Russian Ground Forces: News #2

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.

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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...

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...

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.

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.

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.

GarryB wrote: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...

Nope. All M-60 were gone from the National Guard in the late 90s. There is a valid point about Russia'a obsolete and shrinking MBT/IFV force. Also it is highly mismanaged when you have stored BMP-2s and active BMP-1s. The "used in parallel" comeback is flawed.

The obsolete tank force is sure giving many a run for its money. Especially some new tank forces require more than 3 men.

Oh, BMP 2 and 1 essentially the same for decades besides the weapon mounts.

miketheterrible wrote:The obsolete tank force is sure giving many a run for its money. Especially some new tank forces require more than 3 men.

Oh, BMP 2 and 1 essentially the same for decades besides the weapon mounts.

Not really. The BMP-2 is a newer system and a proper IFV. It has slightly newer version of the same engine (although same rating) and suspension system. And more importantly its weapon system (both cannon and ATGM-the second on some variants) is more modern and suited to current war (trying to suppress motorized/mechanized enemy and support friendly/dismounted infantry).

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

Armata division would have Armata based pinochio, Boomerang division will have Boomerang based Pinochio, Kurganets division will have Kurganets based Pinochio...

The "used in parallel" comeback is flawed.

How is it flawed?

There is a valid point about Russia'a obsolete and shrinking MBT/IFV force. Also it is highly mismanaged when you have stored BMP-2s and active BMP-1s.

The Russians/Soviets have a long history of keeping top quality gear in storage and doing exercises and training on older vehicles to reduce costs and wear and tear on newer equipment. It also means using up old ammo stocks first.

Even older vehicles are generally given upgrades so their performance is at least similar to some of the newer stuff and not totally obsolete.

In an exercise it wont matter much if the troops are delivered by BMP-1 or BMP-2. In real combat the BMP-2 has better protection, but otherwise it is not that different... both are a new level above riding in the back of a truck.

You can explain about the mismanagement because you have complete information about where the photo was taken and when and what resources they had to hand and which they chose to actually use.

I would suggest the rocket fuel used in the rounds the 73mm gun of the BMP fires would be time limited and need to be used up before the 30mm cannon shells of the BMP-2.

They made the BMP-3 in tiny numbers so the idea that they don't need the BMP-1 anymore is just absurd because as I said the heavier gun armament of the larger calibre was found to be useful so they incorporate a larger calibre weapon in the underproduced BMP-3. In absence of BMP-3s it would make sense to use BMP-1s to simulate the availability of the heavier gun during exercises. In addition to using up old ammo stocks...

Worn out BMP-1s can be scrapped and replaced by ones from storage. Worn out BMP-3s need upgrades and overhauls which is expensive because there are too few of them in the first place.

But what would they know about management of such things...

GarryB wrote:

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

Armata division would have Armata based pinochio, Boomerang division will have Boomerang based Pinochio, Kurganets division will have Kurganets based Pinochio...

The "used in parallel" comeback is flawed.

How is it flawed?

There is a valid point about Russia'a obsolete and shrinking MBT/IFV force. Also it is highly mismanaged when you have stored BMP-2s and active BMP-1s.

The Russians/Soviets have a long history of keeping top quality gear in storage and doing exercises and training on older vehicles to reduce costs and wear and tear on newer equipment. It also means using up old ammo stocks first.

Even older vehicles are generally given upgrades so their performance is at least similar to some of the newer stuff and not totally obsolete.

In an exercise it wont matter much if the troops are delivered by BMP-1 or BMP-2. In real combat the BMP-2 has better protection, but otherwise it is not that different... both are a new level above riding in the back of a truck.

You can explain about the mismanagement because you have complete information about where the photo was taken and when and what resources they had to hand and which they chose to actually use.

I would suggest the rocket fuel used in the rounds the 73mm gun of the BMP fires would be time limited and need to be used up before the 30mm cannon shells of the BMP-2.

They made the BMP-3 in tiny numbers so the idea that they don't need the BMP-1 anymore is just absurd because as I said the heavier gun armament of the larger calibre was found to be useful so they incorporate a larger calibre weapon in the underproduced BMP-3. In absence of BMP-3s it would make sense to use BMP-1s to simulate the availability of the heavier gun during exercises. In addition to using up old ammo stocks...

Worn out BMP-1s can be scrapped and replaced by ones from storage. Worn out BMP-3s need upgrades and overhauls which is expensive because there are too few of them in the first place.

But what would they know about management of such things...

If you need to deploy a Far East mechanized brigade in a Central Asia hot spot or say in DPRK, those Far East units sporting the BMP-1P will feel the pain of bad management. Of course who cares about the average soldier or IFV commander.

Let them eat cake

There is a reason why kitting out active units with the good stuff matters.

Interesting article on the use of trains to move military units.

http://www.belvpo.com/ru/85537.html

Considering Russian Army is getting larger (7 new divisions), I don't believe there is only 2.700 operational tanks, like few years ago...does anyone have some new assessment?

littlerabbit wrote:Considering Russian Army is getting larger (7 new divisions), I don't believe there is only 2.700 operational tanks, like few years ago...does anyone have some new assessment?    

Still too much in transition, probably around 3,000. Remember that the new Divisions are being formed to various degrees from old brigades so probably not as many as you hoped.