War on the rocks - hypothetical NATO-RUS

[Haiduk]

4 hours ago, kinophile said:

No no no no no no,  stop stop! Panzer's fingers  are twitching already! 

@Haiduk (or Ivamov),  can you clarify about Ukrainian and Separatist use Of MBT's?  It seems to be in small packets,  primarily in support of Infantry -  ie bite and hold of territory,  rather than armor thrust?

Haiduk,  I know you're fighting a positional war now,  but is there an intention to develop a more focussed, armor heavy assault force? 

 

In most cases both sides used tanks for infantry support and enemy positions shelling. UKR troops since 2015 gained a way of indirect fire with tank guns - recon spotter with PDA gave targeting, tank crew received target data on own PDA, made calculations with special soft and shelled target from close position. 

In initial fase of war Ukrainian tank forces suffer a lack of crews, so available tank units divided by platoons or single machines and maintained area security on checkpoints. With intensification of warfare, mobilization wawes conducting and tanks repairing, tank forces were significantly increased and became use for offensive actions with forces of platoon-company size. But after liberation of territory these companies again divided on platoons and single tanks for guard of new-established checkpoints. Else infantry (mostly poor trained and poor motivated in that time) often rejected to stay on positions. Such tactic of multiple checkpoints establishement and attempts to be present anywhere significantly dispersed strike force of tank units, tied its in guarding functions, made it vulnerable for artillery strikes, ambushes etc. Also separatist forces use this passive tactic - they were got opportunity quicky to gather mibile armor groups and attack UKR chekpoints, which as a rule have mech.platoon+tank+ZU-23-2. In that time, when war had mostly maneuver character, our troops rarely dug normal trenches, so enemy had good chance to force our troops to withdraw. Moral and motivation of infantry directly depended from presense of tank. If tank on position - infantry is stable. But if tank destroyed or failed and can't support infantry, in most cases they immediately retreated. Only in winter 2015, when troops became more trained and motivated and already have strong fortified positions, this "tank-dependance" was mostly overcame. Most of tank losses - because of artillery/MLRS fire, mines and road bombs. Direct clashes between tanks happened not so often and as for me never didn't exeed platoon+ vs. platoon+ size.    

About tank brigades. Before the war 1st tank brigade considerd the best. This brigade received new BM "Bulat" (2 battalions). But brigade was equipped only with 1/3 of personnel. After mobilization wawes in this brigade came many people, which never seen a tank or didn't want go to war. Its was often in 2014-2015, when former tanker directed to the unit's kitchen, cooker - to airmobile troops and sapper to tank unit. As result training and motivation of brigade was very low. Often crews rejected to go in battle, deliberately broke it, didn't want to struggle for its survive after damage. Some examples - during fight for Georgievka BM Bulat catch HEAT from enemy tank under turret with partial penetration. Tank withdew to our positions and small fire have started, which seriusly didn't threat to tank. Crew after weak attempts to extinguish the fire just abandoned it. Fire became more strong and soon move to ammunition - BOOM. Small fragments of exploded ammunition hit positions of airmobile platoon nearby - two soldiers were wounded (one of them lost own eye). In time of break through of Luhansk airport blocade, crews of tank comapny rejected to go in airport, so place of soldiers were forced to occupy compamy officers - with tank platoon they could led convoy to target, When first three waves of mobilized personnel returned to home and their substituted more trained and motiovated 4th, 5th and 6th waves level of brigade some raised.

17th tank brigade by rumors before war wanted to disband and its level considered as low, but when war began, this brigade showed itself as tough unit, which without fear went to any fight.  Ok.. I can write many examples to the morning. Finish on it %)

[Krater]

41 minutes ago, kinophile said:

Very interesting. 

It's almost not a bad idea to wear down the current stock of artillery and gradually replace with modern NATO compatible, but not NATO member supplied,  PGM. capable weapons.

Archer system,  anyone?

If anything,  PGM is what the UA needs versus the Separatists  - any increase in civilian casualties simply plays into Putin's hands. 

Of course,  PGM are just as much a cluster**** if the wrong target is ID'd.... 

Archer is probably too expensive for the Ukraine,  but the idea is there - wear out and force replacement with new. 

 

The underlying concept,  which seems to be the ultimate, RL aim of the Ukrainian Ground Forces,  is to NATO-ize the UA in all but name,  allowing much stronger integration with NATO in the unlikely event of a proper war. 

Fine King Putin, we won't join NATO. Here's a treaty and everything for you to pretend you'll adhere to.

Oh look,  every single critical aspect of our Ground and Air forces are NATO compatible.

BUT we're not in NATO.

So. YEAH. 

 

  

 

The problem is two fold:

1) Ukrainian industry has a limited capacity to produce "NATO-standard" weapons.  While Ukrainian defense sector is relatively large, it's not very productive or efficient.  The R&D capabilities have been allowed to atrophy, and production of new equipment has happened in only a handful of areas.  Most of current factories have experience with rehabbing old-Soviet era equipment at best.  To produce new, NATO-compliant equipment and weapons would require large investments into the defense sector - but the quandary is that this money would be competed against the current needs of the army, which is starving for more of what it has right now -not a new artillery system 5-7 years down the line.
2) Ordinarily this could be solved by purchases from abroad, as Georgia has done earlier but Ukraine has been essentially frozen out of the international weapons market.  There are difficulties with purchasing even nominally dual-use equipment like engines for use in APCs. Neither Europe, Israel nor Chinese will sell it weapons at this time.

[Haiduk]

1 hour ago, Krater said:

Not really, no.  The gun systems for artillery and tanks were never produced in Ukraine, so their production would have to be started from scratch.  I would expect that there would be more emphasis on conserving the life of existing artillery systems while moving to greater use of MRL.  Ukraine still has considerable stock of rockets for them (though they need to be reconditioned) and they are easier to produce and maintain.

We have KBA (Design Artillery Bureau) - barrels for Pakistan T-80UD and our Oplots made by them. KBA also disigned 120 mm, 140 mm tank guns, but this was in beginning of 2000th and these designs, alas, remained only in single specimens. Now KBA have very small volume of production... 30 mm guns for BMP-2, BTR-3/4 also produce in Ukraine. Planned to renew a production of 2S1 SP-guns. 

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

17 hours ago, Haiduk said:

I meant some other... Not so combat performance as a set of tactical skills, accurate shooting etc. Soviet/Russian (and also Ukrainian, Belorusian) serviceman, which passed several long wars in very rough conditions (and not just private, but sergeant or officer) gains a couple of  increadible skills of surviving on battlefield (as well as on combat and household levels), morale and volitional qualities, which stay with him on the level of instincts despite on either it was 30 years ago, 20, or 10 and can be easily recalled, when man again turned back to the warfare. Exactly these qualities, magnified with need ideological belief were allowing to maintain fanatic resilence and gain success, when other armies failed. 

Here's the thing though.  War is fought by "systems" if you get down to it.  The individual skill of a combatant really is pretty negligible in the overall picture of combat relative to how "good" or "bad" the organization he is placed in performs.  As alluded to by Krater I believe, this battlefield experience has translated well into personal survival or low level tactical success.  It has not leveraged into more capable military forces, or overcome other major issues with any of the factions currently in the Ukraine.  

Combat veterans will certainly help somewhat at the lower level, but I would contend the war would be going a lot better if the Ukrainians had experienced and skilled higher staffs, or well qualified (and not corrupt!) logistics.more than more combat veteran soldiers.  

[TheForwardObserver]

“In a 3-minute period…a Russian fire strike wiped out two mechanized battalions [with] a combination of top-attack munitions and thermobaric warheads”  http://www.defenseone.com/technology/2016/05/how-pentagon-preparing-tank-war-russia/128460/?oref=d-dontmiss

Saw this and I reckoned ya'll might find it worth reading.

[Kinophile]

If I'm not mistaken, contrary to that article, ERA Expands/explodes outwards to increase the effective depth of the armor and dissipate the incoming molten jet or warhead. 

[Sublime]

Lol and I thought ERA was made to deform the rod penetrator on sabot rounds.

[TheForwardObserver]

I'm keen on the *acknowledgement* that Russian artillery and armor in East Ukraine were absolutely devastating, and every subject and event mentioned in the article can be researched by OSint.  Most of these events have been mentioned here, but ususally in a reflexively critical manner.  Notable also was the use of UAVs and EW.

I'd return Crimea and the Donbass to Ukraine tomorrow if it were my call, but politics aside, I have been thoroughly impressed with what I've seen from the Russian army.

[Haiduk]

7 minutes ago, TheForwardObserver said:

I'm keen on the *acknowledgement* that Russian artillery and armor in East Ukraine were absolutely devastating, and every subject and event mentioned in the article can be researched by OSint.  Most of these events have been mentioned here, but ususally in a reflexively critical manner.  Notable also was the use of UAVs and EW.

I'd return Crimea and the Donbass to Ukraine tomorrow if it were my call, but politics aside, I have been thoroughly impressed with what I've seen from the Russian army.

Artillery and MLRS is main engine of this war from both sides. Ukrainian artillery showed itself also on high level.  Especially since 2015, when volunteer-designed PDA software for targeting and calculations began to implement itself to the artillery units. This allowed significantly to short time of reaction (especially of brigade-level arty) and accuracy.

Edited June 2, 2016 by Haiduk

[TheForwardObserver]

@Haiduk That is certainly the case.  And certainly is the case in most wars where a degree of parity exists between the maneuever forces on both sides.  Cursory examinations of casualties in wars fought between proper armies, throughout the 20th century supports this.  From my vantage point, the King of Battle has been away from his thrown for a few decades, and has returned to find his kingdom in need of repairing.  

Sorry, also, to approach the conflict in an impersonal way, and I mean this to the Ukrainians and the Russians.  I am very familiar with how it feels to be *subjected* to the often well thought out and researched opinions of those who "weren't there" of course I've also found outside analysis absolutely critical-- and I know that seeing your buddies cast as numbers and events can feel very personal- I will say sinfully that it's a relief criticising someone else's war for once.  

[Kinophile]

1 hour ago, Haiduk said:

Artillery and MLRS is main engine of this war from both sides. Ukrainian artillery showed itself also on high level.  Especially since 2015, when volunteer-designed PDA software for targeting and calculations began to implement itself to the artillery units. This allowed significantly to short time of reaction (especially of brigade-level arty) and accuracy.

How reliable is that software? What is it called? What is a typical/average/estimated timeframe from the FO sending data to rounds impacting? Perhaps @TheForwardObserver can also reduce my ignorance...

Is the UKR system (PDA to PDA) affected by Russian EW?

Interestingly, my personal experience with CMBS is that mech inf/MBTs are the main engines of battle, but I'm nearly finished a scenario that puts more emphasis on the fire support aspect, with significantly stronger arty to the russian/seps (RUSSEPs? )

 

Edited June 2, 2016 by kinophile

[TheForwardObserver]

If our 'highly encrypted' short range networks are vulnerable to counter measures and jamming, I suspect Ukrainian networks also remain vulnerable.  Jamming is a particularly attractive method of degrading an enemy without exposure, like artillery, and use of this equipment is arranged by non-lethal effects cells, typically any type of 'electronic fires' will be coordinated with lethal effects cells to achieve maximum effect and efficiency-- A general Ukrainian familiarity with Russian tactics has probably been important in mitigating the effects of degraded communications, along with native communications infrastructure already intact.  

I'm not familiar with the device or software the Ukrainians are using as their 'forward entry devices' or PDAs but I'd imagine they can be operated as independent un-networked devices that can be manually inputted or plugged into a laser range finder and GPS to generate the information needed for fire missions.  Standalone it would be  least vulnerable to the effects of EW.  Likely the device will also be capable of being plugged into an encrypted radio, whereby that data can be transferred via frequency hopping encrypted channels to recipient devices on the network.  

The length of the whole process, under non-degraded conditions, and every military has standards for every aspect of this, can be as quick as it takes you to do the following;

Look at your target: Raise your laser rangefinder (viper vector laser rangefinder is a good example of a typical device in this instance): Point rangefinder at target: Click the direction and distance buttons: The direction and distance to the target appears, this information is sent to the PDA, where it is combined with your location (either inputted manually beforehand or connected to a GPS), and a fire mission is generated and either sent over the radio, if connected, just as quickly as you can send a text message, or if preferrable the mission data generated in the PDA is relayed over a voice network, either wire or radio.

The length of time required to respond can be affected by several things: Have you been in direct communication with the firing unit?  Is the target location affected by any existing Fire Support Coordination measures; such as Free Fire Area, Restricted Fire area, No-Fire Area.  Are the guns set up and manned?  Are they loaded?  What kind of guns do they have?  How far away are the guns?  How complex is the request for fire?  At it's fastest your rounds are on their way 15 seconds after you've sent your mission, at it's longest many minutes. 

The *shortest *path here is you've been in direct contact with the battery, the battery is near, the effects required are basic, the receiving unit doesn't modify your request and the target area is an FFA with no restrictions or clearance of fires issues.  At this point you have only to wait on the gun crew's loading and adjustments to their guns if needed and time of flight of the rounds.  Time of flight can be seconds with low angle fire and minutes with high angle.  I don't know what standards Ukr or Russian gun crews train to, nor do I know what speeds their guns are capable of achieving, but once again I would expect dozens of seconds for some guns and crews and minutes for others.  I know you want hard numbers but the best way to judge this for yourself is by watching youtube videos of russian and ukrainian gun crews from the moment they receive the request to the moment they fire, as I'd imagine their published standards diverge a bit from actual capabilities.

[John Kettler]

Krater,

There are some ex-Czech DANA truck based SPGs to be had via at least one surplus vehicle dealer called EXARMYVEHICLES  in Europe. These have been demilitarized to the relatively benign Czech standards and may therefore be restorable without a lot of work. These are 152 mm and therefore shouldn't have major impact on ammunition logistics, provided the UA has and uses 152 mm. I have no idea on this score. Somehow, I doubt these SPHs have gone through their barrel lives. This same firm has O-64 SKOT APCs (OT-64 being what a BTR-60 should've been). They've got 20. 

DANA SPH in firing order (from the Wiki). Mobility makes shoot and scoot readily implementable. When this thing came out during the Cold War, we found it a disturbing development.

An outfit called Mortar Investments has some unknown quantity of 2S1 SPHs for sale. It also has upgraded BMP-1s, MTLBs, OT-90 (upgraded BMP-1 with BTR-60 turret)

From the above, it is clear the Ukrainian collectors  have great and immediate needs which must be filled!

Regards,

John Kettler

Edited June 3, 2016 by John Kettler

[Haiduk]

23 hours ago, kinophile said:

How reliable is that software? What is it called? What is a typical/average/estimated timeframe from the FO sending data to rounds impacting? Perhaps @TheForwardObserver can also reduce my ignorance...

Is the UKR system (PDA to PDA) affected by Russian EW?

Interestingly, my personal experience with CMBS is that mech inf/MBTs are the main engines of battle, but I'm nearly finished a scenario that puts more emphasis on the fire support aspect, with significantly stronger arty to the russian/seps (RUSSEPs? )

 

This is GIS-Arta complex. Most impressive volunteer crowdfunding project. Includes PDAs and notebooks with special software, some "balck box", wich maintains protected information transmitting via commercial satellite. System has satellite and map of heights. Technical details developers hold in secret. I can't say how exactly it work, what level of EW protection, what communication standatrds used etc. Recons or spotters with PDA, LRF, artillery recon divice take coordinates of target - its go to PDA with software - via SAT and "black box" - to main protected server of some unit. System also can snap to the terraine and determine target coordinates from UAV photo or video. Central server operator can choose nearest or free battery, which can to shell target and transmits data to them. After data received on battery notebook, special soft automatically calculates corections for battery and transmitted info to PDA/notebook of senior battery officer, when his soft automatiaclly makes corrections for each gun. Booom ! All process from target spotting to final data for gun platoon occupies about 30 sec - 1,5 min. For comparison, in the summer 2014  infantry could wait called artillery support up to 20 minutes ! Of course, this is maximum time, avarage time was like in CM - less then 10 minutes. But process of artilelry calling was more long and hard, then now.  Accuracy of target data for guns by claims of developers is from 2...5 m (best result) to 25 m (worth result). Also GIS-Arta allows significantly to short the time of prepare a battery to fire from march. System can be merged with any digital artillery recon device, counter-battery radars, UAV, digital radio, PDAs etc. 

Satellite antennas for GIS-Arta

 

 

Battery part of GIS-Arta system

Mysteriuos "black box" which force all this stuff work together

First versions of GIS-Arta were tested during battle for Donetsk airport. Also this system was very useful during Debaltsevo battle. 

Alternative system, but with some less functionality and with radio data transmitting is ArtaOS and its further modification "Kropyva" (eng. "Nettle") system, also from volunteers. This one mostly work on battalion level for tarheting not only artillery and mortars, but also AGS, HMG and even SPG-9 and tank guns in indirect fire mode. Also on base of such type of recon complex, developed a software, which uses special forces and recons - first step for battlefield information space. All of these developments made by volunteers - state officials from MoD at the beginning tried to foil implementation of these toys to the troops. They said, that state since 2013 conducts tests of similar automatic system for artillery, but volunteer projects showed own effectiveness, when state program almost completely stopped because of no money for serial production. So, generals capitulated and closed eyes that volunteers became supply army with modern recon complexes. Now GIS-Arta  passed all tests in MoD  - assumed a decision to develop after war on its base real combat artillery targeting system. "Kropyva" system also can have a future - developers now cooperate with "Lenkuznia" factory (different military technic, weapon etc), which recently belonged to president Poroshenko (and now posibly still belong indirectly) - some months ago they presented upgraded project of "Kropyva", which will be real multifunctional recon&trageting complex.

Edited June 3, 2016 by Haiduk

[Kinophile]

Holy crap. 

Against that kind of determination,  organization and sheer goddamn smarts, the Donbass Republics really do not have a chance.

That's so enheartening to hear about.

As I mentioned above earlier,  the US does not need to ever put boots on the ground -  the Ukrainians are perfectly capable and only need technical support and money, not hand holding.

The entire MoD needs to be rebuilt from the roots up, though. 

Edited June 4, 2016 by kinophile

[TheForwardObserver]

'Neccessity is the mother of invention'-- I believe it was Al Gore who first said that, after personally developing the internet.  

[VladimirTarasov]

Haiduk, 

This PDA system is very impressive. Are they distributed as a Battalion attach or? I know of Ukrainian recon units providing good info on Separ positions think a guy had said if you are exposed to enemy units for 5 minutes you'll have mortars raining on you. 

Skill rating of DPR/LPR:

Guys sitting in the front line are regular-veteran for the most part, you'll have guys from units like "Sparta" who vary from veteran to crack. Leadership a +1 or +2, unit leaders are pretty friendly compared to some in the Russian Ground Forces(conscripts use to get the worst its all fixed now). Alcohol abuse shouldn't be widespread among DPR/LPR boys in the front lines, discipline is strict in that sector. Motivation should vary from regular-high among these units.

Skill rating of Russian Ground Forces: 

Leadership in the Russian military now is very professional and effective(hence why our active army has decreased compared to our reserve), I'm satisfied with officers in the Russian military. Also drills and training have stepped up, and I'd say from watching documentaries on NATO armies' trainings. Are very comparable and mostly on par with them, except for the US army's which goes more in depth with the individual soldiers (which I come to respect of the US armed forces.) Although still very comparable with the US army's in terms of basic training and squad-platoon-company-battalion training exercises. The Russian soldier today is of course comparable in training standards to NATO armies. A few years back I wouldn't be able to say this. Given a conflict in Eastern Ukraine, I'd say high readiness units with experience would be deployed so expect 100% regular and veteran troops with leadership at 0 or +1 and in pro units +2. Motivation regular to high among these units and mostly made up of professional lads. Just this year the Russian Armed Forces will hold 2000 drills, exercises and training events. 

[Haiduk]

7 hours ago, VladimirTarasov said:

Haiduk, 

This PDA system is very impressive. Are they distributed as a Battalion attach or? I know of Ukrainian recon units providing good info on Separ positions think a guy had said if you are exposed to enemy units for 5 minutes you'll have mortars raining on you. 

GIS-Arta uses only for artillery units. Artillery brigades have it (except one, which has ArtaOS) and artillery battalions inside some mech.brigades. As I know, about 20 complexes already in service, but I don't know what level means "complex" - platoon, battery or battalion. "Kropyva" can use in both - for artillery and for infantry/recon purposes. Before both systems will go to units, programmers come to the sector of front line, when unit will operate and during 1-3 weeks adjust system under local terrain specific and specific of unit's weapon.

Interesting, that both systems started from simply program - ballicstic calculator under Android, developed by volunteers, which made work of artillery units HQ more quick and shorten time for shooting data output.

Edited June 4, 2016 by Haiduk

[Krater]

On 6/1/2016 at 2:11 PM, Haiduk said:

We have KBA (Design Artillery Bureau) - barrels for Pakistan T-80UD and our Oplots made by them. KBA also disigned 120 mm, 140 mm tank guns, but this was in beginning of 2000th and these designs, alas, remained only in single specimens. Now KBA have very small volume of production... 30 mm guns for BMP-2, BTR-3/4 also produce in Ukraine. Planned to renew a production of 2S1 SP-guns. 

I didn't know if that was the case - I remember Yuri Butusov being quite excited about a find of 20-30 BMP-2 barrels in late 2014 in some NII warehouse, so I assumed that gun systems on BTR-3/4 are using reconditioned BMP-2 components. 

By the way - hopefully this has been covered in the press, but what is the situation with the MTLBs?  I've seen photos of the new "artillery" version, with unguided rocket pods

 

as well as the KPVT armed version

 

but they don't seem to be very widespread.  Given that Ukraine is supposed to have more than a thousand of MTLBs in storage, they should be more visible as APCs or IFV conversions. 

[Kinophile]

3 hours ago, Krater said:

I didn't know if that was the case - I remember Yuri Butusov being quite excited about a find of 20-30 BMP-2 barrels in late 2014 in some NII warehouse, so I assumed that gun systems on BTR-3/4 are using reconditioned BMP-2 components. 

By the way - hopefully this has been covered in the press, but what is the situation with the MTLBs?  I've seen photos of the new "artillery" version, with unguided rocket pods

 

as well as the KPVT armed version

 

but they don't seem to be very widespread.  Given that Ukraine is supposed to have more than a thousand of MTLBs in storage, they should be more visible as APCs or IFV conversions. 

Are those rocket pods off a helo? Very Libyan.... 

[Sublime]

Those definitely look like the Russian a2g rocket pods you see on any Russian aircraft or helo that shoots rockets.

Whilst somewhat ' Libyan' they just look so much more firmly attached or put on that it does look like a legitimate weapon on the vehicle. Not like almost a half a joke you see some of the technicals look like. Maybe its just theyre attached to MTLBs and not Toyotas.

Edited June 5, 2016 by Sublime

[John Kettler]

Haiduk,

Fabulous information on a set of systems which create real leverage for FA.

Vladimir Tarasov,

Helps to see what someone from Russia thinks about the state of the nation's military.

krater,

Definitely hadn't that one before. Sure would get attention in an armor model competition! Reminds me of a Zvevda model box I saw once. It was of a Russian BT-5 light tank chemical warfare version sporting two enormous rockets which looked like something from "Buck Rogers." See for yourself. My recollection was that these were rockets for delivering chemical munitions, but they evidently were instead for bombardment! These were 420 mm rockets dubbed "Tank Torpedoes" buy the Russians!
 

 

But how about something totally on point as regards your MRL armed MTLB, would you believe a rocket launcher pod armed technical? Believe I'd want to be well clear of that thing when it commenced firing, since I'm pretty sure that's a fixed mount. Wonder it's ever been fired before? WW II Katyushas, also with fixed mounts, had blast shutters for the windshields, and BM-21s always traverse the mount such that rocket blast doesn't impinge on the unprotected truck cab. If I'm right about this technical, there's a considerable likelihood that firing it will wreck the cab and anyone in it!  I believe the KPVT armed MTLB is a good idea and vastly preferable to the ones with the anemic 7.62 mm MG turret.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Haiduk]

14 hours ago, Krater said:

I didn't know if that was the case - I remember Yuri Butusov being quite excited about a find of 20-30 BMP-2 barrels in late 2014 in some NII warehouse, so I assumed that gun systems on BTR-3/4 are using reconditioned BMP-2 components. 

By the way - hopefully this has been covered in the press, but what is the situation with the MTLBs?  I've seen photos of the new "artillery" version, with unguided rocket pods

as well as the KPVT armed version

BTR -3/4 uses some different guns KBA-1 (clone of Russian 2A72) or ZTM-1. Analugue of 2A42 under name of ZTM-2 for BMP was designed and launched for initial production only in past month. 

We really have many of MTLBs, but its mostly uses as gun/mortar carriers, or like platforms for ZU-23-2 guns. Also some battalions of VDV and Marines equipped with these vehicles like APCs. Exists some projects of MTLB with different RWSs, but MoD hasn't any interest to it.

Vehicle with KPVT is not APC, this is FO vehicle 1V14/15 on base of MTLB-U. KPVT on it mounts as regular. Now this FO vehicle uses mostly for carring of artillery HQ personnel. On frontine its mostly stay on battalion command center. Spotters for moving uses or own legs, or civil jeeps. Since they received small portable LRFs, GPS devices, notebooks and PDAs with special soft, nessesitty in obsolete equipment of these FO vehicles fell out. From old equipment spotetrs mostly use only circumferentor PAB-2

About MTLB with rocket pods. As you know, Minsk agreements denied usage of MLRSs, but experience of Maryinka battle showed, that enemy can attack in any time and for this time untill our artillery will arrive on fire positions from rear, troops will need in fire support. So this is just trick. Minsk agreements nothing to say about 57 mm and 80 mm rockets, so it can be used. This erzats MLRSs were made for one brigade, which now occupied most hard sector. In such way on front positions delivered 85 mm AT-guns D-44 or even WWII time 76 mm ZIS-2 for substitition of 100 mm MT-12, also denied by Minsk. These guns given to the units as supernumenary weapon in order they can opportunity to fought on lon-range distance with enemy light armor.  

Edited June 5, 2016 by Haiduk

[Kinophile]

Very smart. Essentially a shorter range Grad? 

I've heard before about the Zis 2 being used. I was very surprised that it was available in practical numbers AND that there was sufficient appropriate ammunition. 

What is the situation regarding ATGMs? Has it improved? Stabilized? Worsened? 

[Krater]

3 hours ago, Haiduk said:

BTR -3/4 uses some different guns KBA-1 (clone of Russian 2A72) or ZTM-1. Analugue of 2A42 under name of ZTM-2 for BMP was designed and launched for initial production only in past month. 

We really have many of MTLBs, but its mostly uses as gun/mortar carriers, or like platforms for ZU-23-2 guns. Also some battalions of VDV and Marines equipped with these vehicles like APCs. Exists some projects of MTLB with different RWSs, but MoD hasn't any interest to it.

Vehicle with KPVT is not APC, this is FO vehicle 1V14/15 on base of MTLB-U. KPVT on it mounts as regular. Now this FO vehicle uses mostly for carring of artillery HQ personnel. On frontine its mostly stay on battalion command center. Spotters for moving uses or own legs, or civil jeeps. Since they received small portable LRFs, GPS devices, notebooks and PDAs with special soft, nessesitty in obsolete equipment of these FO vehicles fell out. From old equipment spotetrs mostly use only circumferentor PAB-2

About MTLB with rocket pods. As you know, Minsk agreements denied usage of MLRSs, but experience of Maryinka battle showed, that enemy can attack in any time and for this time untill our artillery will arrive on fire positions from rear, troops will need in fire support. So this is just trick. Minsk agreements nothing to say about 57 mm and 80 mm rockets, so it can be used. This erzats MLRSs were made for one brigade, which now occupied most hard sector. In such way on front positions delivered 85 mm AT-guns D-44 or even WWII time 76 mm ZIS-2 for substitition of 100 mm MT-12, also denied by Minsk. These guns given to the units as supernumenary weapon in order they can opportunity to fought on lon-range distance with enemy light armor.  

Thanks, that makes sense, although I still think MTLB is a reasonable APC alternative under the circumstances.  Also, I just read that the director of Kharkov Tank Factory was arrested for conspiring with Russia to sabotage production.  Now, I don't know if I automatically believe that - but whatever the reason it's likely that the factory was facing some sort of difficulty, and that could be the factor why MTLBs (which Kharkov services) are not being better utilized.

 

Regarding the MTLB-MRL - the only video I saw of it showed some unit live fire exercises, and the accuracy looked to be subpar.  Perhaps they are still a work in progress.

Also, I need correct myself - apparently these are not straight MT-LBs but in fact converted 9K35 Strela-10.