Jump to content
lordhedgwich

Russian army under equipped?

Recommended Posts

Consider this diagram again:
scale_1200
On both tanks we see those conical sections, however if you look at this diagram you could see that 2A82 is significantly longer beyond that point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

Sadly by this point he was already removed from the insider information and as you could see by the dates (pre 2015) this information is rather outdated and he finishes it by stating that factory number 9 did complete modernisation.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/21/2020 at 3:13 AM, ikalugin said:

You are just comparing the wrong elements

So you say the difference in length is due to the fact they added one meter to the chamber but it's covered by armor so we cannot see it? One whole meter of length to the volume of the gun chamber? Are you kidding? It'll blow up the whole tank not just the gun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 4/26/2020 at 4:02 PM, IMHO said:

So you say the difference in length is due to the fact they added one meter to the chamber but it's covered by armor so we cannot see it? One whole meter of length to the volume of the gun chamber? Are you kidding? It'll blow up the whole tank not just the gun.

Not exactly but yes.
The increase in the chamber volume is there to both increase pressure and to allow longer sabots. This is incidentally the bigger challenge for T90M - it needs to fit the autoloader which is non trivial.

6427065_original.jpg

69900_original.jpg

 

Note both the longer sabot with extra charge and the longer powder charge that goes behind it when compared to the classics.

ijgru10.jpg

Edited by ikalugin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More relevant to the discussion - the GPV 2027 (or 2020 for the time frame represented) procurement plan is a good guide is what is actually being built once you get away from the RT. Long story short, at the CM level the Russians are almost certainly over-equipped in game, even by state targets. The ground forces only get 14% of the budget, and even then a lot of that is being channeled into long range artillery , VDV rapid-deployment initiatives, and operational level systems - all of which might shape a scenario, but aren't immediately applicable to the CM map.

The Russian tanker is far more likely to ride to war in an upgraded T-72B3, or even one of the T-80s hastily re-modernized to cover the Armata production gaps, than he is to be in a T-90M.

Likewise for IFVs. Given scaling back of BMP-3 production and the BMP-3 Dragoon lines only expanding in 2019, the odds are pretty even that the Russian rifleman is still riding a BMP-2, and will be well until the late 2020s and beyond given the decision to package upgrade many of those rather than pursue more BMP-3s.

On top of which, an increased on upgrading the BMD and developing newer models - the VDV's utility for operation in the near abroad has bumped them back up the food chain - means that many of these programs will likely be lower on the docket, as will attempts to salvage the Armata series combat vehicle production programs.

And then we have ATGMs. Mass equipping with Kornets has also proven impractical, and the bulk of Russian ATGMs are older systems.  

Basically, what most Russian battalions have in CM already represents a pinnacle force of which there would be few - a bit like finding a force of big cats in the WWII version of the game. 

https://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/default/files/publications/research/2018-05-10-russia-state-armament-programme-connolly-boulegue-final.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, ikalugin said:

It is the problem with predicting the future, same happened to US and Ukrainian forces.

The same didn't happen to U.S. forces.  The U.S. military has massively more funding and resources and are in a much better shape than Russian forces.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 6/5/2020 at 5:02 AM, Sulomon said:

The same didn't happen to U.S. forces.  The U.S. military has massively more funding and resources and are in a much better shape than Russian forces.

Did US field XM-25 grenade launchers in mass that the game has? No programs were delayed or cancelled? That was my point - the game has many weapon systems that did not see widespread adoption in the real time line, for example Oplot tanks for the Ukrainians, because it is hard to predict the future. As to funding and resources US sure does get a lot of money, but maybe not as much in relation to other countries as you may think:

c2808329090df75b4906fbcb989efd14-full.pn

Edited by ikalugin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Several KBP weapon videos in one: RPO family of weapons, Shmel and Shmel M. Even has English subtitles, a big improvement from the earlier Russian only Shmel and Shmel M video I saw, I believe, a couple of years ago. Shmel M has the firepower equivalent of a 105 mm HE shell, but in open ground, has a kill radius of only 7 meters. Mind, if it happens to blow off a chunk of the target, that can go quite some distance.
 

Regards,

John Kettler

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

There is precedent for a new Russian tank model to be delivered with an older gun design. This is exactly the way it went on the T-64, in which the first version was armed with the T-62's 115 mm U-5TS gun, not the then revolutionary 2A46 smoothbore 125 mm. Have eyeballed the relevant then SECRET (with additional control markings) images, so I know exactly what I'm talking about. The 2A46 is a mature technology, and the 2A46M5 builds on that, but now we have the original 2A82 which isn't the all-up version (but is producible with current tooling and materials), versus the 2A82-1M specifically designed for the T-14 Armata and intended  to give the Russians tank primacy (but apparently can't be produced for want of proper tooling and high tensile steel). Suspect the latter deficiency may have something to do with huge drop in Russian submarine production, but would think, given the relatively minor amounts needed, relative to as little as a single submarine hull, the necessary high tensile steel could be made available. Do I have things right regarding producibility of the baseline 2A82?

IMHO,

Can well understand why you'd prefer to avoid an FSB interview, to use the FBI term here in the US. 

Regards,

John Kettler

 

Edited by John Kettler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MIkeD,

Back during my Soviet Threat Analyst days in military aerospace, I believe the Soviet crew height limit was 5'5" and may still be so today. This makes it possible to build a lower height tank than the west can, provide substantial armor protection for a smaller volume, meet narrow gauge rail dimension limits and be able to use the same bridges earlier tanks used. By contrast, the US tanks are designed for the 90th percentile man. In round numbers, a guy 6'1".That's an 8" height difference, which has massive impact on size, height and weight, presuming identical technologies, but the US armor array is much heavier for any given volume protected, than the Russian armor array, never mind the dramatic disparity in volume to be protected. US tanks are designed to operate worldwide, but the first criterion of a Russian tank design is low height, an absolute necessity on the steppe. But what's great for there causes problems elsewhere, notably in depression limits roughly half that of US tanks. For example, the M60 A1 could depress to -10 degrees, but the T-62A could manage only -5 degrees. In order to shoot from a hilltop position downward, the American exposed only the turret front, but from that same position, the Russian had not only the turret exposed but a significant chunk of the glacis, too.

Regards,

John Kettler

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This documentary would've been worth millions to the west in the early 1980s, but while it lacks English subtitles, it is rich with previously unseen by most imagery and tech data. It's particularly apt in that it shows the original T-64 was fitted with the 115 mm (U5TS), but the T-64A debuted the revolutionary 2A46 smoothbore cannon. Later, the T-64B added the CLGM (Cannon Launched Guided Missile) we called AT-8/SONGSTER. Note the tank was originally fitted with gill armor (panels pivot out) creating a considerable obstacle to HEAT rounds fired at flanks from frontal arm to either side of the front hull,
 

Regards,

John Kettler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...