American vs. Sov..err Russian Infantry

[ikalugin]

Ratnik is actually a set of equipment developed under the Ratnik research topic. It includes amongst other things:

- clothing, we have seen elements of a Ratnik set in Crimea (the jackets I think).

- ballistic protection, this is the generic helmet/ballistic protection vest.

- comm equipment. Comm equipment includes secure radios/datalinks and the Uragan sat-nav system receiver.

 

An Inforgraphic:

Only around 50k sets are expected to be delivered this year, hence the question rises as to if it would be in mass service by 2017.

 

A thermal or a combined thermal/NV system is to be expected.

Edited January 20, 2015 by ikalugin

[Weer]

Well that's true in general, but Strykers have heavier armor, SLAT protection against RPGs, and an overall good record of surviving multiple RPG/HMG/IED strikes in Iraq.

 

I dont realy think what they can survive PG-7VR hit. Or even PG-7VL.

And yeah striker have better IED protection, i will not denie it.

Sure, but an ol' .50 cal with TI sights and good FC can still be more beneficial under many scenarios...

 

So i can say about 30mm. TIs are great, but you need them to spot targets, not for aiming.

APC/IFV and riflemen working together

 

BTR/BMP are part of the section. Section commander are the vehicles commander. They can not be splited.

current Russian doctrine calls

 

Its just said what section comander can do it if it will be usefull.

[wee]

Motor-rifle troops.

Main component of the russian ground forces. Even more - we have MSV and support assets for the MSV.

 

I know, but what that V stands for in acronym?

 

Voyska, maybe?

[Weer]

Voyska, maybe?

 

Yes.

MotoStrelkovie Voyska.

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

 

 

Most of US inf are ride in Strykers and HMMVEs. Most MSV use BTRs.

 

This is actually incorrect.

 

There's three kinds of Brigades currently in the US Army:

 

1. Infantry BCT.  Infantry squads have no assigned transport, but each battalion has sufficient light trucks to move around one company at a time.  Several of these brigades are also oriented on either airmobile or paratroop missions

2. Stryker BCT. Infantry rides in Strykers.  This is the only BCT that uses Strykers as transports

3. Armored BCT.  Infantry rides in Bradley Fighting Vehicles.

 

HMMWVs are not generally used as infantry transport, they saw use in Iraq/Afghanistan as patrol vehicles, but this should not be taken as the way the US plans to fight in a high intensity conflict.

 

The only real front line HMMWVs still in use are that the Infantry style brigades have weapons platoons in each infantry company, which is some number of HMMWVs allocated to carry heavy weapons (M2 HMGs, MK-19s, TOW-2Bs etc), and both Armored and Infantry recon units have some number of HMMWVs (Armored Recon platoon is currently a 5 scout truck, 3 Bradley mix, although it's likely going back to a "pure" six Bradley configuration, Infantry scout platoon has six scout trucks).  Next closest is the Stinger MANPADs teams usually have an uparmored cargo HMMWV to move around the battlefield.  

 

The remainder are all used for light cargo, transporting support or command type troops.

 

In terms of firepower in absolute terms the US infantry has significantly more in a squad for squad, platoon for platoon fight.  As I stated in my original post, the XM-25 and Javelin are both capabilities the Russian Army just lacks entirely in the dismounted role, and the allocation of designated marksmen systems and light machineguns (true belt fed ones vs magazine fed) is significantly higher.  Additionally US fire support systems are traditionally allocated one to two echelons below their Russian counterparts (especially so with heavy mortars and similar systems).

 

In terms of transports, BTR and Strykers are both fairly similar in terms of practical performance, the base model Strykers have superior fire control (turret really, and the MK-19 on a Stryker is pretty wicked), better protection, while the BTR-80A has superior firepower and all BTRs are much lighter and able to handle poor terrain better.  In terms of Bradley vs BMP-2, Bradley wins easily, Bradley vs BMP-3 really comes down to who's shooting first, BMP won't hold up to current generation AP rounds from the 25 MM, but the BMP-3 has overmatch against the Bradley's armor package.  Optics package, basic armor, and troop bay are all superior on the Bradley though.  100 MM with airburst is some nasty fire support, and the through the gun ATGM at least offers a better rate of fire (although the Bradley does have the ability to plop out two missiles in short order) however.

 

In terms of communication, there's a bit of an embarrassment of riches.  At the least each squad (9 man) and team (4 man) leader has encrypted short range communications, with longer ranged radio in the hands of the RTO at platoon level.  What is not at all uncommon is Squad leaders actually having their mitts on longer ranged radios, and encrypted HF type radios for Platoon and Squad leaders.  

 

In practice our infantry guys seemed to have more radios than they could practically use, so usually it was picking the right radio for the mission (larger manpack style ones for missions in fairly spread out environments, the smaller ones for urban operations or the like).   

 

Re: Ukrainian Quality

 

They've managed to bounce back pretty good.  I'm willing to credit at least the top quarter of Ukrainian units with comparing to the 60-40% percentile Russian forces.  The average Ukrainian unit isn't going to be up to snuff, but the better trained and equipped out to hold their own just fine.

 

 

 

So i can say about 30mm. TIs are great, but you need them to spot targets, not for aiming

 

Missed this on the first pass.  Maybe Russian optics, but US thermal optics are entirely able to maintain resolution for all engagements, on the move or not.  Daysights are the backup sights, or used when you've got some crazy-weird thermal crossover going on.

Edited January 20, 2015 by panzersaurkrautwerfer

[DreDay]

I dont realy think what they can survive PG-7VR hit. Or even PG-7VL.

 

Probably not VRs, but perhaps VLs, and certainly lighter LAWs and RPGs... BTRs are not equiped to handle either though...

 

 

And yeah striker have better IED protection, i will not denie it.

So i can say about 30mm. TIs are great, but you need them to spot targets, not for aiming.

 

Well spotting is a prerequisite to aiming isn't it? Plus Strykers have advanced laser range finders and fire control calculators... Look - a Stryker costs 3-4 times as much as a BTR-82 and there is a reason for it...

 

BTR/BMP are part of the section. Section commander are the vehicles commander. They can not be splited.

 

We might be using different terms here, but I call them squads, not sections (a section, per US military designation, is a subcomponent of a squad or an independent fire support elment smaller than a squad); but yes Russian squad leader is also a vehicle commander... they can either choose to operate mounted or dissmounted per their (or rather their CO's choice).

 

Its just said what section comander can do it if it will be usefull.

 

Again, Russian dismounted infantry doctrine is not as streamlined as that of the US infantry; but the split of dismounted squads into fire-support and assault elements is pretty standard and  accepted part of their small unit tactics. It is documented in their field manuals, trained for regularly, and something that was used in Chechnya and Georgia (perhaps even Ukraine, although we would not here that for a while...)

[Weer]

XM-25

 

I will discuss it only after it will be called M-25.

This is actually incorrect.

 

Most of the brigades are not using M2s. Am i wright?

and the allocation of designated marksmen systems

 

Most marksmans are just dudes with M4 with ACOG. MSV have at least 1 SVD in each platoon.

and light machineguns (true belt fed ones vs magazine fed) is significantly higher.

 

RPK-74 are not used by the russian army right now.

And even more some brigades have come to 2 PKMs in evry section.

In terms of transports, BTR and Strykers are both fairly similar in terms of practical performance

 

BTRs can float.

[ikalugin]

A Russian company sells those scopes for civilian users:

http://inwetech.ru/media/IWT%20LF640%20MK%202
Which are of alleged Russian manufacture, though I don't know for sure.

[DreDay]

Re: Ukrainian Quality

 

They've managed to bounce back pretty good.  I'm willing to credit at least the top quarter of Ukrainian units with comparing to the 60-40% percentile Russian forces.  The average Ukrainian unit isn't going to be up to snuff, but the better trained and equipped out to hold their own just fine.

 

 

 

I agree with most of your points except for this one. Who do you consider to be the top quarter of their military? Their best formations (i.e. 25th VDV brigade, 80th Airmobile Briage, 92 Airmobile Brigade, 72nd Mechanized Brigade, 1st Armored Brigade) have pretty much been demolished this summer. Which ones of them do you know to have bounced back "perrty good" and where are those units that can hold their own  (especially in light of recent rebel offensives)?

Edited January 20, 2015 by DreDay

[ikalugin]

On the topic of Russian infantry/US infantry/Ukrainian infantry.

 

Declaimer - the future is unclear, and I am aware of only 50k sets of Ratnik being procured this year. I (possibly faulty) assume that Ratnik would be standard issue here to the Russian infantry line troops invading Ukraine in 2017.

 

  With Ratnik the true advantage US infantry would have would probably in terms of inidvidual google type optics and the M25 grenade launchers, as individual troops receive their encrypted radios/datalinks and platoon commanders receive their long range comms and command sets.

  While the Javelin is a cool capability, I am not sure if it is a significant one for the mechanised infantry, as mechanised infantry gets support from their vehicles (which have high end ATGMs) and/or field long range ATGMs when dismounted. In any case I think we would probably receive that capability with Ratnik, as there is a missile system in development/testing at the moment which appear to be developed on the hand held ATGM lines.

[ikalugin]

On the vehicles - BMP3M with the ERA plating and Bahcha series turret should be at an advantage over the M2A3 Bradley, as they have comparable protection (ERA, protection vs 30-25mm rounds in safe angles of manuever), they have similar level of optics (Bahcha has 2 independent combined panoramic scopes for gunner and commander), with BMP having firepower (7km ranged 100mm airburst round) and mobility (amphib capability is retained) advantage but with the disadvantage in terms of ergonomics (it is not as convenient to dismount from the BMP3).

 

At the same time Russia would most likely field the new generation of vehicles such as Kurganets and Bumerang (Armata too), however as the external looks are still classified those are not going to be in the game during the release and probably the initial DLCs/packs.

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

Re: XM-25

 

The XM-25 has entered combat use.  It's earned the nickname "the Punisher" and the Taliban hates the hell out of it.  If we're talking about a 2017 game it's going to be a common issued weapon as much as any of the other cutting edge hardware in the game.

 

Re: M2A3

 

In 2017 there will be something like 11 ABCTs, 8 SBCTs, and 14 or so IBCTs of all types (airborne, airmobile, and strictly "leg").  Which is to say actually quite a lot of US infantrymen ride in the BFV, certainly more than Strykers, and more than the non-existent HMMWV transported units referenced.  

 

Re; Marksmen

 

Not in 2017.  Already most IBCTs and many SBCTs at least operate one DRM type rifle per squad, either a M110 or M14 at this point.  They're less common in ABCTs but certainly more common than one DRM per platoon.

 

Actually at that the "M4 with optics" is much closer to several men in a squad as ACOG style optics are everywhere at this point (I had an ACOG on my rifle and I was a tanker).

 

Re: PKM

 

So at best parity in machine guns then?  

 

Re: BTRs float

 

Yes they do.  

 

Re: Javelins

 

I think the difference is that it's a real at range MBT slayer ATGM at the squad level.  Especially with the sort of APS or ERA in CMBS, it's a capability that the Russians simply lack, as while the RPG-29 is scary, it's still fairly short range and subject to ERA/APS.  Ukraine even more so.  The Javelin can punt out a missile to 2.5 KM and achieve catastrophic kill against ERA and APS equipped vehicles.  

 

When working with mechanized units, the launch profile for the Javelin is much smaller than a TOW.  Using it to knock out some tanks before committing the Bradleys is often not a bad idea, and additionally when "hunting" tanks often the lower profile of infantry better allows you to sneak into position than risking the Bradley (which would have to move into LOS and remain stationary for the missile flight).

 

If it was issued instead of ATGMs on a IFV, then yeah we'd be talking about parity, but it's a whole different tier of capability on top of the vehicle mounted ATGMs.

[ikalugin]

About Ukrainians - the issue is that their quality is very mixed. While they did receive some new vehicles (such as BTR4s) they are essentially limited to those at the moment, as the production is not ongoing (mainly funding problems). BTR4s themselves suffer from various problems (namely hull cracks). The quality of infantry depends greatly as to who the sponsor is, as that is where they get their optics and comms.

In general I think it is safe to assume that the Armed Forces would be using mostly old Soviet equipment, while the various volonteer units may have advanced civilian items.

[ikalugin]

Taliban is not known to field ballistic protection en mass, especially not of the BZK type. Using BZK sets, such as Permchanka-M series would essentially negate the usefulness of the XM/M25 weapon.

 

We have ongoing shift from PKM to PKP (just nitpicking thats all).

 

Javelin, well we have a similar missile system in the works I think.

 

Speaking of unique capabilities - what Russian infantry does get is a lot of thermobaric weapons of various types. Even though those are standard issue only to the specialist troops (the reusable launchers), they are often issued as supplementary weapons (the single use launchers, same way as single use RPGs)

Edited January 20, 2015 by ikalugin

[BTR]

How many Javelins are there per platoon or battalion? I'm honestly oblivious to how US military is structured. 

[Weer]

The XM-25 has entered combat use

 

As far as i know only for combat testing. Just like SCAR project.

11 ABCTs, 8 SBCTs, and 14 or so IBCTs

 

So only 1/3 will be M2s?

So at best parity in machine guns then?

 

In my mind 7,62 GPMGs are better then 5,56 LMGs.

APS

 

I dont realy think what US can field APS on big number of theyr tanks any soon.

The Javelin can punt out a missile to 2.5 KM and achieve catastrophic kill against ERA and APS equipped vehicles.

 

Newer Kornets fire 2 rockets at the same target. That is the harder way then top attack, but still it will work.

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

My insomnia is totally paying off tonight!

 

Re: Themobaric weapons

 

The point of the thread was looking into the baseline standard non-special weapons squads.  In that regard the US Army by exception and USMC as a rule both employ thermobaric weapons as augmentation type weapons (fired mostly from SMAWs), but again it's a specialist weapon/round that is usually reserved for special occasions.

 

Re: Javelinovich

 

I get that the Russian Army is undergoing some major changes, and it will look pretty different in a while.  That said when we're getting to the point of "this is something we're working on that doesn't have names or specifics yet" it's getting sort of out there.  Like US Railgun and laser program out there.  I don't doubt Russian technical abilities, but even looking at the US military on several occasions we've been poised on dramatic changes that either simply evaoprated (FCS) or evolved into a totally different system (like Land Warrior's transition into other C3 systems).  Until Russia has these new weapons systems in quantity I'm not exactly holding my breath.  

 

Re: Javelin issue

 

For infantry units it's generally one CLU (the Command Launch Unit) per squad, and two per Cavalry platoon last time I looked.  Missile allocation is theater dependent but 2-3 per squad is not an unreasonable assumption, with more obviously for mechanized and Stryker units given they don't actually have to pack the system.

 

Re: XM-25

 

SCAR was never intended as a mass purchase, it was a product pitched to the SOF community, used by the SOF community, and then abandoned by the SOF community because it wasn't cool enough/hell if I know SOF gets distracted by new toys on a weekly basis.  XM-25 remains very much part of the planned future squad layout, and again, if we're talking about CMBS, it is in the game in that role.  Given that it is fully functional at the moment it is one of the more reasonable "future" systems in the game.

 

Re: Only 1/3 in Bradley

 

Yes, but again, if we're talking about a high intensity conflict, we're not putting 10th Mountain Division on a plane to go fight tanks.  So to that regard the preponderance of infantry units in a shooting war with a near-peer to peer power is going to be those 11 ABCTs, some of the SBCTs, and an IBCT or two.

 

So to that end, your original statement remains incorrect, and the majority of the conventional warfare aligned units operate M2A3 type Bradleys.

 

Re: Machine guns

 

The thing is that US infantry units don't lack the 7.62 MGs.  The SBCT/IBCT organization allocates two M240s with dedicated teams per platoon (so three "rifle" squads 9 soldiers) and one "weapons" squad, which again is two four man MMG teams.  Mechanized infantry lack the weapons squad, having only the three rifle squads, but they retain the weapons themselves (at least the weapons themselves, it might be there's a M240B/L on every Bradley, but I can account for at least two per platoon).  

 

There's no real hard fast rule to the actual squad makeup, some IBCT/SBCT units use the weapons squad as  just a fourth rifle squad and issue the M240s to augment the rifle squads, some mechanized infantry units train their third squad as a weapons/AT squad in addition to its rifle squad duties.  As the case is, in addition to the M249s though there's still 2-4 M240s per platoon.

 

Re: APS

 

If the US Army needed APS, it could have it in a few weeks.  There's off the shelf systems that are compatible with the M1/M2 series vehicles, it's just a matter of buying them.

 

Or maybe Quickkill will come out.  Who knows.  But off the shelf APS in preperation for a conventional war is not a huge leap at all considering some of the other crash upgrade programs the Army has done (see the rapid conversion of several hundred M1A1s to M1A1HA standards before the Persian Gulf war, fielding LRFs and IR jammers to Bradleys for same conflict), and the hardware already exists.

 

Re: Javelin vs Kornet

 

But the Jav does it all in a handy portable by one or two guys package with a high possibility of one hit one kill.   

 

Kornet is scary, but it's definitely a dedicated team sort of weapon, vs the Javelin which is just a standard squad level weapon system.

Edited January 20, 2015 by panzersaurkrautwerfer

[BTR]

I see. In terms of organization, ATGM's have traditionally been battalion level support for Russian organisations, so having guided launchers per squad is something unheard of. It's usually disposable launchers per person, RPG-esque weapon per squad, 4~8 ATGM's per company.  

Edited January 20, 2015 by BTR

[ikalugin]

I think Avtonomia (Javelin equivalent) has been in development since like 1990s:

http://nevskii-bastion.ru/autonomy/

There is only very sporadic information about it - for example the direct shot range (and no range figures for to attack profiles for example).

Edited January 20, 2015 by ikalugin

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

The US military hands out M136 (AT4s) as mission requires too.  That's a bit more....like it's very much mission requirements based vs a solid number.  They're not tracked as a weapon system but as simply ammunition so your mileage varies on what a squad allocation may look like (a squad in the defense for Fulda Gap 2.0 might have more rockets than soldiers, a unit in Afghanistan might have 2-3 in a platoon)..  

 

USMC operates closer to the Russian style, they tend to be very heavy on the disposable AT rockets, one platoon level SMAW (similar in use to the RPG with a heavier emphasis on anti-bunker/anti-personnel) and then if I recall they've got some number of dedicated Javelin teams at the Battalion level.  

 

Re: Avtonomia

 

Again, it's something we know next to nothing about.  I don't doubt the Russians have the ability to make something a lot like the Javelin, but there's a lot of Russian programs that have just sputtered out.  Expecting something that largely has been vaporware for the last 25 years to come into service in the next two years is, optimistic.  

[ikalugin]

Panzer, I think you misunderstand my post on the Russian AT weapons. What happens is that:

- we have standard, issued per OOB AT weapons - those are reloadable RPGs (RPG7) and ATGMs. ATGMs are concentrated on higher levels to simplify training (and to allow the higher commander to concentrate his AT firepower where required) but at the same time could be pushed down. Note that the thermobaric rounds could be used out of standard issue RPG7s.

- we have non standard single use RPGs/thermobaric grenade launchers, which are mass issued when and where required. Ie if we expect a tank attack - we would give everyone their disposable RPGs. If the unit is expected to attack an infantry position - they would be issued with single use thermobarics in addition to their RPG7s.

- specialist units with all sorts of thermobarics.

[Stagler]

On the vehicles - BMP3M with the ERA plating and Bahcha series turret should be at an advantage over the M2A3 Bradley, as they have comparable protection (ERA, protection vs 30-25mm rounds in safe angles of manuever), they have similar level of optics (Bahcha has 2 independent combined panoramic scopes for gunner and commander), with BMP having firepower (7km ranged 100mm airburst round) and mobility (amphib capability is retained) advantage but with the disadvantage in terms of ergonomics (it is not as convenient to dismount from the BMP3).

 

At the same time Russia would most likely field the new generation of vehicles such as Kurganets and Bumerang (Armata too), however as the external looks are still classified those are not going to be in the game during the release and probably the initial DLCs/packs.

 

There is no BMP-3M with Bakchka ingame - much to my annoyance.

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

I got that much.   I suppose I just did not articulate myself well.

 

The big difference between Russia and the US is the lack of reloadable rocket launcher at the squad level, while the Russian Army lacks an organic squad level ATGM.  In terms of higher level control and task organizing AT assets, that's exactly how the USMC runs it's AT assets both TOW and Javelin.  US IBCTs operate their TOWs in a similar holding unit (the Battalion's Weapons Company), while SBCTs and ABCTs do it a bit different (SBCTs have a special brigade level AT Company, ABCTs have enough AT assets at the platoon/company team level to not require additional agumentation).  

 

The Russian use of disposable launchers is similar to the US one, although we tend to issue them a bit more freely it would appear.

 

In terms of themobarics you're still looking at specialist weapons.  There's a number of dedicated bunker busting/assault/whatever type weapons that fill a similar, although less frequently employed role

[ikalugin]

I see.

 

Are you talking about the US usage of thermobarics in the last paragraph?

[Weer]

In terms of themobarics you're still looking at specialist weapons.

 

http://world.guns.ru/grenade/rus/rshg-1-e.html

It can be given to any soldier just like all other disposable launchers.

Edited January 20, 2015 by Weer