sun Apr 02, 2017 3:37 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    Vikhr is a long range and very powerfull missile andcan be used by infantry.

    There is no ground launched version of Vikhr in service AFAIK.

    Kornet is man portable and there are ground launched ATAKA and Shturm missiles, but that is about it for Russian missiles.

    A tank has very limited ability to detect enemy ground forces at more than 2-3kms or so most of the time... as you increase the distance you greatly increase the volume of space an enemy can hide.

    Next gen tanks will have tethered UAVs with radar and EO systems to search for targets but they still wont see everything.

    The smoke and noise and natural and unnatural cover on a modern battlefield means it is unlikely a tank crew will even know it is under attack most of the time.

    Automatic systems like Afghantsi and battlefield radar and acoustic systems to determine enemy fire and the location of the threat will help but the advantage is always with the enemy in that regard.

    I meant to write "can't" be carried by infantry. My bad.

    I agree with you. We saw how leopard and T-90 faced ATGMs. No one actually saw it coming and no one used defensive mesures like lunching smoke grenades or using shtora. And they were used by well trained crews. The laser used by Kornet are not easy to detect too.

    At least some countries like Israel and Russia are investing in active defence but NATO countries are not doing Nothing against ATGMs, they introduce less and less tanks and more and more Under-armourd vehicles which are easy target for even 1st generation ATGM.
    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5533
    Points : 5578
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  Militarov on Sun Apr 02, 2017 6:14 pm

    eehnie wrote:
    Militarov wrote:
    eehnie wrote:
    GarryB wrote:
    I see very interesting for tanks to have ammunition that allows them to fight outside the range of the portable/man-portable weapons, which limit is marked by 120mm light mortars with rocket assisted ammunition.

    Why? Because it would allow to the tanks to attack infantry formations without support of heavy weapons from outside the range of every weapon that they have, without risk, and would reinforce very significantly the action of the artillery and the Surface-Surface weapons (both habitually present in much lower amounts).

    Dude... when a tank is facing portable anti tank weapons it wont be firing DU rounds... it will be firing HE rounds... a T-72 can fire HE shells to about 9km based on elevation limitations of the main gun... park on a hill and you could probably fire rounds three or four times further.

    While I tend to think that the 152mm caliber is very interesting for the tanks in the armata platform and will succeed, I expect also rocket assisted ammunition for the 125mm caliber and the current tanks. 125mm ammunition always should have bigger range than the 120mm ammunition of the same type (also of other countries), and this would mean a range of around 17-18 Km.

    In theory a 125mm gun should be more powerful than a 120mm gun, but then the difference wont actually have that much practical difference.

    It is like 7.62 x 54mm ammo compared with 7.62 x 51mm. When loading for hunting you can load heavier bullets in the Soviet round because its case is bigger but in terms of effect on target I very much doubt the target would actually notice the difference in bullet weight or speed.

    In overall terms a rocket assisted system would be compatible with every type of ammunition. Here little problem.

    Also, on land, the maximum limit of the portable/man-portable weapons is done by light mortars, portable 120mm mortars, that have also rocket assisted projectiles and guided ammunition that can be used vs tanks, from outside of the range of the tanks, and the tank would not be able to answer except if the tank is provided with 125mm rocket assisted ammunition.

    In the game of ranges the tanks must be winner at every range over infantry weapons. No excuses.


    120mm mortar is not "portable". They require to be towed by motor vehicle. 60 and 81/2mm mortars are carried by infantry, 120mm no.

    Tanks lack awareness for the most part to be able to explot advantages of long range munitions, even with support of UAVs and various BMS platforms it will keep being so for long time.

    These days there are ATGMs that are reaching ranges of 10km, even more, however 95% of the time in combat its out of the question that ATGM team will be able to exploit all of its range. Battlefield is almost never, if ever plain field.

    Yes they are carried by infantry.

    Even the 2B23 120mm mortar was designed to be man-portable, divided in 4 or 5 parts. It is man-portable.

    But also other 120mm mortars are "portable" in the sense that can be transported inside vehicles without limitations or need of special designs (even in a civil car), in the same way that other infantry weapon or ammunition. "Portable" mortars, like the 2B11 and the PM-38, require not a tractor element like the heavy artillery, despite can have them in some cases.

    They are weapons of small relative size and weight. Today the portable/man-portable weapons of Russia would be the weapons under 500 Kg, taking into account that between 300 and 500 Kg Russia only has the 2B23 (man-portable in parts).

    Finally, the commented for formations of multiple units and its deployment is valid for both sides. Both sides want to leave not hidden places for the adversary. The terrain is not plain but a good positioning of the own units try to avoid to leavy positions where the adversary can be covered by the terrain.

    120mm M75 mortar we use here is 262Kg with its transport mount, that is not, by any means portable. Portable is when you can divide our M57 mortar and two-three men and carry it for 20 miles into mountain.

    Our M-74 was lighter version which was desiegned to be carried by horses or donkeys for mountain units, again, not men. However it was very rare i doubt any remain in service up to this time, lower weight had in return far lower rate of fire and general lifespan.

    M-75 is attached to TAM-110 for towing, or some other motor vehicle in that class, by standard it was TAM-110, again i never saw it being handled by hands for more than 100-200m tops, where someone prepared firing position. 81/82mm mortars yes.

    Let alone fact that 120mm mortar detachment consists of 2 com officers, scout, sighter, ballistics calculator, then for each of 4 mortars there is aimer, two shell handlers and fuser.
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 1307
    Points : 1332
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  eehnie on Mon Apr 03, 2017 6:36 am

    Militarov wrote:
    eehnie wrote:
    Militarov wrote:
    eehnie wrote:
    GarryB wrote:
    I see very interesting for tanks to have ammunition that allows them to fight outside the range of the portable/man-portable weapons, which limit is marked by 120mm light mortars with rocket assisted ammunition.

    Why? Because it would allow to the tanks to attack infantry formations without support of heavy weapons from outside the range of every weapon that they have, without risk, and would reinforce very significantly the action of the artillery and the Surface-Surface weapons (both habitually present in much lower amounts).

    Dude... when a tank is facing portable anti tank weapons it wont be firing DU rounds... it will be firing HE rounds... a T-72 can fire HE shells to about 9km based on elevation limitations of the main gun... park on a hill and you could probably fire rounds three or four times further.

    While I tend to think that the 152mm caliber is very interesting for the tanks in the armata platform and will succeed, I expect also rocket assisted ammunition for the 125mm caliber and the current tanks. 125mm ammunition always should have bigger range than the 120mm ammunition of the same type (also of other countries), and this would mean a range of around 17-18 Km.

    In theory a 125mm gun should be more powerful than a 120mm gun, but then the difference wont actually have that much practical difference.

    It is like 7.62 x 54mm ammo compared with 7.62 x 51mm. When loading for hunting you can load heavier bullets in the Soviet round because its case is bigger but in terms of effect on target I very much doubt the target would actually notice the difference in bullet weight or speed.

    In overall terms a rocket assisted system would be compatible with every type of ammunition. Here little problem.

    Also, on land, the maximum limit of the portable/man-portable weapons is done by light mortars, portable 120mm mortars, that have also rocket assisted projectiles and guided ammunition that can be used vs tanks, from outside of the range of the tanks, and the tank would not be able to answer except if the tank is provided with 125mm rocket assisted ammunition.

    In the game of ranges the tanks must be winner at every range over infantry weapons. No excuses.


    120mm mortar is not "portable". They require to be towed by motor vehicle. 60 and 81/2mm mortars are carried by infantry, 120mm no.

    Tanks lack awareness for the most part to be able to explot advantages of long range munitions, even with support of UAVs and various BMS platforms it will keep being so for long time.

    These days there are ATGMs that are reaching ranges of 10km, even more, however 95% of the time in combat its out of the question that ATGM team will be able to exploit all of its range. Battlefield is almost never, if ever plain field.

    Yes they are carried by infantry.

    Even the 2B23 120mm mortar was designed to be man-portable, divided in 4 or 5 parts. It is man-portable.

    But also other 120mm mortars are "portable" in the sense that can be transported inside vehicles without limitations or need of special designs (even in a civil car), in the same way that other infantry weapon or ammunition. "Portable" mortars, like the 2B11 and the PM-38, require not a tractor element like the heavy artillery, despite can have them in some cases.

    They are weapons of small relative size and weight. Today the portable/man-portable weapons of Russia would be the weapons under 500 Kg, taking into account that between 300 and 500 Kg Russia only has the 2B23 (man-portable in parts).

    Finally, the commented for formations of multiple units and its deployment is valid for both sides. Both sides want to leave not hidden places for the adversary. The terrain is not plain but a good positioning of the own units try to avoid to leavy positions where the adversary can be covered by the terrain.

    120mm M75 mortar we use here is 262Kg with its transport mount, that is not, by any means portable. Portable is when you can divide our M57 mortar and two-three men and carry it for 20 miles into mountain.

    Our M-74 was lighter version which was desiegned to be carried by horses or donkeys for mountain units, again, not men. However it was very rare i doubt any remain in service up to this time, lower weight had in return far lower rate of fire and general lifespan.

    M-75 is attached to TAM-110 for towing, or some other motor vehicle in that class, by standard it was TAM-110, again i never saw it being handled by hands for more than 100-200m tops, where someone prepared firing position. 81/82mm mortars yes.

    Let alone fact that 120mm mortar detachment consists of 2 com officers, scout, sighter, ballistics calculator, then for each of 4 mortars there is aimer, two shell handlers and fuser.

    Your comment looks pretty archaic, even using miles still Rolling Eyes

    About to carry the mortars, what do you mean? to carry them like in the XIX-century? walking, with horses or donkeys? or to carry them in a modern way, in their vehicles... Today even the airborne troops have their own vehicles...

    A light 120mm mortar, like those between 200 and 300 Kg are easily portable in every infantry vehicle, without adaptations, without a need of towing. They are not exactly man-portable, but I know people that can up them to inside a vehicle alone, without help. The light mortars of 120mm give not problem to be carried today, this is why I use the "portable/man-portable" formulation to talk about the weapons that need nothing aditional or specific to be transported by the infantry. There is not doubt that today these light 120mm mortars are infantry weapons.

    Other question is a mortar like the 2B9 Vasilek, with over 600 Kg, and more difficult dimensions to be transported. This is just the main reason of its decline.

    Surely the design of the PM-38/43 light mortar of 120mm has been one of the most outstanding designs of the WWII, remaining almost without changes until now. The PM-38 is a 79 years old weapon, and its design remains very actual and useful today. To transport a mortar like this today is nothing for an armata platform vehicle (very interesting fire power complement for the T-15 or even for this BMP-T Terminator-3). In fact, can be done by every infantry vehicle and civil car.
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 775
    Points : 777
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  Isos on Mon Apr 03, 2017 1:56 pm

    With the armies being smaller and smaller it's better to have a light self propelled mortar like 2S9 Nona or Something even lighter with all its communication systems and GPS/Glonass targeting computers and other its safety for the crew than these "normal" mortars.

    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 1307
    Points : 1332
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  eehnie on Mon Apr 03, 2017 5:05 pm

    Isos wrote:With the armies being smaller and smaller it's better to have a light self propelled mortar like 2S9 Nona or Something even lighter with all its communication systems and GPS/Glonass targeting computers and other its safety for the crew than these "normal" mortars.

    Yes, right, also self-propelled weapons of 120mm (2S9, 2S23, 2S34 and the new on the BMD-4M platform) have their own place today.

    Self-propelled weapons offer important advantages on protection of the crew, on mobility and on mechanization of parts of the firing process that allows to reduction of the crews.
    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5533
    Points : 5578
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  Militarov on Mon Apr 03, 2017 5:27 pm

    eehnie wrote:

    Your comment looks pretty archaic, even using miles still Rolling Eyes

    About to carry the mortars, what do you mean? to carry them like in the XIX-century? walking, with horses or donkeys? or to carry them in a modern way, in their vehicles... Today even the airborne troops have their own vehicles...

    A light 120mm mortar, like those between 200 and 300 Kg are easily portable in every infantry vehicle, without adaptations, without a need of towing. They are not exactly man-portable, but I know people that can up them to inside a vehicle alone, without help. The light mortars of 120mm give not problem to be carried today, this is why I use the "portable/man-portable" formulation to talk about the weapons that need nothing aditional or specific to be transported by the infantry. There is not doubt that today these light 120mm mortars are infantry weapons.

    Other question is a mortar like the 2B9 Vasilek, with over 600 Kg, and more difficult dimensions to be transported. This is just the main reason of its decline.

    Surely the design of the PM-38/43 light mortar of 120mm has been one of the most outstanding designs of the WWII, remaining almost without changes until now. The PM-38 is a 79 years old weapon, and its design remains very actual and useful today. To transport a mortar like this today is nothing for an armata platform vehicle (very interesting fire power complement for the T-15 or even for this BMP-T Terminator-3). In fact, can be done by every infantry vehicle and civil car.

    Mile is legit measurement, i dont see problem with it.

    When you say "man portable mortar", you mean mortar that can be carried around by men, those are 60 and 82mm mortars, 120mm mortar does not belong in that group, that is my point. And "tower" or "carried" by "vehicle" is not, in any case, even remotely close to "portable". You can pull D-30 howtizer with Lada Niva around, and you can push it with help of 4 men, yet it is not man fkn portable.

    I am sorry, but how is using horses or donkeys "outdated"? In mountain units around the globe that is more than common practice even at this moment.

    German 'Gebirgsjäger' Mountain Infantry using mules to carry mortars:





    Indian army:



    Austrian mountain units:



    I am sorry, but there is yet to be developed land vehicle that can offroad that much to exclude pack animals from armed forces completely.

    There are still in use even 20mm AA guns that can be disassembled and carried by 4 or 5 pack animals together with ammunition, sights etc. Heavily mechanised Yugoslav army had thousands horses and military equipment that was made for horses, and it was not that long ago.
    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5533
    Points : 5578
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  Militarov on Mon Apr 03, 2017 5:39 pm

    Isos wrote:With the armies being smaller and smaller it's better to have a light self propelled mortar like 2S9 Nona or Something even lighter with all its communication systems and GPS/Glonass targeting computers and other its safety for the crew than these "normal" mortars.


    "Normal" mortars are going nowhere as they far, far, far cheaper to be made, lighter and its easy to break such units in smaller detachments. You cant leave self propelled mortar especially not one on tracked platform on its own without support of accompanying units.

    You have today hand held BMS and Balistic computers that do exactly the same job again at fraction of the cost. You can take 60/82 mm mortar at the top of the building, down the well, under stairs, inside the building, under bridge, in sewer pipe... you cant do that with something weighting 25tons.

    When its about 120mm mortars, i am more for those semi-fixed variants that have their dedicated vehicle, but which allows mortar to be taken off and used as normal mortar at any moment. Something like simplified Thales Scorpion mortar system lets say.
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 775
    Points : 777
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  Isos on Mon Apr 03, 2017 7:16 pm

    Militarov wrote:
    Isos wrote:With the armies being smaller and smaller it's better to have a light self propelled mortar like 2S9 Nona or Something even lighter with all its communication systems and GPS/Glonass targeting computers and other its safety for the crew than these "normal" mortars.


    "Normal" mortars are going nowhere as they far, far, far cheaper to be made, lighter and its easy to break such units in smaller detachments. You cant leave self propelled mortar especially not one on tracked platform on its own without support of accompanying units.

    You have today hand held BMS and Balistic computers that do exactly the same job again at fraction of the cost. You can take 60/82 mm mortar at the top of the building, down the well, under stairs, inside the building, under bridge, in sewer pipe... you cant do that with something weighting 25tons.

    When its about 120mm mortars, i am more for those semi-fixed variants that have their dedicated vehicle, but which allows mortar to be taken off and used as normal mortar at any moment. Something like simplified Thales Scorpion mortar system lets say.

    True for those very small mortars you can basically put in your pocket but something a little bit bigger that needs some bigger transport vehicle and with range low against howitzers has no future.

    The time of engagement is reducing because of the interconnexion of equipement, so fixed or semi fixed artillery is, IMO, dead because you can move it quickely. Small mortars can be moved by the soldier easily too, I'm just speaking about bigger semi fixed or fixed mortar and gun.

    Look how it was counter in Uk:



    BTW there are lot of videos showing how these small mortars explodes while the man is puting the shell in it. They are pretty dangerous to use.

    No need to have a 20T armoured tank to carry them. A new concept of motorcycle that can carry them would be devastating. The main probleme is to fire and go away pretty fast. Horses are good and quick enough but you need to put the mortar on them and that takes some minutes.
    avatar
    George1

    Posts : 10246
    Points : 10734
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  George1 on Thu Apr 06, 2017 12:48 am

    Moscow Victory Parade 2017 rehearsal, Alabino









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

    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16315
    Points : 16946
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    I think it best to have one size barrel for new tanks .

    Post  GarryB on Tue Apr 18, 2017 4:32 am

    Russia is purportedly mulling fitting its newest battle tank with a 152 millimeter gun capable of firing nuclear rounds.

    More likely they were mulling the value of using a 152mm tank gun and realised there were nuclear shells for 152mm howitzers and put two and two together... because that is what evil Russians do... they use WMDs in their tanks.

    BTW regarding:

    No need to have a 20T armoured tank to carry them. A new concept of motorcycle that can carry them would be devastating.

    New light and medium mortars are only going to get better range and better accuracy and as such will always be useful.

    Likely light vehicles will be developed to make them even more mobile which will make them even more useful.... lighter calibres means more ready to use ammo and more accurate and guided rounds means fewer rounds on target needed for effect.


    _________________
    “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
    franco

    Posts : 2397
    Points : 2435
    Join date : 2010-08-18

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  franco on Sat Apr 22, 2017 1:37 pm

    Latest equipment rehearsal for May Parade released by the Ministry of Defense;

    https://www.youtube.com/embed/mNhmQtgGa6E

    Also 5 major new items in this year's parade;

    - Arctic Air Defense equipment
    - Su-30SM flying for the Russian Knights
    - Bal and Bastion anti-ship missiles
    - "Unarmia" (new youth military organization) marching in the parade for the first time
    - T-72B3M will participate in the parade

    avatar
    Book.

    Posts : 704
    Points : 767
    Join date : 2015-05-08
    Location : Oregon, USA

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  Book. on Sun Apr 23, 2017 7:18 pm

    Гранатомет «Балкан» проходит войсковые испытания
    Russia "Balkan" the Grenade held military tests - APRIL 21, 2017

    At present, the Russian grenade launcher "Balkan" held military tests, its acceptance into service is expected in this year.

    "Now the rocket launcher located on the military testing. I believe that this year it should be adopted by ", - said the chief designer of NPO" Pribor "holding company" Tehmash "Oleg Chizhevsky.

    Antipersonnel grenade launcher 6S19 "Balkan" is the latest development in the field of domestic grenade launchers. It increases the firing range of more than 25% and power in steps two times compared with the standard 30-mm complexes (AGS-17 "Flame" and AGS-30).

    http://rostec.ru/news/4520235


    Photo: Russian Arms Journal
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16315
    Points : 16946
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  GarryB on Mon Apr 24, 2017 3:39 am

    Awesome.

    The new 40mm grenade looks much larger and heavier than the current 30mm grenades and the launcher looks slim and compact and would be ideal for mounting in a turret on a vehicle as there are no empty shell casings to eject as it is like their 40mm underbarrel grenade launchers in that they are more like mortar bombs than shells.

    The extra range would also be useful too.


    _________________
    “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
    George1

    Posts : 10246
    Points : 10734
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  George1 on Wed May 10, 2017 1:58 am

    Victory Parade in Buryatia

    According to Baikal-Daily, about 1.5 thousand people took part in the Victory Parade in the main square of Ulan-Ude - representatives of the units and military units of the Eastern Military District stationed in Buryatia and representatives of other law enforcement agencies.

    Also about 40 units of military and special equipment passed through the Soviets Square - armored personnel carriers BTR-80, samples of military equipment of the Tornado, Hurricane, etc. The commander of the 36th Army, Dmitry Kovalenko, commanded the parade.



































    http://bmpd.livejournal.com/2600034.html


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

    avatar
    Kimppis

    Posts : 306
    Points : 312
    Join date : 2014-12-23

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  Kimppis on Sat Jun 03, 2017 12:42 am

    So I've been following the Russian military news/pictures thread on spacebattles.com, and recently there have been images of units equipped with T-72As (like a month or two ago, maybe) and BMP-1s (very recently) during exercises. Like why on earth are those things still operational? Doesn't Russia have thousands upon thousands T-72Bs an BMP-2s, which should be enough even for reserve units (and then some)? I guess it depends on the location... like some storage bases somewhere only have those old models, for some reason...?

    Okay, so these are supposed to be BMP-1s (according to TR1):

    And the thread: https://forums.spacebattles.com/threads/leo1s-russian-military-news-pictures-thread.243988/page-270
    avatar
    George1

    Posts : 10246
    Points : 10734
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  George1 on Sat Jun 03, 2017 1:51 am

    well Russia inherited all this equipment from USSR and until recently with Armata, Kurganetz new generation vechiles there weren't any other projects for the replacement of old AFVs. Its a matter of time before the new designs will start to replace old armored vechiles


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

    avatar
    Kimppis

    Posts : 306
    Points : 312
    Join date : 2014-12-23

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  Kimppis on Sat Jun 03, 2017 2:45 am

    Maybe I'm mistaken, but I thought they already had atleast enough BMP-2s and T-72Bs, considering the actual operational numbers of MBTs, for example. There are around 2800 MBTs in active service, right? But aren't there way more available T-90s, T-80s and T-72Bs? Same with BMP-2. I'd understand if those numbers (atleast on paper) were still many times higher, like they used to be (atleast 6000, IIRC?), but they're not.
    avatar
    franco

    Posts : 2397
    Points : 2435
    Join date : 2010-08-18

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  franco on Sat Jun 03, 2017 3:05 am

    I don't know of any units using T-72A's but there are still a few using BMP-1's. Not sure of to the why especially when like you pointed out there are BMP-2's in storage. By the way all these units are in the Far East.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16315
    Points : 16946
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  GarryB on Sat Jun 03, 2017 10:42 am

    The BMP-2 did not replace the BMP-1... they were used together.

    It was found the heavy HE capacity of the 73mm gun on the BMP was more useful against certain targets than the lighter higher velocity 30mm cannon shells of the BMP-2. OF course there were targets the 30mm shells were much more effective against too, so both were kept in service and when they developed the replacement for both... the BMP-3 it had a heavy gun (100mm rifled medium velocity gun) with good HE power and the ability to launch guided missiles, and a light cannon (30mm 2A72).

    A US national guard parade in the US would still be driving M60 tanks too no doubt... I am not sure what point you are trying to make...


    _________________
    “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
    Kimppis

    Posts : 306
    Points : 312
    Join date : 2014-12-23

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  Kimppis on Sat Jun 03, 2017 5:14 pm

    Interesting, thanks. I was just wondering... I mean, that was an exercise, not a parade. But I simply thought that BMP-2s were supposed to replace all BMP-1s. I'm unable to find those pics of T-72As right now, but I think they were taken somewhere in Siberia, IIRC. I guess that unit must have been an exception, more or less...
    avatar
    George1

    Posts : 10246
    Points : 10734
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  George1 on Thu Jul 20, 2017 12:49 am



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


    T-47

    Posts : 79
    Points : 81
    Join date : 2017-07-17
    Location : Planet Earth

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  T-47 on Thu Jul 20, 2017 5:03 pm

    I think they should use this 100mm + 30mm combo turret in T-15 and Kurganet-25 IFV version as well. Kurganet APC version can have only 30mm.
    avatar
    eehnie

    Posts : 1307
    Points : 1332
    Join date : 2015-05-13

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  eehnie on Thu Jul 20, 2017 7:32 pm

    T-47 wrote:I think they should use this 100mm + 30mm combo turret in T-15 and Kurganet-25 IFV version as well. Kurganet APC version can have only 30mm.

    I expect to be used in the Kurganets and the Bumeran platform like they are being used in the BMD-4M platform. In the T-15, maybe too.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16315
    Points : 16946
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  GarryB on Fri Jul 21, 2017 7:15 am

    The original choice of the 73mm gun was not an accident.

    The AT-3 missile fitted to the first BMPs had a dead space of up to 600m where they could not hit a tank reliably, so the BMP was vulnerable to enemy vehicles within this range.

    They tested lots of different vehicle arrangements when they developed the BMP including half tracks and mixed wheeled and tracked vehicles, but also vehicles with different armaments including the one with the 73mm gun that was selected, but also included a vehicle with a 30mm cannon... the 30mm 2A42 was designed as an Army cannon from the beginning.

    The thing is that the 30mm cannon could not stop a tank up to 600m, while the 73mm cannon could defeat an M60 tank at any distance it could hit it with HEAT rounds, so the vehicle got a 73mm gun instead of a 30mm automatic cannon.

    When the BMP-2 was being developed the AT-4 and AT-5 missiles had entered service and could hit targets as close as 50m away which was good enough, and a dual launcher that could fire both missiles was adopted for the BMP-2 and retrofitted on upgraded BMP-1s.

    They could have made BMP-1 vehicles into BMP-2s with a 30mm cannon and missile launcher instead of the 73mm gun, but by this time had found that the 73mm was better for use against heavy structures that 30mm He rounds would just splatter fragments against... 30mm HE rounds are not hugely powerful in the scheme of things.

    Because of this the BMP-3 improved the HE fire power of the 73mm gun which is much like a recoilless rocket launcher but with a closed end that fires rounds like big RPG-7 rockets, with a proper small cased 100mm HE shell firing gun. the conventional shell and the fact that the primary round was a HE round means it is a rifled gun and not a smooth bore, but it also carries a 30mm cannon too because that was found to be useful too.

    I would suspect the replacement IFV will have a 57mm gun because it combines the velocity and penetration better than 30mm with HE power significantly better than 30mm.

    Remember a requirement for an IFV is to be able to fight equivalent enemy vehicles, so a 57mm gun and Kornet missiles should cover that... a 40mm grenade launcher would offer good HE capacity over short to medium distances too.

    For an APC you want light armament to maximise the number of troops in the vehicle so an external mount 30mm cannon with Kornet missiles makes sense... a hull penetrating turret with 100mm rounds does not make sense.

    For a fire power vehicle the 100mm rifled gun would be useful and powerful but very similar to the 120mm gun mortar which can fire heavier rounds further and also fire 120mm mortar rounds and 120mm and 122mm guided missiles like GRAN and Kitilov.

    The 100mm 2A80 gun of the BMP-3 is a compact weapon with compact ammo that is very powerful compared with most similar alternatives, but I think it might be replaced with very similar weapons... ie the 120mm gun mortar could replace the 122mm calibre and the 100mm BMP-3 calibre with a round not inferior to either.

    EDIT or I could be wrong and half their IFVs might have 57mm high velocity guns and Kornet missiles and the other half might have 100mm/30mm plus gun launched ATGMs to increase the fire power of a unit.

    I just think the 120mm gun/mortar overlaps the performance of the 100mm and the 122mm and of course the 120mm mortar so much that a single vehicle with a 120mm gun/mortar could replace all of the above, and replace it rather well as the 120mm has a better HE payload and longer range and can fire a much wider range of ammo types including several guided missiles as well.


    _________________
    “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
    d_taddei2

    Posts : 898
    Points : 1060
    Join date : 2013-05-11
    Location : Scotland UK

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  d_taddei2 on Sat Jul 22, 2017 9:54 am

    A brand-new heavy flame-throwing system will enter service with the Russian Armed Forces in the next few years. Based on Armata and wheeled version most likely on bumerang

    https://sputniknews.com/military/201707221055782339-russia-flamethrower-development-armata-platform/

    Sponsored content

    Re: Russian Ground Forces: News #1

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Tue Aug 22, 2017 3:40 am