Russian army under equipped?

[lordhedgwich]

Russian Military currently had 80,000 in service in 2015 and the game is in 2017 shouldnt maybe a patch can fix this

[Firehead]

90% of the gear described in the video is soldier level equipment, in that it would make no difference of soldier effectiveness. Body armor, clothing, helmets, thermal/NVGs doesn't really need to be modeled as a new system in game. The only thing that could make a difference in game is their C2 systems and the laser designator.

When it actually sees combat, and can be proven as effective, then maybe we could see it in game. Until then, it is propaganda. The technology that they have shown in that video, or its described capabilities is seemingly over the top. Effective and small laser designators or range finders to each individual soldier is quite a claim. Some of the technology described has been available for some time, and been in experimentation with the US Army, and probably a few other governments.

If I could equate these claims to Cold War comparison, when the USSR came out with the Mig-25 Foxbat, NATO allies were scared of it. To counter, they produced the F-15. Then we got a hold of it, and it turns out the Foxbat was garbage and that out of our fear we created the best air superiority fighter to ever serve.

Bottom line, I'm extremely skeptical of the practicality and capability of this new system until it meets the enemy in combat.

[iMolestCats]

90% of the gear described in the video is soldier level equipment, in that it would make no difference of soldier effectiveness. Body armor, clothing, helmets, thermal/NVGs doesn't really need to be modeled as a new system in game. The only thing that could make a difference in game is their C2 systems and the laser designator.

Wrong. The Russians in game would greatly benefit getting the NVGs/Thermals as in game they only have night optics on their rifles which greatly reduces squad effectiveness at night.  

 

 

When it actually sees combat, and can be proven as effective, then maybe we could see it in game. Until then, it is propaganda. The technology that they have shown in that video, or its described capabilities is seemingly over the top. Effective and small laser designators or range finders to each individual soldier is quite a claim. Some of the technology described has been available for some time, and been in experimentation with the US Army, and probably a few other governments.

How would any of that be propaganda? All of that equipment is extremely reasonable and definitely not out of Russias manufacturing capability. But let me ask do you have any evidence that Russia has not equipped some troops with this equipment? 

[lordhedgwich]

90% of the gear described in the video is soldier level equipment, in that it would make no difference of soldier effectiveness. Body armor, clothing, helmets, thermal/NVGs doesn't really need to be modeled as a new system in game. The only thing that could make a difference in game is their C2 systems and the laser designator.

When it actually sees combat, and can be proven as effective, then maybe we could see it in game. Until then, it is propaganda. The technology that they have shown in that video, or its described capabilities is seemingly over the top. Effective and small laser designators or range finders to each individual soldier is quite a claim. Some of the technology described has been available for some time, and been in experimentation with the US Army, and probably a few other governments.

If I could equate these claims to Cold War comparison, when the USSR came out with the Mig-25 Foxbat, NATO allies were scared of it. To counter, they produced the F-15. Then we got a hold of it, and it turns out the Foxbat was garbage and that out of our fear we created the best air superiority fighter to ever serve.

Bottom line, I'm extremely skeptical of the practicality and capability of this new system until it meets the enemy in combat.

I feel like NVGs and the communications would be amazing. I understand Russia's Military isnt fully modernized but at the rate they are moving its fair to say if they were fighting nato in 2017 they would field their latest and greatest 

[Firehead]

Wrong. The Russians in game would greatly benefit getting the NVGs/Thermals as in game they only have night optics on their rifles which greatly reduces squad effectiveness at night.  

 

 

 

How would any of that be propaganda? All of that equipment is extremely reasonable and definitely not out of Russias manufacturing capability. But let me ask do you have any evidence that Russia has not equipped some troops with this equipment? 

You could be right on the NVGs. Without seeing how its programmed its hard to say whether the infantry thermals(outside of weapon mounted) even provide a significant advantage. I've had my men torn to shreds at night by this supposed "ineffectiveness". WIth the AN/PSQ-20, you'd change batteries every 15 minutes if used thermal all the time. I would assume that TacAI switches between the two modes automatically given the right conditions.

Ever used handheld laser designators? They aren't small, a little bigger than a 7.62 ammo can, and they aren't light. They also aren't cheap. We only had one, and it stayed in our truck(we didn't do much dismounted work to require it be carried). To give each soldier one would be ridiculous. To give each squad one, would be ridiculous. You'd see maybe one per platoon, and only the Fisters would carry it.

US experimented with weapon mounted cameras as a part of the Land Warrior Program. We have the tech too, so why isn't it used? It is impractical most likely.

I never said they couldn't manufacture it. I'm stating its effectiveness is probably not nearly what they are going to claim. Everything that is being proposed here in terms of equipment is 15 years behind the curve of what US military brass envisioned the future soldier to be equipped with. The difference is Russia is actually fielding it. Whether it will be effective is an entirely different question. And given that Russia already has financial problems, how would they be able to replace losses/failures of equipment.

The tech exists, this I will not deny, but to what extent would it be used based on its effectiveness is the question, followed by how good is it really?

[IICptMillerII]

This looks a lot like the infamous "Land Warrior" system the US Army was looking into (and quickly dropped due to it being ridiculous) around 5 or so years ago. Anyone remember this? The Land Warrior system boasted literally the same stuff as this video boasted. Helmet mounted cameras and personal GPS's and everyone has a tablet and blah blah blah. 

Point is it wasn't close to being practical and never went anywhere. I'm guessing that this is the Russian equivalent, and that they have just gone one further by already assuming the system works and how "revolutionary" it will be. 

So no, to answer your thread question, the Russian army is not under equipped. There are an abundance of forum topics that dig into this very question, and it has been answered quite thoroughly that if anything the Russians in CMBS are OVERrepresented. If you want to know more, the forum has a search function. 

[BTR]

• Russian troops already have Ratnik in CMBS. 
• Ratnik isn't an equivalent of Land Warrior system, Ratnik II is. 

[DougPhresh]

MiG-25 was also not junk, it was an extremely good interceptor, just not a fighter.

The New Model Recce Battalions have NVG in game.

[IICptMillerII]

• Russian troops already have Ratnik in CMBS. 
• Ratnik isn't an equivalent of Land Warrior system, Ratnik II is. 

Thanks for the clarification. What is the status of Ratnik II? 

[Chudacabra]

One thing I would expect in a conflict against NATO is a much greater number of ATGMs than is represented in the game. The anti-tank capabilities of a Russian infantry platoon are unfortunately rather lacking.

[lordhedgwich]

This looks a lot like the infamous "Land Warrior" system the US Army was looking into (and quickly dropped due to it being ridiculous) around 5 or so years ago. Anyone remember this? The Land Warrior system boasted literally the same stuff as this video boasted. Helmet mounted cameras and personal GPS's and everyone has a tablet and blah blah blah. 

Point is it wasn't close to being practical and never went anywhere. I'm guessing that this is the Russian equivalent, and that they have just gone one further by already assuming the system works and how "revolutionary" it will be. 

So no, to answer your thread question, the Russian army is not under equipped. There are an abundance of forum topics that dig into this very question, and it has been answered quite thoroughly that if anything the Russians in CMBS are OVERrepresented. If you want to know more, the forum has a search function. 

Oh snap here comes the forum nazi with his search function advice lol Much easier to just start a new thread than bring a 8-10 page dead one back to life

[IICptMillerII]

Oh snap here comes the forum nazi with his search function advice lol Much easier to just start a new thread than bring a 8-10 page dead one back to life

Erm... no. I was simply pointing out that if you wanted to see what I was talking about (the Russian forces being over/under represented) in a lot more detail then you could bring up some of the older threads talking about it in great detail. I was lazily avoiding typing out a long post as its already been covered. Not your point about Ratnik specifically, but in general. 

[lordhedgwich]

Erm... no. I was simply pointing out that if you wanted to see what I was talking about (the Russian forces being over/under represented) in a lot more detail then you could bring up some of the older threads talking about it in great detail. I was lazily avoiding typing out a long post as its already been covered. Not your point about Ratnik specifically, but in general. 

I was joking lol I hope you didnt take it seriously bud

 

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

One thing I would expect in a conflict against NATO is a much greater number of ATGMs than is represented in the game. The anti-tank capabilities of a Russian infantry platoon are unfortunately rather lacking.

It is however, how the Russians plan to fight a war.  The Russian squad level AT asset has been RPGs for sometime.  It isn't really a bad idea, and frankly it is quite versatile given the variety of rounds and low cost of same.  ATGMs are generally Company level assets and thus less common.  On the other hand the US Army* has gone down the other rabbit hole and decided to go for squad level ATGMs at the expense of something better rounded for killing bunkers and light vehicles**

It's not unreasonable to think that in a real world scenario we might see some in-field changes, extra AT-7s pulled out of storage, or an ATGM "squad" for each Russian platoon after the NATO armor makes an impact at the gates of Kiev, or US Army squads with Carl Gustavs and SMAWs stolen from storage and Marine units respectively become a common sight during the liberation of Donbass during hard urban fighting, but it is hard to guess which way those alterations might go, and they are not reflective of "real world" or even planned real world deployments.  

*The Marines for instance, still allocate Javelins as a specialty weapons team, and employ the SMAW for bunker/building type targets

[BTR]

Thanks for the clarification. What is the status of Ratnik II? 

Unknown, the program timeframe to completion of around 10 or so years has been given, but that is about it. 

[IICptMillerII]

I was joking lol I hope you didnt take it seriously bud

 

No harm done! 

Unknown, the program timeframe to completion of around 10 or so years has been given, but that is about it. 

Ah ok thanks for the info! I'll be interested to see how it ends up developing, and seeing if it ends up being similar to the Land Warrior system or not.

[Ivanov]

Russian Military currently had 80,000 in service in 2015 and the game is in 2017 shouldnt maybe a patch can fix this

I think that so far, only some elements of Ratnik have been tested in the selected units. It's still pretty far away from the 80,000 kits being used operationally. But since this game is kind of "what if", near future story, so why not Ratnik then...

[BTR]

Information above is outdated. Select element (and full equipment) testings were done over the course of last four or so years. Currently Ratnik elements that have been completed have been cleared for service. Arctic brigade, and troops in Syria have been already spotted using the kit. Part of Ratnik kit have been available for more than just this year. 

Ratnik includes:

• 5.45mm Rifle System
• 5.45mm Improved accuracy general purpose round
• 7.62mm Rifle System
• 7.62mm DMR Sniper System
• 7.62mm Improved AP Sniper Round
• 7.62mm MG System
• 9mm Special System
• 30mm GL System
• 12.7mm Special AMR System
• 12.7 Special System
• 30mm ALG
• Combat Knife
• Complete modular multi-weather uniform
• CnC Recon and Comms suite
• Individual full body flack protection suite
• Individual ballistic protection
• Individual Load carry equipment
• General purpose collimator sight
• General purpose optical sight
• Thermal sight
• Misc equipment like First aid kit, water decontamination and etc.

We've seen most of this in general service, some things have been available for years and the most important pieces of Ratnink - comms, personal protection and uniforms have been shipped in large quantities. I'm sure you've seen the most recent example. The main controvery remains around 5.45 and 7.62 rifle systems, almost everything else has been selected and completed . 

 

 

[antaress73]

Russian infantry in 2017 will likely be fully equipped with Ratnik. Especially units taking part in a  with NATO in Ukraine. They should all have day scopes and improved accuracy and  penetration rounds in the game. Their body armor should be very good and at night they should have at least night vision goggles and quite a few  thermals. Right now, Russian infantry in-game is pretty much  depicted as it was in real-life in early 2015. And dont give me the economic difficulties reasoning. The only thing that wasnt slashed in the 2016 budget is military spending. Modernisation of the armed forces is considered sacred.

 

If anything, economic difficulties will bring more contract soldiers in. For the first time , there were more candidates (as many as 8 per opening) than available openings in the military academies which have been totally revamped. They could pick the best. Word is out that living conditions in the Army are now very good.

Edited January 20, 2016 by antaress73

[xXmushmanXx]

Just because all Russian soldiers may have the rig, does not mean they will have all the equipment available such as GPS, Laser systems, Long range radio, Night vision etc and be experienced enough to use it. The US military has a budget of 3.8 trillion dollars per year and is larger in personnel than the next 5 largest military's combined. They have had active military engagements constantly ever since the 2nd World War, having hundreds of thousands of combat experienced soldiers. they even had  a huge military direct conflict recently with both Gulf Wars. There's a reason the US military is superior....

I do see where you are coming from however. This equipment they are talking about is all very expensive and only the best of the Russian troops would most likely be equipped and trained in it all. Maybe in game some of the Russian special forces units deserve to have more advanced systems added. This would mean they would have a mix of old and new equipment and in my opinion be more realistic.

[db_zero]

I haven't really kept up, but I'm under the assumption the size of the US Army in Europe has been drastically reduced. I don;t know if the campaign games, battles represent it, but I would assume that US forces will be facing a vast number of Russian troops. If every battle is where forces are evenly matched in size then perhaps that may need to be rethought?

It would take a significant amount of time to assemble, ship and regroup sizable heavy reinforcements to Europe from the continental US.

I know in QBs you can generally purchase more playing the Russians, but not significantly more.

[antaress73]

The Russians are fine when well played . Their infantry will still be better than what we see in-game in 2017.

 

I'm not looking to beef-up the Russians . I'm looking at realism and nice toys to play with.

Ohh and by the way xxmushmanxx, the US military budget is not  3.8 trillions but more like 800 billions  . the size is far from being more than the 5 next armies combined. Active US forces is 1.5 millions , Russia 800 000, china 2.3 millions. 

[db_zero]

You can't just look at the raw number of active military forces. The US may have 1.5 million active military personnel, but does that include AirForce and Navy?

IIRC the US Army is being reduced to something like 800,000 give or take and of those 800k how many are 11b or other combat arms? 

I've heard something to the effect that for every infantryman there are 5 other soldiers in non combat support so the actual number of what we consider front line combat troops is fairly low.

No way with the other global commitments could the US deploy its entire strength to a conflict with Russia.

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

Hokay then:

Re: Ratnik

I think Battlefront is at least a little researched as far as infantry systems.  One of the key holdups from my understanding in Russian night vision and thermal optics was the reliance on import components.  I'm not sure for the more modern sets if there's the industrial element to back that up yet.

The general danger of modeling anything in the future is frequently the stated, even reasonable goals of military forces right here right now entirely fall victim to all sorts of slings and arrows.  Case in point for Battlefront products would be USMC squads with M32s as far as the eye could see in CMSF, but in other games:

1. RAH-66 Comanche
2. XM8 rifle
3. Land Warrior
4. SCAR
5. Black Eagle/T-95/T-99 etc

 are great examples of vaporwear that have made it entirely into otherwise realistic games.  Then on the other end there's stuff that "dies" and comes right on back at a much later date (see KA-50, MV-22).

I think Russian infantry as represented in terms of optics isn't too unreasonable.  Night observation devices have not been a strong suit, and at least externally it looks like there's some sort of supply side problem with them, or at least a reasonable expectation there's not going to be as many as some folks would hope.  As far as thermals, those especially have been reliant on French exports, and looking at the state of Russian vehicle thermals, I'd be interested to see their dismount optics.

Re: Economics

Russia relies a lot more on imports than you'd think for military hardware, especially for electronics (and you'll note that more license built Russian equipment rolls with someone else's electronics).  If it is doing poorly, or as the case is, under sanctions, the ability to purchase this equipment makes large scale fielding much less likely.  While internally there might not be a cut in funds, the purchasing power of the Russian state has taken a lot of hits.

Re: Downsizing/Forces in Europe

Right now there's one Stryker Brigade Combat team in Germany (2 CR) and one Infantry Brigade Combat Team in Italy (173rd Airborne).  At this moment there are a number of preposition equipment depots for Armor type units.  I don't know for sure how many, nor if I did know I'm fairly sure that's not fit for internet waving around.  It's at least one Combined Arms Battalion, and there's been M109 and M3 spottings too which means a Recon Squadron and Artillery Battalion might not be out of reason.  There's also several preposition ships with Brigade sized elements that could move to the region on short notice.

The US concept for heavy forces appears to be moving back to the old REFORGER model, in which large numbers of heavy equipment is stored somewhere largely safe (historically, somewhere away from likely front lines in West Germany, although Poland and the Baltic states are likely candidates now), with the personnel flying in via charter plane/military airlift and meeting up on the front.  So the amount on the ground right now is less relevant as much as the time spent between "This Ukrainian thing might below up" and shots fired.  Scenario makes it sound like the first 1-2 ABCTs+2 CR+173rd is about what you're working with for the first month or so at least, with others inbound.

As far as the actual cuts, the scheme is a bit different:

The Brigade Combat Team system was designed to generate a large number of self supporting units in order to support rotational deployments to Iraq/Afghanistan (in effect, mating former division level assets to Brigades and aligning them on the same deployment rotation).  Two things came out of recent budget cuts and the last ten years of operations:

1. We're not as likely to for reasons of budget, national will, or threat be facing several long term conflicts at once.  We can't afford to have so many Brigade teams.
2. The 1 Cavalry Squadron, 2 "line" Battalion mix in most BCTs was inadequate.  It's not enough "teeth" and usually forces the Cav into a more direct combat role than intended.   

As a result the cuts are mostly Brigade level HQs, Brigade level support organizations (Brigade Support Battalions and the like), while rolling the now orphaned Battalions into the surviving Brigades.

So as an example, 1st Infantry Division used to have four BCTs (2 ABCTs, 2 IBCTs).  The two IBCTs are closing up shop, but their infantry battalions are mostly winding up as part of other IBCTs.  The 2 ABCTs are remaining as is, but they're going from 2 Combined Arms Battalions, to three Combined Arms Battalions plus a larger Artillery Battery, and nearly twice as many combat engineers.

Basically where the cuts are hitting the worst in terms of personnel are the senior Captains/Junior Majors, and senior NCOs that would otherwise be filling out the HQs for these now closed Brigades.  From that as far as junior folks there's going to be a much more constricted recruiting pool, and much slower promotion rates.  But most of the "combat" units, and lower echelon support assets, and frankly the "teeth" stuff is simply going to be more concentrated.

There's even some signs the Army is shifting to a smaller, but heavier organization, with some of the Stryker BCTs potentially moving from being regular army, to being National Guard formations.

Which is really a long way of saying the US Army is getting less able to be everywhere, but if it shows up somewhere, the amount of tanks and troops will not be drastically smaller.  

[antaress73]

1.5 millions TOTAL . check on the internet . Army, air force and Navy. And combat troops are a small number of the total. The US Army could maybe deploy à few brigades amounting to a big division in Ukraine . Anything more and they risk getting there when the war is over .