IMHO

You can broadly set MT-12 to something between T-54/55 and T-62 - so it's purely a flashback from 60s. 2A45M is comparable to early/midlife T-64/T-72. The gun of today by construction that's capable of firing latest goodies yet lacking the best barrels and modern targeting.

https://www.defensenews.com/outlook/2017/12/11/moscow-based-think-tank-director-russias-unexpected-military-victory-in-syria/ Another point of view...

No, I wasn't able to find the numbers again within reasonable time What I remember are the reasons... 2A42 dispersion is higher than M242 as the former is gas rather than chain operated. 2A72 in BMP-3 mount moved away from gas opeation to long recoil thus trading decrease in peak recoil force and weight reduction for signinficant increase in dispersion. 2A72 in BTR-82A mount stepped away from the original BMP-3 mount where 2A72 is strapped to 2A70. So barrel sway increased significantly increased dispersion even further. An attempt to alleviate the problem was made by further reducing the ROF. I've never seen the numbers on how successful it was. What I found by quick googling is http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a262492.pdf stating M242 single-shot AP-I practical dispersion at 0.40+ mrads. HEI is stated to be way higher. Factory values for AP-I I saw back then were way lower.

Dispersion for 2A72 is actually TEN times higher than M242.

Perfect!

Meeting Engagement at Brussels? A2/AD operation?

Combat Mission: The Road to Brexit...

But nonetheless... Why, in your opinion, does not US Army mechanized infantry squad consist of an infantry squad, Bradley/Stryker, M109 howitzer, Abrams tank, dedicated Apache helicopter? It still falls within the guidelines of increasing firepower as much as possible...

@IICptMillerII, !!!

Theaters and application. BTR were designed decades ago back in Soviet time. The main objective back then was to run over the Western Europe as fast as possible. Before US reinforcements have a chance to land in Europe. God forbids but given the time frame it'd have been a fluid battlespace - one moves forward where opponent is weak the moment the weakness is discovered. So one trades better armor protection for mobility. Same with this discussion IMHO, - it's useless to discuss Stryker design outside the context of their battlefield application as a whole.

Does the fact that neither Spike nor Javelin nor Stinger has remote targeting capability spell troubles for the idea?

@kraze, Carthago delenda est

Videos about RUS armored vehicles testing. Sand dunes testing for the first video and 4Km mountain testing for the second.

Interesting UKR mortar

The fun from the Russian side - NBC recon vehicle... And the name is Razrukha-1. Ruin-1 or Dilapidation-1

A real picture from the same exhibition Arms and Security 2017 in Kiev... Ukrainian side is seriously underpowered?

Nope, you'd need to severely disrupt the warhead to sufficiently degrade penetration abilities. The exact form of the 3 Km/s snowball at 100-200cm to target does not mean much for 30-60cm of (mere) RHA. PS Correction: by sufficiently I meant reducing the EFP core weight by 3-4-5 times, or increasing the penetrator's pressure spot accordingly.

What do you mean? It's not a focussed jet so distance to the target is not as significant. I imagine the main trick is in keeping the differences of velocities between the center of the core and periphery within the limits. If you achieve this at the end of the core formation stage then the distance does not matter that much. It's just if the core travels really far enough then the initial miniature differences in speeds will start to manifest themselves. It's not the case of multiple explosive lenses so broadly speaking as long as both the liner and the explosive are uniform you can always play with the the cavity form and/or liner thickness to achieve the desired form of the core. All you need is enough distance for the penetrator to form. You don't need ns/ps initiation precision here. All are IMHO

My guess it's true for a jet-forming HEAT but it's a kind of overstatement for an EFP. IMHO major downside you'll have is an aerodynamic instability. I'd guess the penetration ability for close distances will be just a fraction less than the loss of weight of the main penetrating core. And TOW's EFP liner has enough mass against thin top armour. I'd say counter-measure HE deforming effect is more dangerous for EFP liners than a small puncture if well off the center. Correct me if I misread EFP core formation process.

TOW fly-over has an EFP warhead. HE energy transfer is not exactly relevant

@Battlefront.com, what about tanks automatically detecting the direction of a guided missile launched at them? Long range infantry AT assets - arguably a major part of RUS AT defence - become useless all of a sudden. And Syria/Iraq/Yemen proved that such a behavior is as far from being realistic as one can imagine...

Permanent readiness forces are all professional. Conscription is actually quite low. Given the fall in salaries in commercial sectors and huge allocations going to the military they have absolutely no problems hiring professional soldiers. Actually in Russian regions - where salaries are traditionally way lower than in Moscow and St. Pete - military can afford pay checks beyond competition. Times more than an average salary in regions.

Not exactly. The reasons are: Overall the current military leadership is mentally more into divisional structure rather than brigade one. Specifically divisional structure is considered more fit for old school Cold War era large military conflict. When brigade structure was established little respect was paid to military logistics functions. Brigade approach was ideologically followed US ideas but logistics structure was omitted. So naturally brigades had troubles in this area and those were to be solved by coming back to divisional structure. Creating divisions on the basis of existing brigades is a shorter path to larger war machine. And a more convenient way to absorb unprecedented budgets befalling Russian military nowadays

Used car salesmen... Yes, they moonlight as Russian TV journalists The used car salesman called them mere motorized riflemen. I'd say definitely not one of the top SpecOps units - some little things the men in the video do incorrectly. A guy rolls over - it's a mistake. A backpack or a missile launcher will not let him do it in real life. Plus when one rolls over he looses battlefield orientation for a second or two. I'd say they seem more like well trained line unit. And if that's the new standard for line units training it's a remarkably high standard...