Jump to content

US heavy armored brigade vs Russian Motor Rifle brigade


Ivanov

Recommended Posts

Shows a variant of the Russian motorizedrifle brigade , a reinforced TOE . In the brigade 4 motorizedrifle's battalions ( of 3 companies in the battalion ) and 2 tank's battalions ( 4 companies in the battalion ). In conventional motorizedrifle brigades, three motorizedrifle battalions (3 companies per battalion) and 1 Tank battalion (4 companies per battalion). In terms of self-propelled artillery and air defense in both mechanized infantry brigades number is equal .

 

Представленный вариант Российской мотострелковой бригады  , усиленного ОШС . В бригаде 4 мотострелковых батальона ( по 3 роты в батальоне ) и 2 танковых батальона ( по 4 роты в батальоне ) .В обычных мотострелковых бригадах, три мотострелковых батальона (3 компаний на батальон) и 1 танковый батальон (4 организации на батальон). В плане самоходной артиллерии и  ПВО в обоих типах мотострелковых бригад кол-во равно.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All that maintenance....! 

Is there a Ukrainian image? Or could we build one? I'm good a photoshop,  I just need an accurate and clear source. 

What would be REALLY interesting would be the pre-invasion UKR structure and it's current, war tested organization. I suspect the mech Inf structure would have adjusted more easily ? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No ****storm here. It's a fact that the US relies on its Air Force to deny control of the air thus no need in its doctrine for an extensive fleet of mobile SAM and AAA assets such as the RUSFED fields.

The problem is that in a real war, the air force wouldn't be able to provide a 100% cover for the land units all the time. A Gulf War I situation would be highly unlikely. During the Cold War the US AD was weak in comparison to the Soviets but now it's practically non existent, due to the cuts and structural changes. Obviously AD wasn't that important fighting the insurgents in Iraq or Afghanistan. US military brass recognizes the problem and for the moment is even looking to use the AA assets of the allied armies. There was a talk about a new AD variant of Stryker.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is that in a real war, the air force wouldn't be able to provide a 100% cover for the land units all the time. A Gulf War I situation would be highly unlikely. During the Cold War the US AD was weak in comparison to the Soviets but now it's practically non existent, due to the cuts and structural changes. Obviously AD wasn't that important fighting the insurgents in Iraq or Afghanistan. US military brass recognizes the problem and for the moment is even looking to use the AA assets of the allied armies. There was a talk about a new AD variant of Stryker.

IT BEGINS AGAIN.

Off of the ADA, it's also reflecting the old style HBCT/ABCT which only had two CABs.  The new style ABCT which is the standard for post-downsizing has a third Combined Arms Battalion which includes an additional 29 or so MBTs and a similar number of IFVs.  It also includes a whole additional Engineer Company with should have both a mech infantry company level allocation of Bradleys (the EFV is basically a Bradley with tool racks) plus the heavy equipment platoon (ABVs, AVLBs, dozers etc), and there's an additional battery in the Artillery Battalion (I'm not sure if they kept the batteries the same size though so might be less than the 24 tubes you'd assume).

I'm not bored enough to delve into the logistics but that's certainly a lowball estimate.  Might be they're just counting the MTV series which excludes the PLS stuff which would be missing out on much of the cargo capacity of a Brigade.  

Interesting that they're using a deliberately plussed up Russian Brigade vs the Iraq legacy "more but smaller" concept for US Brigades though.  

Edited by panzersaurkrautwerfer
BECAUSE I COMMAND IT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is that in a real war, the air force wouldn't be able to provide a 100% cover for the land units all the time. A Gulf War I situation would be highly unlikely. During the Cold War the US AD was weak in comparison to the Soviets but now it's practically non existent, due to the cuts and structural changes. Obviously AD wasn't that important fighting the insurgents in Iraq or Afghanistan. US military brass recognizes the problem and for the moment is even looking to use the AA assets of the allied armies. There was a talk about a new AD variant of Stryker.

Hi Ivanov,, this has been discussed in other threads by those far more knowledgeable then I. As soon as i find it again i will post the link if you are interested.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To put it simply Ivanov, the kind of situations where one assumes US trouble at air superiority due to contended skies becomes an order of magnitude more complicated for the RuAF. You can't conduct fixed wing strikes on ground units without air control, and there's no scenario where the Russians can do anything but a very temporary bubble. Yes SHORAD is lacking but it's not the problem you think it is. The disparity in numbers and quality of aircraft is staggering (the Russians have some pretty cool kit, but it isn't widespread enough to warrant real fear), and SAMs aren't the end of the world that propaganda makes them sound like (on both sides). 

 

And no, air forces can't provide continuous coverage against heavy surge operations, but continuous presence is very, very doable and gets easier for the US and harder for Russia as the war goes on. Plus in order to penetrate aor space defended by aircraft you need a pretty hefty strike. Even then, all I need to do is launch my missiles at long range at the strikers and get them to dump ordnance and then we both run home. The difference is I've done my job and he hasn't. 

Edited by Codename Duchess
FLY NAVY
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't forget some blurry line drawn between Battle of the Teutoburg forest and the US Army in Ukraine; Putin absolutely not being a Saddam Hussein, and video games solving all of the worlds problems. Or Panzer being  Publius Varus. That was classic.

Edited by Currahee150
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I totally have the bingo card at the ready.  Great product Duchess, promote ahead of peers!

Addendums:

The ADA Stryker is less a reflection of realizing the sky is now red and deadly dangerous, and more of the evolving mission of the SBCT.  With the drawdown of US forces there's a much smaller footprint of forward based units (chiefly 2 CR, and 173rd Abn, and to a lesser extent the rotational Brigade in Korea).  We do have a not at all small number of heavy equipment that can be put in preposition yards, but that's still a fairly lengthy process of deployment.  Units that can walk/roll up a C-17's ramp and roll off ready to throw down are required.

The IBCT is simply too light for most of this.  It's got next to no mobility once it's off the plane/chopper and a lot of the support assets are also childsize (see 105 MM vs 155 MM artillery etc).  The SBCT however still packs a reasonable punch and has the mobility to operate across a much wider battlespace than an IBCT. and has fairly modest lift requirements compared to an ABCT.  

The Avenger ADA system remained in service largely because it could deploy with an IBCT which might find itself in country before a major USAF presence could be established.  With the new emphasis on rapidly deploying SBCTs that could roll out while the USAF is still surging into theater, an ADA asset makes some sense (especially if it's fairly modest, like one of the existing LAV based platforms adapted for a Stryker).  For an ABCT however, it's going to be ready to rock in the length of time it's taken to deploy pretty much the entire USAF, USN, USMC, and possibly some of the better armed aviation museum fleets to theater*.  

That really gets to the heart of one of the reasons an ABCT is not always the right option, it takes a bit to get rolling.  However ideally the course of action would be:

1. Crisis is identified, and deemed worthy of response.  Required units are notified
2. In theater units respond, USAF/USN air elements start flowing into theater
3. Follow-on rapid deployment SBCTs arrive and establish a sort of theater screen-cover mission, IBCTs defend high value nodes, ABCT initial cadre arrives and starts mobilizing preposition equipment
4. PATRIOT network entirely established, initial armor and heavy assets arrive in BN-/BN+ sizes to augment SBCTs, theater CAP is established.  Follow-on replacement units/reinforcements are identified.
5. Remainder of ABCTs arrive in theater.  Long term logistics nodes and support sites begin stand-up in theater.  Continued improvement of positions follows until enemy attacks and gets skull loved if you get my drift, or decides honestly there's some tartars that need kicking so they'll go somewhere else now.  

So in that regard, the ABCT doesn't have heavy ADA assets because it's going to be fighting under an umbrella of F-22s, F-15Cs, and F/A-18Es, all flown by people who's entire reality revolves around being able to paint a MIG silhouette on the side of their airframe.  And as much as we talk about S-400s and stuff, I'd be way more scared taking an SU-25 into airspace that might or might not contain some F-22s, because frankly the first sign they ARE operating in the AO might not be until after I've got a missile warning.

As alluded to by the bingo board, lack of NATO air dominance does not mean Russian CAS is likely.

*This is less a condemnation of the ABCT and preposition deployment, and more the reality the USAF and other US aviation assets are highly expeditionary and frequently will deploy to other countries simply to show the flag/maintain the capability.  If there's an existing NATO airbase in region it's going to be a pretty simple exercise, so while it's conceivable an SBCT's C-17s, and the planes carrying the personnel for the ABCTs are sharing the airspace with  fighters transiting to Europe, it's doubtful the ABCT will be ready before the skies are lethal for Russia's legacy era strike platforms.  

Link to comment
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
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
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...