Jump to content
lordhedgwich

Russian army under equipped?

Recommended Posts

I haven't seen them like that in combat conditions. It's usually the PK, very seldom an AG, in rare cases a 12.7 and in recently they started deploying the RCWS from Kovrov. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@HUSKER2142 @John Kettler when I started wargaming/building model kits and soldiers many decades ago it was Airfix, ROCO, Frog and a few others.  I don't think the Japanese were on the scene then, although I did build a Tamiya Motorised Chieftain at one point, yes it did have rubber tracks.  I seem to recall being very unimpressed with its performance:  it crawled along and kept flaking  out...a bit like the real thing :-).
 

I haven't made any kits or painted any figures for ages.  When I was a kid my non-warlike  relatives (horrified at my prediliction for the baddies: Tiger Tanks, ME109s, the Scharnhorst) kept buying me sports cars, civilian airliners,  the Queen Elizabeth and the like...I'd open the boxes, have a look, then just stuff them on top of the cupboard with the production line of kits I had bought but not got round to making.  

Somewhere around when I turned 16, I got interested in something else 🙂 and forgot about all this.

After Uni I was unemployed for a year (hard times) and  got completely immersed in D & D (which was an escape that helped me survive) and that brought me back to figure painting and wargaming.  Obviously now I rarely am able to meet for F2F gaming, which is a pity.

Funnily enough,  my parents were wanting to move house and asked me what to do with the unmade kits some years ago.  I said "I dunno,  I don't want them any more, probably chuck them out."   My mum, bless her, went on eBay and found out some of them were collectors items - boxed, unmade.  She sold them and gave the money to charity.  Which I was really pleased with. 


 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very nice. These exercises were the first ones to deploy a BMD-4M from the air since they had some trouble servicing parachute systems. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

"...

they had some trouble servicing parachute systems. 

Didn't realize the crews dropped with the AFV!!

Edited by Erwin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

@Erwin

In 70's there was the problem of crew search for AFV after landing. The idea was suggested that the crew would hop inside AFV, and not separately, which saved a lot of time. Now the parachute system is being developed so that all squad with the crew are dropped inside AFV .

Edited by HUSKER2142

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Did BMD-1 & BMD-2 drop fully loaded too?  I'd assumed that they did (for a scenario in CM:A, not set in Afghanistan), but I'm worried now.  :unsure:

Edited by Sgt.Squarehead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dropping a whole crewed armored vehicle...  that sounds like a good idea.....  Okay we are 5 minutes over the drop zone with possible AA fire- everyone climb into the APC...…  what could possibly go wrong?  Doesn't the Armata fly anyway?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

@Sgt.Squarehead , @sburke

No, this is not a permanent practice, sometimes such a method of landing is practiced. This method was created for wartime during the Cold War.

Honestly, mass airborne assaults are parachute out of date. The last more or less successful parachute landing was in Iraq in 1991. But in the airborne troops in different countries this is preserved as a tribute to traditions. In Russia, the airborne troops are the role of rapid reaction troops, as in other countries.The airborne force in fact became just an light infantry. Several years ago, even in motorized rifle troops began to practice tactical assaults on helicopters, company-battalion.

Edited by HUSKER2142

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Wicky said:

Looks like the crew members are wearing reserve parachutes just in case...

Maybe if they drop from 10,000+ feet (freezing cold and need oxygen).  Can you imagine the scramble to get out of the vehicle - and then probably get tangled in your vehicle's defective chute!

If you think about it, the concept of deploying formations like this in RL (as opposed to carefully rehearsed exercises) sounds like propaganda BS.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Cheers.....My scenario is set in 1990, it's a (totally fictional) direct air-assault on an airport, so I reckon it's still a goer (by the skin of its teeth).  B)

Edited by Sgt.Squarehead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Weather conditions would have to be quite perfect for them to risk deploying like this - reminds me of D-Day and the use of DD tanks and the consequences of rough weather...

Still a handy tool to have in the toolbox.

Edited by Wicky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most of the times vehicles are deployed separately for safety reasons. Same reason people only drop from the two side doors to avoid being tangled even if combat drops can be performed from four different points.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

https://defence-blog.com/army/russian-armata-modern-tanks-production-delayed-due-high-cost.html

So it seems the Armata's introduction is being pushed back due to cost and in favor of upgrading T-72s, T-80s and T-90s instead. 

On one hand, it makes sense to take advantage of the large numbers of these tanks already in the Russian inventory. On the other hand, and if CM:BS is anything to go by, the capacity of these tanks particularly in terms of firepower and targeting but also protection will leave Russia well behind contemporary Western designs like the Abrams, Leopard 2 and Challenger 2. Hell, even the Chinese seem to be getting ahead of these tank models when looking at the performance of the Type-96B in the Tank Biathlon. 

What do you guys think?

Edited by AtheistDane

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, AtheistDane said:

What do you guys think?

I think the Abrams in CMBS is somewhat more godly than in reality. I also think the technical aspects of armored vehicles matters less in real wars than in war games. In an actual war between NATO and Russia it would matter very little. The main effect of having an inferior tank is wounded national pride and maybe a hit in the export market.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@AtheistDane

For such a short period of time it is impossible to create a tank, T-54 in the series went after 5 years, T-64 in 15 years. At the same time first tank was created in the years of WWII and after the war time, and the second tank during the Cold War, which could grow at any time during the hot phase. I can conclude that nowadays it takes more time for the future serial tank. And secondly, as it was already said, modernization better justifies the combined environment, while the modernization potential will not be exhausted.

I myself spent a great time on BMP-2 as a gunner, and then platoon and company commander. The combat vehicle needs to replace ammunition and sights that meet modern requirements and it will get a second wind. Battle module "Berezhok" as an example of possible modernization.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Western tanks were designed to hold the Fulda. They're heavier, bigger and designed with ergonomics in mind. They were to hold out as long as they could, focusing on the anti-vehicle role. Disable as many Eastern vehicles as possible, in order to slow them down.

The Eastern tanks were designed to be dropped off at the front lines by rail and race through Europe, taking as much land as they could. Dug-in infantry and fortifications would have to be quickly defeated. They needed a lighter, smaller and more disposable tank with an HE focus.

What's the Armata designed for? Parades, mostly. The greatest success stories in weapons' history took years of improvements. Armata needs to get tested, prior to serial production and, even more so, prior to adoption. It's not being tested. What are they going to test it on? What is the pressing scenario that requires the deployment of the Armata?

Since the reveal of the Armata, the requirements have changed. Their military has becoming smaller, and more focused on fast, decisive, intervention. It seems that for "colonial" duties, the last century's tanks are doing the job and getting constant experience and improvement.

Armata saw little else than being on parade for a few years. Meanwhile, T-72s are still rolling around at tank competitions. They're easily shipped to allies, which have the logistics and training for them. They are rolling around in horrible environments, supporting infantry and smashing buildings.

When the geographic and socio-economic factors change, they'll need to come up with a new tank. I doubt that it'll be the Armata.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Given recent news articles I read where the Russians have said they wont be buying Armatas in any large numbers any time soon make me think itll go the way the of the PAK FA.

Which also gives me some serious LoLz at the various Russia Stronk! Armata and Pak FA comments Ive read over the years, and demands a couple years ago for Armatas in BS because of course by 2017/2018 the Russians will have hundreds IF NOT THOUSANDS!!! 

ahh.. schadenfreude

 

edit to add :

The Russians will be rolling around in T72s probably for 30 more years. I mean they had IS2s in active service with reserve units in the early 80s!

Plus if you take the US as an example - we spend more on military by several ordera of magnitude more than any other nation let alone Russia and we openly state we.ll be using B52s until the 2050s, it looks like F15s will be in service at least another 20 years, we.ve been using M1 variants almost 40 years now - Ive always wondered why Russia fanboys had to latch onto the idea of the Russian military getting all totally new equipment and f#&!_$_! you if you think anythibg different. Always seemed odd to me because the Russian equipment in use isnt really that terrible and has its definite pluses and unique traits anyways. Its definitely not like a Wehrmacht equipment vs Italian Axis equipment type situation where its just ridiculous how lame the Russ kit is in comparison IMO.

Edited by Sublime

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sublime said:

Given recent news articles I read where the Russians have said they wont be buying Armatas in any large numbers any time soon make me think itll go the way the of the PAK FA.

Which also gives me some serious LoLz at the various Russia Stronk! Armata and Pak FA comments Ive read over the years, and demands a couple years ago for Armatas in BS because of course by 2017/2018 the Russians will have hundreds IF NOT THOUSANDS!!! 

ahh.. schadenfreude

 

edit to add :

The Russians will be rolling around in T72s probably for 30 more years. I mean they had IS2s in active service with reserve units in the early 80s!

Plus if you take the US as an example - we spend more on military by several ordera of magnitude more than any other nation let alone Russia and we openly state we.ll be using B52s until the 2050s, it looks like F15s will be in service at least another 20 years, we.ve been using M1 variants almost 40 years now - Ive always wondered why Russia fanboys had to latch onto the idea of the Russian military getting all totally new equipment and f#&!_$_! you if you think anythibg different. Always seemed odd to me because the Russian equipment in use isnt really that terrible and has its definite pluses and unique traits anyways. Its definitely not like a Wehrmacht equipment vs Italian Axis equipment type situation where its just ridiculous how lame the Russ kit is in comparison IMO.

Funny you mention the Su-57, it was deployed to Syria, while the Armata was not (to the best of my knowledge). Mi-28s and Su-34s saw significant combat, so did various AA, EW, drones, naval and air munitions. These are practical tools that are required, and, therefore, are getting used and improved.

In my recent readings, I've come to the realization that not all military hardware, especially tanks, were produced with combat in mind. Much how the colours and patterns evolved on various animals to dazzle predators, or attract mates. It's not surprising that many folks on the other side of the pond are overly enthused about it.

The tank is a cultural icon. Much like the Char 2C, the Armata is a celebrity. Regardless if people like it or hate it, it was made to generate buzz.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Thanks for your reply.  Very well thoufht out and you.re right theres definitely a cultural attachment to tanks. This is something that is surprisingly not remarked on much.

  Yes I saw the pics of purported Su57s on the flight line.  Of course like the nuclear torpedo 'accident' I believe everything we see, especially as members of the general public, is VERY MUCH only what the Kremlin wants us to see.

 

edit: I very much want to establish I draw a line between Russian fanboi wet dreams like the T95 became, and very efficient proven equipment that is definitely out there and able to influence a conflict - for example 1 or 200 Mi28s, versus the idea of vaporware weapons where theres say a platoon for the Russian nation and none more are going to be bought

Edited by Sublime

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×