Jump to content
lordhedgwich

Russian army under equipped?

Recommended Posts

New (I think) video about Uran-9 UGV from the Russian Federation. I had read it was supposed to enter service in 2017 and portion of the video seem to show a production facility building these, although I have no idea planned procurement numbers or how they will be distributed. Would be a fun toy for high end RF units though, 6xRPO 2xAtaka, and autocannon. 

 

 

Edited by danzig5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Follow up on MOAB

The Mother of All Bombs: How badly did it hurt IS in Afghanistan

Another local resident suggested IS could do with something a little stronger.
"Let Americans bring down a bigger one, this one was small," he said.
Back in the hills, Hakim Khan and his friends were listening in to IS fighters communicating via walkie-talkies with the help of their radio. The fighters were reassuring each other and communicating with their comrades in a neighbouring district.
A border police officer wondered aloud if the commitment of the Trump administration would match that of IS.
"The more we kill, the more they come from the other side of the Durand line, in Pakistan," he said.
...

Shear, a tough-looking special forces soldier, said that IS fighters were "crazy" and very committed.
"They make the most of their basic Russian guns; they are technical fighters," he said.
"You can't hear them coming in the mountains: they will wear six pairs of socks and get within striking distance without you hearing them.
"In the mountains they fight individually or in groups of two or three. They don't leave their positions, so you have to kill them. And their friends don't come to collect their bodies; they lie where they die."

...
"We found about 20 bodies around the site after the explosion. The cave system has been destroyed," he said. "It's possible that most of dead are buried inside those caves."
...
The drive to the impact site with Haji Beag and his unit was a short one. American planes were still flying above us, targeting the next valley a kilometre away. The mountainous terrain was hard on our four-wheel drive and as we approached the site a rocket landed 200m in front of us.
No one was hurt, but it made Haji Beag cautious, and we weren't allowed to set foot on the impact site.
But we could see it, and it was unremarkable. There was no big crater. Trees had been burnt and a few rooms had been flattened. Not far from it, houses still stood and there were green trees around.
As we left the valley, the bombardment continued. It seemed clear that the bomb that was dropped on 13 April had not come close to delivering a knock-out blow to IS militants entrenched in the area, and the locals certainly expect more conflict ahead.
To me, at least, the Mother Of All Bombs failed to live up to her reputation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

danzig5,

That was quite the video, especially since the Russians have figured out how to morph armament and sensor suites. Obviously, that wasn't what was really occurring, but that's what the edits made things appear that way. My take? There are multiple weapon and sensor configurations being evaluated, but what's shown doesn't indicate a decision has yet been reached. I think the CONOPS shown is seriously deficient tactically, but it does make for watchable video. Sure wish the program had English subtitles. I think it would've been worthwhile to pull out the guys in the building, replace them with mannikins in uniform  properly equipped but with broken weapons (why ruin good ones?), then light up that building with mixed 30 mm fire w/wo coax. the results would be most illuminating, but BDA would likely be complicated by building collapse, since the 30 mm, especially with API-T interspersed, would shred the brickwork!

HUSKER2142,

That was pretty cool and kind of reminded me of that 57 mm armed Super Marder the Germans were working on during the Cold War. Sure wish the OP hadn't put instrusive music onto the footage. Grr.

Regards,

John Kettler 

 

Edited by John Kettler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HUSKER2142,

Great video! I remember during my intel analyst days when I first got a look at the 2S7 and promptly gagged, for I knew instantly I was looking at a deep strike artillery system. The US never had a full-on 203 mm SPG, just a 203 mm howitzer. The 2S1 and 2S3 were bad enough to deal with, but I'm sure the inclusion of the 2S7 and 2S4 as major parts of the land warfare coverage in SOVIET MILITARY POWER caused a lot of dyspepsia, especially in conjunction with their being nuclear/chem/bio capable and there being a major Russian lead in explosives. Never get tired of hearing the tube ring after the 2S4 fires!

Regards,

John Kettler

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HistoryInOrbit wades in on supposed Russian super weapons. I'd say the site is aptly named, for after the vast amounts of garbage and wasted time to view and read the 21 entries, you'll be in orbit--propelled by rage! I understand site stickiness and importance of ad revenue, but this sort of nonsense makes me want to avoid the advertisers altogether, not to mention hurl imprecations. That said, there are some goodies in here, but beware of the commentary in places. See especially the "discussion" of ATGMs regarding one Russian attack helo.

http://www.historyinorbit.com/russias-new-generation-of-super-weapons-is-stunning/

Regards,

John Kettler

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/1/2017 at 10:39 AM, John Kettler said:

HUSKER2142,

Great video! I remember during my intel analyst days when I first got a look at the 2S7 and promptly gagged, for I knew instantly I was looking at a deep strike artillery system. The US never had a full-on 203 mm SPG, just a 203 mm howitzer. The 2S1 and 2S3 were bad enough to deal with, but I'm sure the inclusion of the 2S7 and 2S4 as major parts of the land warfare coverage in SOVIET MILITARY POWER caused a lot of dyspepsia, especially in conjunction with their being nuclear/chem/bio capable and there being a major Russian lead in explosives. Never get tired of hearing the tube ring after the 2S4 fires!

Regards,

John Kettler

 

Intel huh...

Not only did the US Army operate a 203mm self propelled howitzer, but it was organic to all mechanized formations. Plus, it was fully capable of firing the whole range of artillery munitions, including but not limited to HE, ICM, rocket assisted HE, chemical weapons and nuclear weapons. Its designated purpose being "deep strikes" aimed at disrupting and interdicting enemy targets beyond the front line, such as communications nodes, assembly areas, etc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M110_howitzer 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@John Kettler are you sure about the 2S4 designation? Wikipedia tells me it's a self propelled mortar.

Not really an SPH, but that 240mm calibre is quite impressive.

I also agree with Miller here that the M110 is a good analogue for the Mialka and Pion artillery pieces. When they get that big I think you are limited in how non-self propelled you are! The Soviet gun does benefit from apparently being slightly faster to set up as well as having a fair amount more range (30km compared to about 37km).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IICptMillerII,

Am well aware of the M110. Wiki lists the max range as 25 kms for standard shells and 30 kms for RAP. 2S7 Pion range is 37.5 kms for standard shells and 55.5 kms for RAP.  If range is the metric, 2S7 absolutely blows the doors off the M110 series.

HerrTom,

The 2S4 had a big DIA supplied doubtless originally S/NOFORN/WNINTEL full color painting of the monster. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to figure out which edition of SOVIET MILITARY POWER had it. The 1988 edition did, much to my astonishment, have a photo of the 2S7. It's on page 76. The amount of classified intel crammed into that book was mind-boggling, so much so I kept it at my desk as a useful reference, especially for cluing in people who weren't Threat Analysts about various matters. The 1988 issue was of particular importance because it broke new ground and incorporated the Suvorov/Rezun insights into TVDs and Russian warfighting plans. 

http://edocs.nps.edu/2014/May/SovietMilPower1988.pdf

Regards,

John Kettler

Edited by John Kettler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, John Kettler said:

Am well aware of the M110. Wiki lists the max range as 25 kms for standard shells and 30 kms for RAP. 2S7 Pion range is 37.5 kms for standard shells and 55.5 kms for RAP.  If range is the metric, 2S7 absolutely blows the doors off the M110 series.

Not sure how this affects the M110 to have performed its job adequately. What targets could you possibly be identifying and engaging with artillery at 50 km? Aside from cities and other population centers. Most targets an M110 would need to engage would only be 5-25 km behind the front anyways. Targets beyond that present a whole bunch of problems, regardless of whether or not you can hit them. 

The M110 was perfectly capable of accomplishing its mission. The Soviets did not have some kind of crazy, unchecked ability that NATO had no counter for here. Its stuff like this that discredits defense analysts' when they come out screaming and losing their minds over something that is not an issue. Tank gap anyone?

Further, the US no longer uses the M110 or any "heavy" (203mm) artillery because its no longer efficient. Improvements to accuracy and other factors has made the 203mm redundant. This does not include the MLRS.

Edited by IICptMillerII

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, IICptMillerII said:

Not sure how this affects the M110 to have performed its job adequately. What targets could you possibly be identifying and engaging with artillery at 50 km? Aside from cities and other population centers. Most targets an M110 would need to engage would only be 5-25 km behind the front anyways. Targets beyond that present a whole bunch of problems, regardless of whether or not you can hit them. 

The M110 was perfectly capable of accomplishing its mission. The Soviets did not have some kind of crazy, unchecked ability that NATO had no counter for here. Its stuff like this that discredits defense analysts' when they come out screaming and losing their minds over something that is not an issue. Tank gap anyone?

Further, the US no longer uses the M110 or any "heavy" (203mm) artillery because its no longer efficient. Improvements to accuracy and other factors has made the 203mm redundant. This does not include the MLRS.

I think the point was that 2s7 at least could run its fire missions theoretically without risk of NATO counterbattery fire due to its enhanced range. That and a single battery (attached to the division or higher) can render support to more of the front line.

To my knowledge, though, there is no good analogue to the 2S4...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, HerrTom said:

I think the point was that 2s7 at least could run its fire missions theoretically without risk of NATO counterbattery fire due to its enhanced range. That and a single battery (attached to the division or higher) can render support to more of the front line.

To my knowledge, though, there is no good analogue to the 2S4...

Fair enough, though I would still argue that the efficacy of counter battery against a target that is 50km away is rather low. The target will have likely moved on by the time you can get rounds on target, even if the fire direction centers are fast. Shelling targets 50km away is really only viable for very large targets that can't move, such as a fixed fortification network or a city, and even then its arguable whether or not its worth spending munitions on a target you cannot observe at all, thus do not know the effects of your fire. 

I don't believe there is an analogue to the 2S4, not that there needs to be one though. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I imagine that kind of thing when combined with Russian fire finding radar would put quite the hurt on our own shorter ranger artillery, any time we tried shooting it within 50 km of their big guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless you know of magical artillery shells that have managed to thwart Einstein and teleport to their target instantly, then no, NATO artillery is at no greater risk than usual. TOT for a target thats 50km away is a long time, enough time for the NATO artillery battery to have already moved, which is SOP anyways. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's link to today's Moscow Victory Day Parade!

Not much new. 

I don't think I've seen the Tigra with a remote turret before, it's not in BlackSea. Most seem to have a Grenade Launcher MmG combo (not sure which MMG it is) where as in game it's one or the other.

about 6min in their is what I think is a command version of a BMD. Sure it's old but I can't remember seeing one and it's not in the game.

The Artic Articulated is a beast, I've seen it before but not an Airdefence version. Even in a Uktainian Winter I am not sure it would make an update.

you can pretty much stop after 9min unless you want to se the Russian entry for Eurovision!!!!

Peter.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW the air force part that was cancelled due to the weather (we had bloody snowfalls yesterday :() but was rehearsed few times the days before included YaK-130 combat trainer. So far it was the first time it participated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahhh... A funny thing. Actually outside of Red Square about one sixths of the vehicles are ARVs, tank transporters and other repair vehicles. Certainly they don't show them in Grand Finale :D 

Edited by IMHO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It may not be as glamorous as the newer systems in-game, but I think the Russian SP 120mm systems Vena and Nona are worth adding. Based on the BMP and BTR platforms, respectively, they can be used for direct or indirect fire. The same gun on a different chassis is already available as off-map artillery, and is one of the most flexible artillery weapons in the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about the 2B9 Vasilek now that you mention it. I don't remember seeing it in the list. 100 round per minute mortar with direct fire capabilities seems exciting. As far as I know the Russian army still uses it, and I've seen footage from Ukraine of it being used on a technical - mounted to a 6x6 truck no less.

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...