Question Thread: Russian Army

Welcome to the forum.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What did Russian Ground Forces get in 2014, what did it get in 2015 and what does it plan to get later? I'm talking about all kinds of equipment from small arms to tanks - modernizations included.

Question 1: Are the Ural bikes and/or sidecars still used by the Russian army?

Question 2: Are the Vostok Komandirskie watches still the official watches in the Russian army? Do they have any official army status?

Were they given to officers in the USSR, or did they have to buy them themselves?

zg18 wrote:Rostov , Southern military command

Why does rifles that the soldiers have, have no optics? I am just curious because most the west countries will have that for thier soldiers.

par far wrote:Why does rifles that the soldiers have, have no optics? I am just curious because most the west countries will have that for thier soldiers.

Is that necessary for conscripts? I mean these are not professional soldiers.

They have optics. They are in the armory. It's a standard practice. Usually officers are shit scared to give soldiers an expensive equipment unless it's an actual combat mission, because if it's damaged or lost they will personally be held responsible. And considering that optics cost a fortune, like 1PN93 for example, they rarely see the light of day. It's an outdated practice, sure. But still. We should be happy that everyone is in VKPO and not in "сменка" - the old, spare uniform that they wear to not damage a new one.

zg18 wrote:

par far wrote:Why does rifles that the soldiers have, have no optics? I am just curious because most the west countries will have that for thier soldiers.

Is that necessary for conscripts? I mean these are not professional soldiers.

You are wrong. Those are not conscripts. There are no conscripts on the Russian - Ukrainian border.

Every brigade now has a battalion tactical group, which fully consists of professional soldiers and are always on high alert.

zg18 wrote:

par far wrote:Why does rifles that the soldiers have, have no optics? I am just curious because most the west countries will have that for thier soldiers.

Is that necessary for conscripts? I mean these are not professional soldiers.

Seriously? Wait till AK-12 will hit the streets, You wont see soldier without optics.
By the way, them covers give jew look to helmets. Shit looks good, I hope quality is dead on.

ult wrote:They have optics. They are in the armory. It's a standard practice. Usually officers are shit scared to give soldiers an expensive equipment unless it's an actual combat mission, because if it's damaged or lost they will personally be held responsible. And considering that optics cost a fortune, like 1PN93 for example, they rarely see the light of day. It's an outdated practice, sure. But still. We should be happy that everyone is in VKPO and not in "сменка" - the old, spare uniform that they wear to not damage a new one.

This.

Most officers in the Russian military exist only to serve their own ass.

flamming_python wrote:

ult wrote:They have optics. They are in the armory. It's a standard practice. Usually officers are shit scared to give soldiers an expensive equipment unless it's an actual combat mission, because if it's damaged or lost they will personally be held responsible. And considering that optics cost a fortune, like 1PN93 for example, they rarely see the light of day. It's an outdated practice, sure. But still. We should be happy that everyone is in VKPO and not in "сменка" - the old, spare uniform that they wear to not damage a new one.

This.

Most officers in the Russian military exist only to serve their own ass.

But isn't that true for 'careers' in general?

Regular wrote:

zg18 wrote:

par far wrote:Why does rifles that the soldiers have, have no optics? I am just curious because most the west countries will have that for thier soldiers.

Is that necessary for conscripts? I mean these are not professional soldiers.

Seriously? Wait till AK-12 will hit the streets, You wont see soldier without optics.
By the way, them covers give jew look to helmets. Shit looks good, I hope quality is dead on.

Their quality is dead on, I have read articles and I have seen videos, comparing them against all the most modern equipment from around the world and the Russian stuff was head and shoulders above everything.

magnumcromagnon wrote:

flamming_python wrote:

ult wrote:They have optics. They are in the armory. It's a standard practice. Usually officers are shit scared to give soldiers an expensive equipment unless it's an actual combat mission, because if it's damaged or lost they will personally be held responsible. And considering that optics cost a fortune, like 1PN93 for example, they rarely see the light of day. It's an outdated practice, sure. But still. We should be happy that everyone is in VKPO and not in "сменка" - the old, spare uniform that they wear to not damage a new one.

This.

Most officers in the Russian military exist only to serve their own ass.

But isn't that true for 'careers' in general?

It true for all careers, I just wish I had followed this advice.

Hi gents,

I know the SKO-10 (СКО-10) purification complex, but there is also a mobile bottling complex in service with the Russian armed forces whom I can't any references nor data.
Has someone got this kind of info ?

Thanks.

EDIT : Found it

http://www.polymerfilter.ru/production/?id=7

What type is this jumpsuit?




Is really russian military coverall?What is the type and year?And where to use this coverall?
Thanks in advance!

The US Defense Department estimates that its energy usage is at its lowest in 40 years. It releases a report every year on the US military's energy consumption.

I went looking for the Russian military equivalent, but could find absolutely nothing. Can anyone suggest where I would find this? Doing a report on global military energy conservation, and Russia is the 2nd height funded military.

How good are Russian tanks at firing (and hitting targets) while in movement?

I didn't watch many videos of the sort, but I realized that on those I saw, I never saw a Russian tank firing at a specific target while in movement.
In all the videos I saw, the tank was immobile, generally stopping for firing, and only then resuming movement...

I think firing ATGM while on the move is easier than firing HEAT. Judging by tank biathlon T-72 family can shot ok while on the move

I've been trying to find a modern, post-reform TO&E of the Russian Ground Forces for about an hour now with no success. Can anyone lend me a hand please?

Goggle "new russian brigade organization"

That should get you started.

The article is from 2009, so it's outdated, unfortunately.