Russia Defence Forum

Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


+72
11E
lancelot
andalusia
Gazputin
limb
lyle6
marcellogo
Giulio
GunshipDemocracy
Cyberspec
Isos
Mir
KeMac
kvs
The-thing-next-door
Hole
dino00
RusMil
miketheterrible
David27mc
JMCR
sjosiowicz
amcm923
Sanctus Ferri
Arctic_Fox
franco
Zhongqing
russianrisk
atiboss
Cplnew83
magnumcromagnon
Regular
ult
par far
Captain Nemo
Walther von Oldenburg
Stiangul
higurashihougi
r111
zg18
Anas Ali
Werewolf
Zivo
Rpg type 7v
collegeboy16
SSDD
Stealthflanker
ricky123
TR1
KomissarBojanchev
Mr.Kalishnikov47
ahmedfire
flamming_python
George1
ehtesham
AlexanderGiorev
njb1
Austin
IronsightSniper
Viktor
medo
GarryB
nightcrawler
Russian Patriot
Farhad Gulemov
fabyak47
milky_candy_sugar
DrofEvil
sepheronx
Sukhoi37_Terminator
Admin
10misha10
76 posters

    Question Thread: Russian Army

    avatar
    limb


    Posts : 936
    Points : 956
    Join date : 2020-09-17

    Question Thread: Russian Army - Page 11 Empty Re: Question Thread: Russian Army

    Post  limb Wed May 11, 2022 4:16 am

    GarryB wrote:If trenches were so easy to defeat why would any army bother.

    Heavy artillery can deal with trenches but not deep bunkers, and heavy artillery is also slow even though it is all weather day night capable.

    Imagine a tank with 900mm equivalent frontal armour and you have a heavy machine gun... repeated hits on one point of the surface wont eventually bore their way through and penetrate the armour... there is no chance of a penetration at all.

    If you make the concrete thick enough and dig the bunkers down deep enough then conventional weapons stop being effective, though there will always be weak points like ventilation shafts and entry points... new concrete piercing weapons are interesting... perhaps the father of all bombs comes in a shaped charge version designed to dig fissures and cracks into the ground so follow up bombs can exploit the weaknesses, but most of the time it is easier to simply wait them out... Russia is in no hurry.

    id be interested to see how you would feel if you were witrh body armor, in a slit trench, and a 152mm shell was exploding 10m above you. I doubt you'll end upwith just some bruises.
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 34269
    Points : 34787
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Question Thread: Russian Army - Page 11 Empty Re: Question Thread: Russian Army

    Post  GarryB Wed May 11, 2022 7:40 am

    The modern combat helmet was designed primarily to shield troops hunkering down in trenches from overhead fragments, at least until they can roll on over to the nearest shelter where the airburst rounds are next to useless.

    Helmets save lives... they are not perfect, but look at any conflict where one side wore helmets all he time and the other side didn't and you will see a marked difference in dead and injured... unfortunately in some armies a helmet is considered cowardly, yet the most lethal wounds you can get in war are head injuries and upper chest injuries... wearing body armour for your upper body and a helmet to protect your head greatly reduces fatalities and serious injuries in any type of combat.

    If you could take out troops in trenches with artillery then why was WWI such a stalemate and why were tanks invented...

    Why are Russian tanks better protected?
    the article you quote says...
    The problem relates to how the tanks' ammunition is stored. Unlike modern Western tanks, Russian ones carry multiple shells within their turrets.

    Soviet tanks store their ammo beneath their turrets where the ammo itself is unlikely to get hit... modern western tanks store their ammo in the hull and rear turret bustle and are actually easier to hit in combat as shown when facing enemies provided with modern anti armour weapons.

    In the defence the Leopard hull storage was not so big a problem. In the offensive...... that was/is another story....

    Another factor is that in the middle east most opponents of the west were familiar with Soviet tanks and where their ammo was but not so familiar with western tanks. Once they started to realise the rear of the Abrams turret is not heavily armoured and is full of ammo then you started to see more vehicles being taken out... and whether it blows the turret off or not doesn't matter... an ammo explosion will kill the crew if they are still in the vehicle.

    Normal armour penetrations will start fires and disable the vehicle at which point the crew don't press F to repair things... they normally bail out of the tank and find cover... it normally takes a few minutes for the fire to get hold and get to a temperature to set off the ammo and fuel.

    id be interested to see how you would feel if you were witrh body armor, in a slit trench, and a 152mm shell was exploding 10m above you. I doubt you'll end upwith just some bruises.

    The idea of a slit trench is to reduce the number of effective angles that fragments can actually hit you when you are crouching down out of line of sight... to be effective the shell would need to explode directly overhead... 5 metres either side would not be good enough... which means an impacting shell with that level of accuracy would be even more effective...

    If airburst ammo was so effective why even bother to dig trenches at all?

    Airburst ammo is much more effective than impact fused ammo, in the right conditions.

    Enemy hiding in a building and you fire the airburst 40mm under barrel grenades and the small charge that blows the grenade up into the air would blow it away from the wall or door of the building making the explosive effect of the main charge less effective. The standard impact grenade might blow open a weak door or damage it and would be more effective.

    A slit trench with top cover would make airburst rounds rather less effective too... for not a lot of extra work.
    BTW I wouldn't want to be shot with a .22LR bullet, but that does not make it an effective standard rifle bullet.

    avatar
    limb


    Posts : 936
    Points : 956
    Join date : 2020-09-17

    Question Thread: Russian Army - Page 11 Empty Re: Question Thread: Russian Army

    Post  limb Mon May 23, 2022 8:48 am

    GarryB wrote:
    The modern combat helmet was designed primarily to shield troops hunkering down in trenches from overhead fragments, at least until they can roll on over to the nearest shelter where the airburst rounds are next to useless.

    Helmets save lives... they are not perfect, but look at any conflict where one side wore helmets all he time and the other side didn't and you will see a marked difference in dead and injured... unfortunately in some armies a helmet is considered cowardly, yet the most lethal wounds you can get in war are head injuries and upper chest injuries... wearing body armour for your upper body and a helmet to protect your head greatly reduces fatalities and serious injuries in any type of combat.

    If you could take out troops in trenches with artillery then why was WWI such a stalemate and why were tanks invented...

    Why are Russian tanks better protected?
    the article you quote says...
    The problem relates to how the tanks' ammunition is stored. Unlike modern Western tanks, Russian ones carry multiple shells within their turrets.

    Soviet tanks store their ammo beneath their turrets where the ammo itself is unlikely to get hit... modern western tanks store their ammo in the hull and rear turret bustle and are actually easier to hit in combat as shown when facing enemies provided with modern anti armour weapons.

    In the defence the Leopard hull storage was not so big a problem. In the offensive...... that was/is another story....

    Another factor is that in the middle east most opponents of the west were familiar with Soviet tanks and where their ammo was but not so familiar with western tanks. Once they started to realise the rear of the Abrams turret is not heavily armoured and is full of ammo then you started to see more vehicles being taken out... and whether it blows the turret off or not doesn't matter... an ammo explosion will kill the crew if they are still in the vehicle.

    Normal armour penetrations will start fires and disable the vehicle at which point the crew don't press F to repair things... they normally bail out of the tank and find cover... it normally takes a few minutes for the fire to get hold and get to a temperature to set off the ammo and fuel.

    id be interested to see how you would feel if you were witrh body armor, in a slit trench, and a 152mm shell was exploding 10m above you. I doubt you'll end upwith just some bruises.

    The idea of a slit trench is to reduce the number of effective angles that fragments can actually hit you when you are crouching down out of line of sight... to be effective the shell would need to explode directly overhead... 5 metres either side would not be good enough... which means an impacting shell with that level of accuracy would be even more effective...

    If airburst ammo was so effective why even bother to dig trenches at all?

    Airburst ammo is much more effective than impact fused ammo, in the right conditions.

    Enemy hiding in a building and you fire the airburst 40mm under barrel grenades and the small charge that blows the grenade up into the air would blow it away from the wall or door of the building making the explosive effect of the main charge less effective. The standard impact grenade might blow open a weak door or damage it and would be more effective.

    A slit trench with top cover would make airburst rounds rather less effective too... for not a lot of extra work.
    BTW I wouldn't want to be shot with a .22LR bullet, but that does not make it an effective standard rifle bullet.


    You do know that explosions are a continuous wave right? A trench needs covering for your skull not to get broken. You make it sound like exploding 152mm shells are fireworks. Also it doesnt matter how many angles slit trench covers, some shrapnel balls from an airbursting shell will fly to the top of the trench and destroy a soldier's brain. A shell landing not directly on a slit trench will do even less damage than an airbursting shell.


    even if you're right about trenches, russian still dont use airbursting shells on enemies in the open, for example ukrainian artillery. from all of the drone footage of russian counterbattery strikes on fields or strikes on exposed personell, not one uses airbursting ammo.
    avatar
    Regular


    Posts : 3304
    Points : 3284
    Join date : 2013-03-10
    Location : Fuck war

    Question Thread: Russian Army - Page 11 Empty Re: Question Thread: Russian Army

    Post  Regular Mon May 23, 2022 2:49 pm

    I think there is footage of what looks like a Russian mortar shell ai- bursting and injuring soldiers nearby.

    Question Thread: Russian Army - Page 11 Image71


    https://twitter.com/CanadianUkrain1/status/1518600697989812224

    GarryB likes this post

    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 34269
    Points : 34787
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Question Thread: Russian Army - Page 11 Empty Re: Question Thread: Russian Army

    Post  GarryB Tue May 24, 2022 7:59 am

    You do know that explosions are a continuous wave right?

    Yes, I do, the pressure wave of the expanding gas moves faster than the speed of sound and creates a shockwave that also becomes a sound wave, but the shockwave is largely spherical and so its energy is diminishing very quickly with distance due to how rapidly the sphere increases in volume.

    When it hits large solid surfaces like tank armour or the ground it is reflected.

    The purpose of a slit trench is a hole in that protection intended to cover the body from frontal fire from enemy positions... a proper slit trench is not a lot wider than a person to limit the angles enemy fire or fragments can enter the trench.

    Shell fragments are deadly but rarely very aerodynamic so they might be accelerated to high speed by the explosion but they slow down very quickly too... the only way to increase their effective range is to make them bigger and heavier which also means fewer.

    Also it doesnt matter how many angles slit trench covers, some shrapnel balls from an airbursting shell will fly to the top of the trench and destroy a soldier's brain.

    Slit trenches are generally designed to be deeper than a standing man so something in the bottom of the trench needs to be stood upon to be high enough to shoot at the enemy. No point in standing in a trench if you stand with your head sticking out all the time. Movement along the trench line is normally not fully standing upright to put your head out of line of sight to the enemy.

    There are plenty of different types of trench you can dig in combat, slit trenches are normally dug by machine like a trench digging vehicle and not wide enough for two people to stand side by side in.

    Firing positions will normally have top cover added as well.

    avatar
    limb


    Posts : 936
    Points : 956
    Join date : 2020-09-17

    Question Thread: Russian Army - Page 11 Empty Re: Question Thread: Russian Army

    Post  limb Wed May 25, 2022 8:27 pm

    Regular wrote:I think there is footage of what looks like a Russian mortar shell ai- bursting and injuring soldiers nearby.

    Question Thread: Russian Army - Page 11 Image71


    https://twitter.com/CanadianUkrain1/status/1518600697989812224
    This clip confirmed my claims. Even a light airbustring mortar round injures or kills multiple infantry in the open with shrapnel. If this was a 122mm+ round it wouldve eviscerated everyone. Thats why I'm filled with disappointment when russians don't use airbursting rounds in counterbattery fire. For example, those M-777 crews wouldve been utterly shredded for good if a 152mm airburting round landed on them, or even if that zala drone was airbursting.
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 34269
    Points : 34787
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Question Thread: Russian Army - Page 11 Empty Re: Question Thread: Russian Army

    Post  GarryB Thu May 26, 2022 8:24 am

    For troops out in the open airbursts are very effective... in fact far more effective than ground bursts which tend to throw their fragments upwards so someone lying on the ground is often quite safe even much closer to the explosion than I would ever want to be.

    Airbursts direct the fragments sideways and downwards so even lying on the ground you are vulnerable to airbursts... you would be safer crouching in a seated position for air bursts... but obviously not actually safe.

    The Russians have timed fuses and proximity fused ammo so airbursts should not be a problem for them.

    I would say most of the counter battery fire is 152mm because of its range advantage over the 122mm and I think the 152mm ammo they will be using will be HE Frag which replaces a lot of the HE material with fragments so the boom looks rather small but the volume of fragments is much higher so you get less gaps between each flying fragment.

    With a shotgun you choose the size of the pellet based on what you are shooting. It needs to be heavy enough to do damage but if it is too heavy then you are not launching very many projectiles so you reduce your chance of hitting a moving target.

    For instance the heaviest projectile is a solid slug... which is a lump of lead the full or near full calibre of the shot gun that is launched like a musket ball.

    Good for big animals like humans or bears or dangerous animals... it penetrates deeply and hits very very hard, and retains speed to a decent range though not rifle accurate so less than 80m or so target range. It would have the weight to penetrate deep enough to injure an elephant... something the same weight of light pellets would just bounce off the skin even at 10m range. For light fast moving animals you go for a lighter shot or pellet weight... you are trying to balance lethality with pattern density.

    When you fire a shotgun with buckshot you have absolutely no control of where the buckshot go so in a OOO buckshot round with perhaps 8 buckshot rounds... each hitting about as hard as a 9mm makarov round... if you draw a circle 1m across then all 8 buckshot will land inside that circle at 20m range with a decent length barrel shotgun but there is no regular pattern or even distribution. So at 20m a buckshot round from a shotgun aimed at the head of a zombie might not hit the zombies head at all for instance... 5 shots in a row might not hit the head because there is no ability to control the pattern.

    For an artillery shell the trajectory will angle the walls or sides of the shell as near to vertical as possible which gives an even spread of fragments but the number of fragments around a 152mm shell is limited... if you make them big you might only get 10-15 fragments around the circumference... which might sound a lot but 20m away from the shell draw a circle 40m across and evenly spread those 10 to 15 fragments around that circle and you can tell there are a lot of gaps.

    Big fragments retain energy to greater distances, so you can go for tiny fragments but they might not be effective beyond 15m... but anything inside that 15m is going to get hit multiple times.

    It is an enormously complex issue and the shape and size and weight and even the material the fragments are made of is a separate science to achieve the best performance against specific targets.

    The Russians take their artillery seriously... this attack plan is based around artillery... and it seems to be going rather well against what is essentially a peer enemy.

    lyle6 likes this post

    avatar
    limb


    Posts : 936
    Points : 956
    Join date : 2020-09-17

    Question Thread: Russian Army - Page 11 Empty Re: Question Thread: Russian Army

    Post  limb Sat May 28, 2022 1:23 am

    What is currently stopping the russian army from putting more Arena APS on T-72s and T-90? The arena is mature technology and shouldnt be expensive to mount. It would also help against most ukrainian ATGMs and RPGs.
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 34269
    Points : 34787
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Question Thread: Russian Army - Page 11 Empty Re: Question Thread: Russian Army

    Post  GarryB Sat May 28, 2022 7:14 am

    How many tanks are they actually losing to enemy anti armour rounds that Arena or drozd 2 would be effective against?

    AFAIK the current problem with the systems is that the MMW radar signals they emit makes the vehicles easy to track and monitor from large distances, which makes ambushes more likely... when their RPGs stop working against tanks how long before the start setting up IEDs and VIEDS or land mines.

    I am not saying they shouldn't adopt and impliment APS systems... they created the entire concept in the first place, but Afghanits seems to have a mixed optical and radar based sensor array integrated into the situational awareness system for the vehicles.

    Perhaps some sort of Lidar system could be added as well for line of sight defence and target detection...

    I suspect they will be learning lots of lessons in this conflict which they will be currently working to deal with.

    Some solutions might just require a change in tactics, while others require a change in the way equipment is used and deployed, while other situations or problems will need new equipment to deal with... but rather than just saying... oh they need this or that, you have to make sure what you introduce actually solves the problem and would not be simple to overcome or defeat.
    lyle6
    lyle6


    Posts : 1311
    Points : 1307
    Join date : 2020-09-14
    Location : Philippines

    Question Thread: Russian Army - Page 11 Empty Re: Question Thread: Russian Army

    Post  lyle6 Sat May 28, 2022 11:37 am

    GarryB wrote:
    Some solutions might just require a change in tactics, while others require a change in the way equipment is used and deployed, while other situations or problems will need new equipment to deal with... but rather than just saying... oh they need this or that, you have to make sure what you introduce actually solves the problem and would not be simple to overcome or defeat.

    Just simple recalibration of tactics will do. Russian tanks already have excellent protection on their frontal sector, so just hang back and abuse your firepower and you'll get the job done eventually. Not as sexy as coming in hot guns blazing but neither are destroyed assault columns.

    GarryB likes this post

    avatar
    andalusia


    Posts : 587
    Points : 649
    Join date : 2013-10-01

    Question Thread: Russian Army - Page 11 Empty Re: Question Thread: Russian Army

    Post  andalusia Tue Jun 14, 2022 11:10 pm

    This is an article about a new German tank that was designed to counter the new Russian gun on the new T 14:


    https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/germany-badass-tank-could-outmatch-161600880.html
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 34269
    Points : 34787
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Question Thread: Russian Army - Page 11 Empty Re: Question Thread: Russian Army

    Post  GarryB Wed Jun 15, 2022 12:27 pm

    Just simple recalibration of tactics will do. Russian tanks already have excellent protection on their frontal sector, so just hang back and abuse your firepower and you'll get the job done eventually. Not as sexy as coming in hot guns blazing but neither are destroyed assault columns.

    Well that is an example of a solution that on the face of it sounds sensible and obvious... but if you hang back with your tanks... what are you sending in to get the enemy to open fire and reveal their positions to you so your tanks can sit back and engage them?

    Do they have enough robot vehicles to send in first?

    I doubt that... but I would think in the future that would be a planned use for robot tanks... that and recon...

    And of course the other obvious problem is that this enemy are sneaking around finding supply columns to attack and they are avoiding your tanks.

    Having tanks sit back makes them still vulnerable to Javelin and the Ukrainian equivalents of Kornet and Ataka... what if they let your front units through and then ambush your tanks as they follow on from behind.... tanks without troops are vulnerable to enemy infantry.

    Equally separating your tanks from you infantry is not usually a good thing for either as well.

    Fighting in or near cities you can set up ambush points off each side of the roads they will have to travel on, you can position those ambush points behind buildings facing sideways so the advancing Russian forces get attacked from the sides from directions that are not visible till you are advancing past the positions so vehicles behind and even in front of you cannot provide support fire without having to shoot through dozens of buildings.

    Tactics are complex and for every adjustment there are counters... if you are losing lots of troops then obviously you need to change tactics by looking at what situations are losing you these men.

    If these attacks on tanks are killing tanks but the crews survive... who gives a ****... they have plenty of tanks... if crews are getting killed then something needs to be done.

    Sometimes introducing new stuff that they have not trained with is no advantage... equally I think they have a range of drones and a range of new drone carried weapons... expecting precision delivery of drone carried weapons is unreasonable if they are not guided, though we have seen Russian drones shown at arms shows with single tube launchers for 80mm rockets with laser guided 80mm rockets displayed... if such weapons can be made for no more than a few hundred dollars and can hit point targets then this is a great opportunity to test them, though recovering targets and checking performance might be difficult so lots of cameras and filming needs to be done too, but being test stuff they wont release that publicly for some time... so they likely will already be doing that.


    BTW German vapourware from the future is interesting but not really on topic for the Russian army question thread without a question...

    Refreshing to see they admit their current vehicles are not good enough to counter the T-14.
    lyle6
    lyle6


    Posts : 1311
    Points : 1307
    Join date : 2020-09-14
    Location : Philippines

    Question Thread: Russian Army - Page 11 Empty Re: Question Thread: Russian Army

    Post  lyle6 Thu Jun 16, 2022 2:11 am

    GarryB wrote:
    Well that is an example of a solution that on the face of it sounds sensible and obvious... but if you hang back with your tanks... what are you sending in to get the enemy to open fire and reveal their positions to you so your tanks can sit back and engage them?
    That's the neat part: you don't. You blast any known and possible enemy positions your scouts have identified with artillery, with the tanks observing from afar with their powerful zoom optics and chiming in to blast their own targets of opportunity. This is a very slow and tedious process that eats up mountains of ammunition: but the Russians both have time on their side and ammo on tap.

    GarryB wrote:
    Do they have enough robot vehicles to send in first?

    I doubt that... but I would think in the future that would be a planned use for robot tanks... that and recon...
    I mentioned this before, but they are probably working on robotic T-72 armored scouts teleoperated from the T-14.

    GarryB wrote:
    And of course the other obvious problem is that this enemy are sneaking around finding supply columns to attack and they are avoiding your tanks.
    Maybe in the first few weeks, but nowadays all that's doing is getting valuable trained hohol and NATO mercs clapped by Russian SSO in ambushes.

    GarryB wrote:
    Having tanks sit back makes them still vulnerable to Javelin and the Ukrainian equivalents of Kornet and Ataka... what if they let your front units through and then ambush your tanks as they follow on from behind.... tanks without troops are vulnerable to enemy infantry.
    Very valid concerns, but for the Russians the firepower of artillery is their answer. Just shell the enemy's positions round the clock so they stay suppressed while you make your moves unmolested.

    GarryB wrote:
    Equally separating your tanks from you infantry is not usually a good thing for either as well.
    Normally, yes. But artillery seems to more than make up for this otherwise mortal tactical sin.

    GarryB wrote:
    Fighting in or near cities you can set up ambush points off each side of the roads they will have to travel on, you can position those ambush points behind buildings facing sideways so the advancing Russian forces get attacked from the sides from directions that are not visible till you are advancing past the positions so vehicles behind and even in front of you cannot provide support fire without having to shoot through dozens of buildings.
    This only works if the Russians oblige and charge on ahead - but they aren't. They are sending highly trained and experienced assault troops like Wagner to identify, and isolate the hohols into their strongpoints where Russian armor, artillery and airpower can bomb them to bits.

    GarryB wrote:
    Tactics are complex and for every adjustment there are counters... if you are losing lots of troops then obviously you need to change tactics by looking at what situations are losing you these men.

    If these attacks on tanks are killing tanks but the crews survive... who gives a ****... they have plenty of tanks... if crews are getting killed then something needs to be done.
    Exactly.

    GarryB wrote:
    Sometimes introducing new stuff that they have not trained with is no advantage... equally I think they have a range of drones and a range of new drone carried weapons... expecting precision delivery of drone carried weapons is unreasonable if they are not guided, though we have seen Russian drones shown at arms shows with single tube launchers for 80mm rockets with laser guided 80mm rockets displayed... if such weapons can be made for no more than a few hundred dollars and can hit point targets then this is a great opportunity to test them, though recovering targets and checking performance might be difficult so lots of cameras and filming needs to be done too, but being test stuff they wont release that publicly for some time... so they likely will already be doing that.
    If there's anything that's a disappointment in this conflict its the PGM with the warhead power of a fire cracker.

    GarryB wrote:
    BTW German vapourware from the future is interesting but not really on topic for the Russian army question thread without a question...

    Refreshing to see they admit their current vehicles are not good enough to counter the T-14.
    By the time their MGCS arrives the T-14 would be in service in numbers - and are already undergoing modernization. Way faster to upgrade an operational tank force with modernized vehicles than to build it up from scratch.
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 34269
    Points : 34787
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Question Thread: Russian Army - Page 11 Empty Re: Question Thread: Russian Army

    Post  GarryB Thu Jun 16, 2022 7:08 am

    That's the neat part: you don't. You blast any known and possible enemy positions your scouts have identified with artillery, with the tanks observing from afar with their powerful zoom optics and chiming in to blast their own targets of opportunity. This is a very slow and tedious process that eats up mountains of ammunition: but the Russians both have time on their side and ammo on tap.

    Anything you send in to provoke the enemy to open fire and reveal their positions would be more vulnerable to their fire than your tanks which would have the best chance of survival over your BTRs, BMPs, or recon vehicles.

    If you are just going to level the place then why even bother with tanks or infantry... just aircraft and artillery till you have sand...

    Not very practical for the task of liberating the Ukrainians from their new Nazi overlords from the west...

    I mentioned this before, but they are probably working on robotic T-72 armored scouts teleoperated from the T-14.

    But the obvious problem... wouldn't the T-72s be easier to destroy than the T-14s, so by sending in the weaker vehicles you just lose those more vehicles.

    Improved protection like jammers and APS systems would just make the drones more expensive...

    I would think flying drones would be faster but coordinating a lot of them and using them to build a picture of the enemy positions and firing points would require collating all the video feeds in real time to construct a real time map showing enemy forces and locations from which enemy fire is detected... which would create a resource the forces sitting back could use to direct their direct and indirect suppressive fire to engage the enemy...

    A serious managment problem to be sure.

    Maybe in the first few weeks, but nowadays all that's doing is getting valuable trained hohol and NATO mercs clapped by Russian SSO in ambushes.

    Agreed... would be interesting to know what the VDV snipers and Naval Infantry snipers are getting up to as well of course as the Spetsnaz sniper units too... they don't spend all their time shooting enemy... a lot of the most important things they do is monitor enemy activity and forces positions... as well as provide information for artillery or air strikes or places to deploy drones to... or super deep behind enemy lines looking for shipping containers with 155mm ammo etc etc.

    Normally, yes. But artillery seems to more than make up for this otherwise mortal tactical sin.

    In a very real sense good artillery support can offset the use of the tanks themselves in a remote way... during WWII vehicles like the ISU-152 are assumed by most to have just acted like a big heavy slow tank with a very powerful gun, but actually they didn't operate with tanks and sat further back and fired from distances of 5km or more at enemy vehicles and positions that were causing the normal tanks and infantry problems moving forward.

    This reduced the need for very heavy armour, but would require lots of ammo to be used, which of course was not ideal because 152mm rounds are huge and most armoured vehicles carrying such guns only carried a dozen to 20 rounds on board.

    Obviously only useful with a clear line of sight to the target too.

    This only works if the Russians oblige and charge on ahead - but they aren't. They are sending highly trained and experienced assault troops like Wagner to identify, and isolate the hohols into their strongpoints where Russian armor, artillery and airpower can bomb them to bits.

    True, but even with experts fighting in built up areas you can just liquify is dangerous and slow work.

    If there's anything that's a disappointment in this conflict its the PGM with the warhead power of a fire cracker.

    Ironic because western weapons seem to take advantage of the fact that they are guided and accurate and use that as an excuse to make them lighter and smaller with a smaller warhead... the Javelin as an example has a 750mm armour penetration performance which is plenty for a top attack weapon, but when manually guiding it because the target does not have a good enough IR signature or there are windows of buildings reflecting sunlight offering dozens or hundreds of alternative IR signals to distract your missile, then you will find 750mm armour penetration is less than Metis and even Konkurs from the 1980s.

    Experience so far seems to suggest that their cruise missiles and converted anti ship missiles carry too much HE and that smaller lighter missiles that are cheaper and can be carried in larger numbers are what the Russians are looking at next.

    Of course some targets like basement ammo dumps, need kinetic energy and HE power so Kinzhal is the ideal choice, but fuel depots would be just as easy to take out with cluster munitions with incendiary munitions.

    By the time their MGCS arrives the T-14 would be in service in numbers - and are already undergoing modernization. Way faster to upgrade an operational tank force with modernized vehicles than to build it up from scratch.

    The interesting factor is the vehicle families too, so the T-14 is a MBT, but there will also be a Kurganets vehicle with the T-14 turret and tank related systems and equipment for the tank role in Kurganets formations called B-something, while the Boomerang formations will have a vehicle with the T-14 turret as a tank like vehicle and a K-something designation for use as a gun platform... a Typhoon and DT model might have the tank models too though they might use T-14 turrets with long recoil 125mm guns from the Sprut vehicle, or maybe the 57mm high velocity gun of the 2S38 air defence vehicle as a heavy gun platform for light armoured forces...

    Maybe once all the vehicle families have their tank vehicles the T-14 might get its 152mm smoothbore tank gun, while the rest retain their 125mm guns.

    The point of designing the T-14 and its turret and sensors and equipment mounted on the turret and chassis means to get a Kurganets tank you simply add the T-14 turret.

    The same with the Epocha turrets... the early ones had 30mm cannon and Kornet EM and Bulat missiles in retractable mounts, while the new BMP models will have 57mm grenade launcher main guns with an APFSDS round bigger and more powerful than the 30mm APFSDS rounds, and command detonated HE rounds too, as well as Kornet and Bulat missiles for moving targets.

    Those new German tanks should be most worried about their new high speed helicopters with LMUR and Hermes missiles... Smile
    Werewolf
    Werewolf


    Posts : 5632
    Points : 5829
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Question Thread: Russian Army - Page 11 Empty Re: Question Thread: Russian Army

    Post  Werewolf Thu Jun 16, 2022 12:08 pm

    TR1 wrote:Consider college before getting into something like the military.

    It will be a great failsafe and backup option.


    By the way- if there is a massive European and American economical collapse, things will not be rosy in Russia.

    Question Thread: Russian Army - Page 11 Pepper10

    😂😂

    GarryB and bitch_killer like this post

    lyle6
    lyle6


    Posts : 1311
    Points : 1307
    Join date : 2020-09-14
    Location : Philippines

    Question Thread: Russian Army - Page 11 Empty Re: Question Thread: Russian Army

    Post  lyle6 Thu Jun 16, 2022 12:38 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    Anything you send in to provoke the enemy to open fire and reveal their positions would be more vulnerable to their fire than your tanks which would have the best chance of survival over your BTRs, BMPs, or recon vehicles.

    If you are just going to level the place then why even bother with tanks or infantry... just aircraft and artillery till you have sand...

    Not very practical for the task of liberating the Ukrainians from their new Nazi overlords from the west...
    Too true, but the Russians aren't pressed for time, so no there is really no real need to recon with live bait. Stealthy insertions of scouts, aerials, satellites, of course drones. Tactical drones just make it too easy in fact. Persistent and virtually undetectable - its perfect and is the key for the performance of the Russian artillery.

    GarryB wrote:
    But the obvious problem... wouldn't the T-72s be easier to destroy than the T-14s, so by sending in the weaker vehicles you just lose those more vehicles.

    Improved protection like jammers and APS systems would just make the drones more expensive...

    I would think flying drones would be faster but coordinating a lot of them and using them to build a picture of the enemy positions and firing points would require collating all the video feeds in real time to construct a real time map showing enemy forces and locations from which enemy fire is detected... which would create a resource the forces sitting back could use to direct their direct and indirect suppressive fire to engage the enemy...
    Those T-72s would only have the ammo in the autoloader, and zero crew liable to get injured, die or abandon the vehicle. They would be very tough nuts to crack even with a weapon that can theoretically perforate the vehicle from front to back.

    T-72s are also a lot more expendable. You're inevitably going to lose a lot of tanks, but there's thousands more where they came from, Armatas, not so much.

    And a flying drone would certainly be faster but its not a tank.

    GarryB wrote:
    Obviously only useful with a clear line of sight to the target too.
    Hence why establishing fire positions on high ground like Popasna is very important. The artillery can be employed like direct fire weapons onto very low targets most especially trenches.

    GarryB wrote:
    True, but even with experts fighting in built up areas you can just liquify is dangerous and slow work.
    Its a real pain, and a legitimate bottleneck. There's only so much Wagner, airborne, marines, and other high quality troops to go around. Good thing regulars get lots of on the job training for future operations.

    GarryB wrote:
    Ironic because western weapons seem to take advantage of the fact that they are guided and accurate and use that as an excuse to make them lighter and smaller with a smaller warhead... the Javelin as an example has a 750mm armour penetration performance which is plenty for a top attack weapon, but when manually guiding it because the target does not have a good enough IR signature or there are windows of buildings reflecting sunlight offering dozens or hundreds of alternative IR signals to distract your missile, then you will find 750mm armour penetration is less than Metis and even Konkurs from the 1980s.
    On the opposite side you have Krasnopol-Ms which has nearly double the warhead weight. There is no tank in service or consception that can withstand a direct impact on its roof. Twisted Evil

    GarryB wrote:
    Those new German tanks should be most worried about their new high speed helicopters with LMUR and Hermes missiles...  Smile
    Which necessitates organic battalion level air defences. That $100 billion seems smaller by the day...

    GarryB likes this post

    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 34269
    Points : 34787
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Question Thread: Russian Army - Page 11 Empty Re: Question Thread: Russian Army

    Post  GarryB Thu Jun 16, 2022 2:29 pm

    Too true, but the Russians aren't pressed for time, so no there is really no real need to recon with live bait.

    The west has given them their best shots, and their economy and currency are looking rather better than most western economies... there is no reason to get this over with quickly to get back into the wests good books... I don't think Putin expects to ever get there now he realises they hate Russia and him personally and want them dead.

    It is much better to take your time and do it right because it wont be as cheap and easy next time... next time might require nukes.

    Tactical drones just make it too easy in fact. Persistent and virtually undetectable - its perfect and is the key for the performance of the Russian artillery.

    They get to practise against live targets, so testing tactics and procedures, and also different ammo types... artillery is a real science and the Soviets were strict adherents to that science like it was their religion. Calculations could be made regarding the terrain and weather and enemy forces distribution and make up to determine how many shells of what type need to be fired over what period to achieve x percentage of damage to the target. Guided rounds and forward observers dramatically reduce the volume of fire making surprise single round attacks effective where in the past they could not hit an area target without several registering shots and climate information at the various altitudes etc etc.

    Glad I am not in those trenches.

    Those T-72s would only have the ammo in the autoloader, and zero crew liable to get injured, die or abandon the vehicle. They would be very tough nuts to crack even with a weapon that can theoretically perforate the vehicle from front to back.

    Very true but an enemy could simply develop a remote control vehicle that is small and fast to rush out there under a track and cut it and the vehicle is immobolised. Never assume your enemy are dumb or passive.

    T-72s are also a lot more expendable. You're inevitably going to lose a lot of tanks, but there's thousands more where they came from, Armatas, not so much.

    Their auto loaders make them easier to automate, but considering the job at hand I would think a weapon like a belt fed 82mm automatic mortar could be more useful in some situations than a huge 125mm gun, or maybe that 57mm grenade launcher with decent HE fire power... not so amazing range, but then the 57mm weapon has an APFSDS round too so it could deal with some armour too... as your robot vehicles approach the built up areas then helicopters hovering a few kms back monitoring their advance, perhaps even watching their video feed could direct missiles like Ataka which are cheap but accurate at anything that pops up that would need a heavier gun... I still like the idea of airships... they can hang over the target area for days and with targeting pods loaded they could scan for targets optically and with radar and lase targets they could engage themselves using some of the new bombs being developed for drones.

    With GLONASS guidance most targets on the battlefield could be sorted with a 20kg bomb dropped vertically from 10km altitude... or even 20km if the enemy has reasonable air defence systems... an onboard TOR like system could shoot down incoming SAMs and AAMs so it would not even be as vulnerable as a big transport plane... from 20km altitude the kinetic armour penetration of an armour piercing bomb would defeat the top armour of any tank and the velocity without rocket boosting would be impressive... just steering fins and GLONASS guidance and perhaps a simple optical seeker in the nose that can detect laser target marker beams for cheap terminal precision.

    If the airship was big enough you could make it into a flat shape of a flying wing and have UAVs operate from its upper surface that could be covered in solar panels, which together with hydrogen fuel cells would allow it to control its lift.

    Restock its ammo and fuel with drones, deploy attack drones from it when a closer look is needed... and deploy diving suicide drones when needed.

    And a flying drone would certainly be faster but its not a tank.

    A lesson the west seems keen to ignore... air power is not a tank and a tank is not air power.

    Hence why establishing fire positions on high ground like Popasna is very important.

    Which makes your attacks more predictable if you need the high ground.

    During WWI they used small balloons to achieve a good view of the battlefield, no reason why they couldn't do the same or use aircraft... but balloons have the advantage of persistence and duration of operation.

    Modern fibre optic cable could deliver captured information directly to units operating near by with line of sight datalinks beaming the information to those who need it.

    The artillery can be employed like direct fire weapons onto very low targets most especially trenches.

    Of course but when you have direct line of sight with them, they have direct line of sight of you. Most heavy artillery like the 152mm MSTA can't fire at targets closer than about 6km using indirect sights.

    This means shells coming in like gun rounds almost horizontal which ruins their fragmentation patterns and effectiveness except for direct hits.

    Its a real pain, and a legitimate bottleneck. There's only so much Wagner, airborne, marines, and other high quality troops to go around. Good thing regulars get lots of on the job training for future operations.

    To their credit they seem to be doing a great job.

    On the opposite side you have Krasnopol-Ms which has nearly double the warhead weight. There is no tank in service or consception that can withstand a direct impact on its roof

    No plasma penetrating beam to disrupt either so an APS system will set it off away from the armour, but the effect would be astounding.

    50kg IEDs destroy Abrams tanks without direct contact on the armour before detonation, so Krasnopol should be a real ear ringer...

    Broski likes this post

    avatar
    Swgman_BK


    Posts : 28
    Points : 46
    Join date : 2022-02-10

    Question Thread: Russian Army - Page 11 Empty Russian Effort in Ukraine

    Post  Swgman_BK Sun Aug 21, 2022 3:54 am

    Is it just me or is Russia really secretive about a bunch of her platforms. Russia has not used much of the really advanced stuff at all. I think maybe Russia is content with the West not knowing what else she is building. Honestly I would not expose all my tricks either. I would give the impression that I am many years behind. Is that what is happening ?
    PapaDragon
    PapaDragon


    Posts : 12534
    Points : 12592
    Join date : 2015-04-26
    Location : Fort Evil, Serbia

    Question Thread: Russian Army - Page 11 Empty Re: Question Thread: Russian Army

    Post  PapaDragon Sun Aug 21, 2022 6:56 am


    They​ are chewing Ukrainians slowly and hassle free for maximum moron bodycount

    Dead Ukrainians can't ask for things, organize protests or terror cells down the road

    Dead Ukrainians are also a message to other idiots with possible ideas

    And they don't procreate when dead


    Also, this is a very lucrative war, you want it to last (it's not even autumn yet)


    Advanced stuff is for advanced hostiles, apes get the crowbar


    GarryB, owais.usmani and Broski like this post

    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 34269
    Points : 34787
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Question Thread: Russian Army - Page 11 Empty Re: Question Thread: Russian Army

    Post  GarryB Sun Aug 21, 2022 9:35 am

    It is more a case that the forces used for this operation were not their highest level ground forces, these are a mix of Russian Naval Infantry and VDV and ground forces from the nearby south military district.

    The Naval Infantry in Afghanistan had T-55s... admittedly they used Drozd APS systems for the first time in testing, but they didn't have the latest armour then and don't have it now either.

    The VDV have new stuff but no new heavy stuff.

    But having said that they are clearly using plenty of new stuff, including LMUR, and Kh-69, and of course Igla-S and Verba will shoot down enemy drones and aircraft and helicopters, and also Kinzhal was tested too and Onyx, plus the Su-57 was flown in to the theatre and its sensors tested.

    They have also mentioned and shown the use of the new model BUKs with tube launchers and of mention has been made about advanced laser anti drone systems that shoot down enemy drones up to 5km away which is rather impressive... such a system should be able to dazzle EO systems from much greater range too like Javelin or optically guided weapons.

    This is an opportunity to test new stuff of course, but the existing stuff is already solid and reliable and already does the job well and is familiar to the troops.

    They are very widely using drones and artillery and air support... no doubt new equipment is being tested and its performance evaluated and perhaps designs improved and upgraded too.

    Advanced stuff is for advanced hostiles, apes get the crowbar

    I appreciate what you are suggesting, but technology and new systems can make Russian soldiers even safer and enable them to do what they are doing from further away and selectively so the people you want to kill the most don't escape after they have sent their fellow Ukrainians to be slaughtered.

    Being able to track down some of the higher up guys and kill them might send the message that no one is safe and that if you want to play genocide... which seems to be what the US and the EU was grooming the Ukrainians for, then that is OK... lets play... but lets let some of those deciders in the west suffer too... lets not just let average Ukrainians die for their masters.
    avatar
    Swgman_BK


    Posts : 28
    Points : 46
    Join date : 2022-02-10

    Question Thread: Russian Army - Page 11 Empty Re: Question Thread: Russian Army

    Post  Swgman_BK Sun Aug 21, 2022 4:32 pm

    GarryB wrote:It is more a case that the forces used for this operation were not their highest level ground forces, these are a mix of Russian Naval Infantry and VDV and ground forces from the nearby south military district.

    The Naval Infantry in Afghanistan had T-55s... admittedly they used Drozd APS systems for the first time in testing, but they didn't have the latest armour then and don't have it now either.

    The VDV have new stuff but no new heavy stuff.

    But having said that they are clearly using plenty of new stuff, including LMUR, and Kh-69, and of course Igla-S and Verba will shoot down enemy drones and aircraft and helicopters, and also Kinzhal was tested too and Onyx, plus the Su-57 was flown in to the theatre and its sensors tested.

    They have also mentioned and shown the use of the new model BUKs with tube launchers and of mention has been made about advanced laser anti drone systems that shoot down enemy drones up to 5km away which is rather impressive... such a system should be able to dazzle EO systems from much greater range too like Javelin or optically guided weapons.

    This is an opportunity to test new stuff of course, but the existing stuff is already solid and reliable and already does the job well and is familiar to the troops.

    They are very widely using drones and artillery and air support... no doubt new equipment is being tested and its performance evaluated and perhaps designs improved and upgraded too.

    Advanced stuff is for advanced hostiles, apes get the crowbar

    I appreciate what you are suggesting, but technology and new systems can make Russian soldiers even safer and enable them to do what they are doing from further away and selectively so the people you want to kill the most don't escape after they have sent their fellow Ukrainians to be slaughtered.

    Being able to track down some of the higher up guys and kill them might send the message that no one is safe and that if you want to play genocide... which seems to be what the US and the EU was grooming the Ukrainians for, then that is OK... lets play... but lets let some of those deciders in the west suffer too... lets not just let average Ukrainians die for their masters.
     I agree. Russia needs to bring advanced weaponry to the playground.
    avatar
    limb


    Posts : 936
    Points : 956
    Join date : 2020-09-17

    Question Thread: Russian Army - Page 11 Empty Re: Question Thread: Russian Army

    Post  limb Wed Sep 07, 2022 12:06 pm

    Ive always wondered what was the rationale to appoint shoigu as defense minister when he never served in the army. Not saying the other options eere better, just curious about his qualities.
    Isos
    Isos


    Posts : 9847
    Points : 9833
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Question Thread: Russian Army - Page 11 Empty Re: Question Thread: Russian Army

    Post  Isos Wed Sep 07, 2022 5:33 pm

    limb wrote:Ive always wondered what was the rationale to appoint shoigu as defense minister when he never served in the army. Not saying the other options eere better, just curious about his qualities.

    I think he was in the emergency misnistry before.

    The minister of defence isn't really a military role. He is the one that take care of all the administratif stuff. You need someone that knows people in the military industry and in the other ministeries with financial and managerial skills.

    All the military related issues are taken care by the chief of the armed forces, Gerasimov in Russia.

    They generally work togather. That's the same for any country I think.

    GarryB, flamming_python and Broski like this post

    avatar
    Dr.Snufflebug


    Posts : 531
    Points : 531
    Join date : 2017-12-27

    Question Thread: Russian Army - Page 11 Empty Re: Question Thread: Russian Army

    Post  Dr.Snufflebug Thu Sep 08, 2022 1:42 am

    Shoigu was an effective, eagle-eyed administrator before, even back in Siberia. That's why he climbed in the ranks when Moscow saw him.

    But as noted, he is not a military man originally.

    GarryB, franco and Broski like this post

    avatar
    ALAMO


    Posts : 2623
    Points : 2625
    Join date : 2014-11-25

    Question Thread: Russian Army - Page 11 Empty Re: Question Thread: Russian Army

    Post  ALAMO Thu Sep 08, 2022 7:49 am

    Dr.Snufflebug wrote:Shoigu was an effective, eagle-eyed administrator before, even back in Siberia. That's why he climbed in the ranks when Moscow saw him.
    But as noted, he is not a military man originally.

    He is not, but if I remember correctly, his relationship with Putin is like forever. I remember picks of both back in the 90s already.

    Sponsored content


    Question Thread: Russian Army - Page 11 Empty Re: Question Thread: Russian Army

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Tue Sep 27, 2022 9:29 am