IMHO

Is there some hidden logic in how range finder will change the dispersion pattern observed during standard GL exercise? It's really standard exercise so no one needs to measure the distance - it's written right in the manual and dug into the training range layout M79/M203/M320 is considered zeroed - including windage - when it lobs grenades within 5 meters at 200m. May be the weapon just wasn't designed for precision?

Offtop for CMBS but related to Victory Day parade. In Verknyaya Pyshma - a town in Siberia - the parade is made of running armoured vehicles of interwar and WWII period http://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/3409018.html

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

@cool breeze, cannot quite get your point. Certainly I don't claim a paint ball and 40*46mm grenade have the same parameters of ballistics. I used paintball to support the idea that it's quite hard to make an accurate shot with this grenade. According to standards accurate for 40*46 means hitting a window facade practice target at 100m once every three times. The target is really large and the level of difficulty for 40*46 and a paintball gun are more or less the same whatever the ballistics. Surely "the level of difficulty" is a very subjective thing and hard to discuss PS BTW 40mm TP round is quite a paintball

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.

Pecheneg for the combo-Tiger. APC version - not a commander's BMD.

@cool breeze, have a look at training vids. Formal exercises are against ranged targets. You can judge for yourself how much help it is. A ranger will not make it an uber-self-guiding projectile.

Just as a funny Pion and Tulpan missions - they're extensively used for breaking ice jams

In layman terms the requirements for HE part of OICW were the range and ability to shoot through windows - hence CD part of the CDTE name. It dictated the velocity and that taken together with recoil limit gave the projectile weight. This reads as caliber 40*46mm at natural engagement ranges goes through windows by a sheer chance. You can judge accuracy by training videos or combat footage where you may see lots of 40mm spent cartridges lying around. 25mm is not much of a problem as you mainly rely on frag effect rather than pure HE blast wave. And there's enough weight to dispense with and create certain frag field.

@cool breeze, 40*46mm muzzle velocity is less than what's allowed at paintball. So as a very very rough estimate you may try to test how accurate it is.

@Michael Emrys, recoil vs. accuracy. To make rounds precise one has to increase the projectile muzzle velocity. That translates into unbearable recoil with higher caliber in shoulder fired weapons. 40*51mm MV pushed it to the limit yet it's twice as slow as 25mm.

@John Kettler, thanks for the link! Very concise and to the point!

Missed the last one - Koalitsia-SV-KSh

Here's the original. Not a photoshop - two gun option was actually tested as 2C36 but found less reliable than one tube version.

Just to test the topic of little known Soviet/Russian weapons programs. I shall continue if the audience finds it interesting. 1982, 1K11 Stilet (Stiletto), https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Стилет_(лазерный_комплекс) 1983, Sangvin, https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Сангвин_(лазерный_комплекс) 1990, 1K17 Szhatie (Compression), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1K17_Szhatie All three were developed to suppress enemy's optical systems. The first and the last - to target ground vehicles, the second one - aircraft. All were working prototypes. The second one used 30kg of artificial rubies in the laser system. The development stopped for decades after the dissolution of the Soviet Union and restarted few years ago. 1981, Beriev A-60 / Sokol-Eshelon 1LK222 anti-satellite airborne laser, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beriev_A-60, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokol_Eshelon. The laser system was to be deployed at Polyus/Skif-DM 17F19DM military orbiter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyus_(spacecraft) Current Russian system developed by Almaz-Antey. No wiki article, alas

Yepp, agree. I'd just point out that IISS estimations and numbers in Poroshenko and Tymchuk interviews are remarkably close. Especially taking into account that equipment lost in Crimea and equipment seized by DNR/LNR are reflected in those IISS figures as well. So again, the relation between reduction and fighting loss is way more complex than a simple balance of two years.

@Haiduk, I gave the quotes verbatim. So the first quote is from TV interview and the other one is from the closed session of the Parliament. The former is 60-65% of equipment at frontline, the latter - 58% of all equipment available to UKR army. I don't know why he used different wording. IISS gives its estimation of equipment available to the armed forces at certain moment in time. They neither provide inflows/outflows nor the breakdown of reasons. Obviously not all reductions are attributable to fighting. Loss columns in the table are figures derived from 2016 and 2013 numbers so I guess the actual losses may be higher as some must have been offset by new procurement.

Read Tymchuk. According to Tymchuk Poroshenko referred to 58% as a loss of all available equipment, not just frontline. As you see numbers from different sources are quite close. Nobody's trying to denigrate UKR military. Consensus opinion of both sides - UKR forces are now better trained and motivated than they were in the beginning of the conflict. It's just equipment numbers and experience and morale are two different things.

Since Lostarmor is in Russian I'd explain what they do. They collect photos documenting equipment losses. So if they can't get hold of a pic they do not count it as a loss. Petro Poroshenko put UKR losses in a TV interview at 60-65% of equipment available at front lines. Dmitry Tymchuk - a very pro-Ukraine Ukrainian MP - said Poroshenko told a Parliamentary session that Ukraine lost 58% of all available equipment http://korrespondent.net/ukraine/3421866-ukrayna-poteriala-v-zone-ato-65-voennoi-tekhnyky

Ukraine is on page 204 of 2016 report

@Rinaldi, the numbers may be of interest I hope

Another political **** storm? Just as a background information - how UKR military looks as of 2016 compared to 2013. E.g. if D-30 losses are billed at 80% it means UKR now has just one fifth of what it had at its disposal before the conflict. Source - Military Balance by IISS. Columns - 2016; 2013; Losses, pcs; Losses, %; Crew; Estimated crew losses (assumed all crew is lost if equipment is destroyed). Line items - Total, Artillery, SP guns, Gvozdika, Akatsia, Msta-S, Towed artillery, D-30, Giatsint-B, Msta-B, D-20, MLRS, Grad, Uragan, Smerch, Tanks, T-64 including Bulat, T-72 (returned from storage), T-80 (returned from storage), BMP, BMP-2, BMP-1, BTR, BTR-70, BTR-80... Crew losses estimation is a shot way too long, certainly, but the rest... Just to wash away propaganda and come back to reality...

We'll MOAB them into Stone age PS Don't take it seriously - just a joke.

@John Kettler, IPSC - that's the first video PS I actually couldn't quite understand how come his full auto is so exceptional Big thanks to @DreDay