John Kettler Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 According to this, which I found by following a link from a previously unknown to me and informative aerospace and military equipment site called Deagel, the BMD-4M (1500 ordered) and BTR-MD Rakushka (2500 ordered) were approved by a state commission and will begin equipping the VDV this year. Article was current as of January 15, 2015. An earlier piece said something quite interesting which I believe relates to planned operational use of the Rakushka. It refers to a landing test involving 13 people. BMDs used to be dropped crewless, but ultimately, thanks to a very clever integrated parachute and retrorocket system which kept the drops within acceptable G loads, the BMDs came to be dropped with the TC and driver in them. I strongly suspect the testing referred to here may be a combat drop test with the Rakushka fully loaded, so that the VDV squad can almost immediately drive right off the LZ upon landing. This seems a logical extension of known VDV experiments during the Cold War involving dropping whole VDV formations the same way in containers sized to fit An-12 CUB transport aircraft. The Sputnik site may or may not be a total crock, but from the military-technical side, so far, it seems sound to me. Another piece I found on Deagel appears to indicate Russian procurement plans for the BMD-4 and the BTR-MD Rakushka suffered a slip of several years, as shown in this short piece on the BMD-4. Noteworthy, though, is that despite the postponement, the overall purchase jumped from 1000 total to 4000! Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ikalugin Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 The numbers are somewhat more, ehem, conservative should we say. To all intents and purposes VDV gets a smaller share of new vehicles under the rearmament program and mostly has to live with modestly upgarded vehicles (such as the BMD2s with new C3 equipment). BMD4M, or a BMP3 with the BMD4M turret (Bahcha series turret) would be a great addition to the VDV, as it allows indirect fire missions to be fired over the C3 cueing, thus allowing usage of the BMD4M as an SPG for the para dropped units. As the BMD4M range for it's 100mm cannon is around 7km, it is an actually useful light artillery piece in that respect. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stagler Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 BMD-4M and BTR-MDM Shell has been undergoing trial for some time. There are however only a few platforms of each, and they will have to invest heavily to equip as many units as they desire with these new platforms. Same goes for 2S25 Octopus also. I dont think VDV would adopt BMP-3M with Bakchka if they have commited to purchase BMD-4M, but its an interesting speculation. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weer Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 I am sure Kalugin were talking about BMD-3, not BMP-3. BMP can not be droped from airplane, so its useless for VDV. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ikalugin Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 True, however you should consider the fact that over half of VDV is no longer considered to be focus on actual paradrops (shift from the airborne to air assault structures) but rather air mobile. In that sense a commonolised vehicle (with the ones that Army uses) may be a good idea, especially considering that BMP3 has been serially produced in recent times (ie it would be cheaper/easier to procure). Other thing to remember - BMP3 is air drop capable in theory. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ikalugin Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 I am sure Kalugin were talking about BMD-3, not BMP-3. BMP can not be droped from airplane, so its useless for VDV. No, I was talking about the BMP3, which could (in theory) be paradroped. Most of the VDV units are not airborne in nature anymore anyway, mainly because Russia has a limited air transport capability at the moment (Russia could air drop one reinforced VDV regiment at a time I think). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HUSKER2142 Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 Airborne forces and his weapons we will see probably in the module. ВДВ и его вооружение мы увидим скорее всего в модуле . 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weer Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 I bet this will be VDV vs USMC module. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ikalugin Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 (edited) USMC gets tanks, though then the "Aghanistan" pattern VDV units had them too. Edited January 19, 2015 by ikalugin 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stagler Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 I hope its VMF and VDV vs USMC. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weer Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 Then black sea marines. They have some T-80s and BMP-3s. But probably they are just MSV with different insignias, coz they use the same gear. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stagler Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 Equipment and structure is different in places than the regular MSV. Assault landing bde have BTR-80/82 series Naval Infantry bde have MTLB series. No MMG at the section level, 2x RPK-74. They are planning to re-quipping with 2S25 Sprut and T-72B3 in the future, and also speculatively the BMP-3F - but it remains to be seen if this will happen. Unlike the USMC the VMF dont have capability to do opposed landings in reality, they are used like a flanking force to launch a flank around a front adjacent to the water, and move into rear areas, or to be used in a limited capacity as light infantry in an interventionary scenario against limited opposition like we saw im Crimea. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weer Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 Assault landing bde have BTR-80/82 series Naval Infantry bde have MTLB series. All this APCs allredy ingame. And some MSB use MTLBs, like the arctical one. No MMG at the section level, 2x RPK-74. As far as i know they went from it in the midle of 90s. At current moment RPKs are not used in armed forces in any significent numbers. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ikalugin Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 Define "opposed landings". 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stagler Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 The types of landings the USMC are trained to conduct. The VMF does not have the capability to mass enough firepower and combat power in one location to overcome a defended beach. It has little to no fixed or rotary wing ground support aircraft. It does not have sufficient carrying capacity to land heavy equipment and infantry to capture a beach head - it cant just drive its LSTs up to the shore and dump like it usually does. Ship to shore is a slow and vulnerable endevaour, and the VMF has little to no protected landing capability. The Aist, and driving your BTR to the beach are not sufficient. Weer, I know that both platforms are ingame, but it isnt an argument against their inclusion. This isnt wargame, id rather have the choice to play as a different structured formation than not. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ikalugin Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 (edited) The types of landings the USMC are trained to conduct. The VMF does not have the capability to mass enough firepower and combat power in one location to overcome a defended beach. It has little to no fixed or rotary wing ground support aircraft. It does not have sufficient carrying capacity to land heavy equipment and infantry to capture a beach head - it cant just drive its LSTs up to the shore and dump like it usually does. Ship to shore is a slow and vulnerable endevaour, and the VMF has little to no protected landing capability. The Aist, and driving your BTR to the beach are not sufficient. Weer, I know that both platforms are ingame, but it isnt an argument against their inclusion. This isnt wargame, id rather have the choice to play as a different structured formation than not. What do you define as "defended beach"? In Crimea alone Black Sea Fleet has 1 multi-role fighter, 1 attack plane and 1 helicopter regiment. Considering the distance it has to travel from it's base (in Sevastopol) to it's target (Odessa) - 230km, it could use small landing ships/boats and land based helicopters instead of larger multi-role landing ships of the USMC. Edited January 19, 2015 by ikalugin 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weer Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 (edited) as a different structured formation than not Marines and MSV use the same organisation and gear. I dont say what i dont need them, i just sayng what russian army have some more interesting formations to include into the game first. Edited January 19, 2015 by Weer 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stagler Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 I define a defended beach as a beach that is observed and covered by fire, direct or indirect - not necessarily occupied but that wouldnt help either. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stagler Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 Marines and MSV use the same organisation and gear. I dont say what i dont need them, i just sayng what russian army have some more interesting formations to include into the game first. Oh definately, id like to see VDV as well for sure, and they should take priority. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ikalugin Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 I define a defended beach as a beach that is observed and covered by fire, direct or indirect - not necessarily occupied but that wouldnt help either. Well then USMC (when operating globaly) is in the same boat as the Naval Infantry operating out of Crimea (in reference to Ukraine relevant missions), as to all intents and purposes their situation is the same: - USMC relies on carrier based (both organic and that of the USN), Naval Infantry relies on the land based aviation (fixed and rotary wing). - USMC relies on small, unarmed landing craft to deliver it's heavy equipment to the shore in piecemeal fashion, Naval Infantry relies on the same craft, as well as on the LSTs. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stagler Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 Naval infantry has a much slower ship to beach rate than the USMC, and far fewer assets to suppress the beachhead. This is simply a case of numbers of platforms available. The USMC relies more on unarmed landing craft than LSTs. It possesses no direct to shore LSTs at all, whereas the VMF relies almost entirely on them to deploy heavy equipment. The LST wouldnt be able to act as it always does in peace time exercises. They could not mass enough combat power fast enough to overcome resistance, or suppress resistance with firepower because they dont have it. I understand that Crimea is nearby, but if two fleets are operating in the Black Sea, the Russians would not have parity nor air superiority over the ocean to utilise its air-support. The litoral capacity of the VMF is sadly not as well resourced or invested in as that of the USMC. The point being the USMC can go half way around the world and do it, but the VMF only because their home base is only over the way. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weer Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 but if two fleets are operating in the Black Sea USN have nothing to do in the black sea. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stagler Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 USN have nothing to do in the black sea. Please refer to the campaign map in the CMBS manual, it clearly shows litoral manouever in the black sea by Blufor. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BTR Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 (edited) One correction to add to this. VMF =/= Naval Infantry. VMF = Naval Infantry + Coastal defence. CD as opposed to NI do historically have heavy equipment being the defensinve branch, while Marines proper have lighter equipment. 126th CD Regiment stationed in Crimea had T-64 + BMP-2 back in the 80's. Now that 126th CD BDe had been re-activated, I assume they currently have T-72B + BMP-2 (large amounts of refurbished T-72B delivered early this year suggest that) and will receive T-72B3 + BMP-3 (since contract for those has been re-signed). Edited January 19, 2015 by BTR 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ikalugin Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 (edited) Naval infantry has a much slower ship to beach rate than the USMC, and far fewer assets to suppress the beachhead. This is simply a case of numbers of platforms available. The USMC relies more on unarmed landing craft than LSTs. It possesses no direct to shore LSTs at all, whereas the VMF relies almost entirely on them to deploy heavy equipment. The LST wouldnt be able to act as it always does in peace time exercises. They could not mass enough combat power fast enough to overcome resistance, or suppress resistance with firepower because they dont have it. I understand that Crimea is nearby, but if two fleets are operating in the Black Sea, the Russians would not have parity nor air superiority over the ocean to utilise its air-support. The litoral capacity of the VMF is sadly not as well resourced or invested in as that of the USMC. The point being the USMC can go half way around the world and do it, but the VMF only because their home base is only over the way. Really? On the contrary, with the LSTs the moment they get to the beachhead is the moment when the entire grouping gets there. You don't need to make all those shuttle runs with vulnerable landing craft. LSTs don't have to mass all of that firepower - that is the job for land based air power (both fixed and rotary wing). Not, without the complete supression of the hostile defence system - the smaller landing craft (used by the USMC) are even more vulnerable, as they lack any sort of defences. And without those (very finite) craft the landing operation is doomed, as you can't get the heavy gear onto the beach. I think otherwise, as land based airpower would have all those advantages over the carrier based airpower (if you park your carriers in the Black Sea, which would be strange). Thus the Black Sea Fleet posses more firepower than a USMC forces with a carrier group support. Edited January 19, 2015 by ikalugin 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.