DreDay
-
Posts
477 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by DreDay
-
-
ERA does not add much protection by itself, it decreases the penetrative power of the weapon and thus acts as a multiplier. Thus if you have a thick armor array to back the ERA up you get a significant protection increase (making it very efficient).
I am not sure about K1, but K5 roof tiles did offer protection against EFPs.
Panzer, on the Tow video the explosion begins before the hit, you could send that from frame by frame analysis.
Those are all good points. It is also important to remember that the Russians claim to have built an Active Defense System (Arena-E) that intercepts top attack misses like Javelin and TOW-2B. It remains to be seen how effective such system would bee; but Russians certainly seem to be well aware of a threat posed to their armor by top-attack ATGMS...
-
It's still not the optimal launch platform. If an Apache was bearing down on the target, or as sort of a last ditch the Migs, 2S6s all failed, slightly improved "iron sky" kind of defense, yeah, makes sense, but greatly reducing the ability of the AFV fired MANPAD to acquire targets would be about right.
You have to remember though that Russians have deployed several modern automated Fire Control and Command systems for their MANPAD platoons in the past couple of years. These systems are supposed to be integrated with other Radar and C3 networks and their purpose is to notify the MANPAD crews of approaching targets. Such systems are supposed to give the MANPAD (and other tactical-level SAM crews) enough warning, ID, and guidance to engage the approaching targets. Here is an example of one of these systems:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-TFRHXKOKc
If we are to assume that such systems are effective, it should not matter so much if the MANPAD crews are stationary or mobile... as long as their firing solution is correct.
-
I imagine it is missing because it is a direct result of the ongoing Donbass conflict, which never happened in CMBS.
Just fyi - that vehicle has been in development for many years now... long before there was any trouble in Donbass
-
Again it's interesting. I'm a bigger fan of mortars though given the sort of dead space inherent to a lower angle short range system myself.
Agreed, it makes no sense to me to use one of the best protected and most expensive armored vehilcles in the world for indirrect fire role that can be handled just as well (if not better) by artillerly pieces that cost a fraction of what an Abrams does...
-
BTR,
I thought at first they were wearing camouflaged helmets, but have now decided they're using the same classic tanker helmet, but with a camo cover on top.
Those cammo covers are actually kevlar pieces that offer balistic protection...
-
On topic: I hope Ukrainian VDV will also be added.
I personally would not mind that either, but the only real VDV formation in Ukraine is/was 25th Airborne brigade that has been severly decemated in combat over the course of this summer. I have not heard too much of them lately, but I would be surprised if there are enough functional BMDs in Ukraine to refit them to the necessary standards... chances are - they would just become another "airmobile" brigade from now on.
-
As far as i know they went from it in the midle of 90s.
At current moment RPKs are not used in armed forces in any significent numbers.
You are correct when talking about Russian ground forces and VDV; but Russian Naval Infantry still deploys RPKs as squad level MGs for some strange reason...It makes absolutely no sense to me, but it is what it is...
-
Didnt they just give the same projectile to the RPG-7 instead though?
No, not quite... PG-7VR (that you are referring to) has the same tandem warhead design and general penetration numbers as PG-29V; but its ballistics are extremely poor when compared to PG-29V.
BTW, the same warhead design is also used in RPG-27 LAW; but again the ballistic performance (i.e. range and accuracy) is much worse than PG-29V...
-
No RPG-29s in the base game.
Nor in real life - it was tried out by Russian military; but never really adopted due to its excessive weight and size... There are probably a couple of thousand launchers rusting in some warehouses in the middle of Siberian tundra wilderness; but it is not used by Russian military for any practical purposes.
Its manufacturers have tried to reposition it as a substitute for an SPG-9 since the rejection by Russian military; but the newer projects like RPG-32 seem to be much more prospective in that regard..
-
But why? It's like flying across the ocean to buy a Ford from the other end of the Atlantic, AR-15s aren't magic doom cannons, and you're just making your supply situation worse by not buying Ukrainian as it were. .
Oh I don't know, perhaps they prefer M4s and M40s to AKs and SVDs? It makes no sense (nor any difference) on a strategic scale, but might be favored by individual soldiers (especially if there were "volunteers" willing to supply them)... my point is that it makes absolutely no difference (in a grand scheme of things) as to who brought those particular weapons to the airport. Now, if there was evidence of Javelins/Spikes/Stingers and such being used by UA forces in any significant numbers - that would be a whole different case; but that's not what we are seeing here.
-
It really doesn't make sense to send them M4s. We've got a small mountain of Soviet/Russian stuff that we could send and no one would be the wiser. That said the Russian government did capture a large pile of Bushmaster AR-15s the Georgians had purchased. Wonder where they all went.
I agree with your first point. If the Western governments were to send clandestine weapon shipments to UA (infantry small arms would be on the very bottom of that list)... Yet it would not surprise me at all if some Ukrainian forces were to procure a few M4 clones and other small arms through their our sources... I am not at all convinced that there is any conspiracy here; I just don't think that this particular story is all that significant regardless of where those weapons had come from...
-
Re: Ukrainian Quality
They've managed to bounce back pretty good. I'm willing to credit at least the top quarter of Ukrainian units with comparing to the 60-40% percentile Russian forces. The average Ukrainian unit isn't going to be up to snuff, but the better trained and equipped out to hold their own just fine.
I agree with most of your points except for this one. Who do you consider to be the top quarter of their military? Their best formations (i.e. 25th VDV brigade, 80th Airmobile Briage, 92 Airmobile Brigade, 72nd Mechanized Brigade, 1st Armored Brigade) have pretty much been demolished this summer. Which ones of them do you know to have bounced back "perrty good" and where are those units that can hold their own (especially in light of recent rebel offensives)?
-
I dont realy think what they can survive PG-7VR hit. Or even PG-7VL.
Probably not VRs, but perhaps VLs, and certainly lighter LAWs and RPGs... BTRs are not equiped to handle either though...
And yeah striker have better IED protection, i will not denie it.
So i can say about 30mm. TIs are great, but you need them to spot targets, not for aiming.
Well spotting is a prerequisite to aiming isn't it? Plus Strykers have advanced laser range finders and fire control calculators... Look - a Stryker costs 3-4 times as much as a BTR-82 and there is a reason for it...
BTR/BMP are part of the section. Section commander are the vehicles commander. They can not be splited.
We might be using different terms here, but I call them squads, not sections (a section, per US military designation, is a subcomponent of a squad or an independent fire support elment smaller than a squad); but yes Russian squad leader is also a vehicle commander... they can either choose to operate mounted or dissmounted per their (or rather their CO's choice).
Its just said what section comander can do it if it will be usefull.
Again, Russian dismounted infantry doctrine is not as streamlined as that of the US infantry; but the split of dismounted squads into fire-support and assault elements is pretty standard and accepted part of their small unit tactics. It is documented in their field manuals, trained for regularly, and something that was used in Chechnya and Georgia (perhaps even Ukraine, although we would not here that for a while...)
-
They have the same.
ACs, RPGs and .50 will penetrate them bouth.
Well that's true in general, but Strykers have heavier armor, SLAT protection against RPGs, and an overall good record of surviving multiple RPG/HMG/IED strikes in Iraq. I am not sure that BTRs can match that...
Here i will agree. But still 30mm AC is a huge boost.
Sure, but an ol' .50 cal with TI sights and good FC can still be more beneficial under many scenarios...
There is no dismounted inf in MSV. Each BTR or BMP are part of the infantry section just like any other soldier in it.
I am not sure I know what you mean... BTR and BMP squads operate as a whole (APC/IFV and riflemen working together)... but of course they carry dismounts that operate outside of the vehicle in most combat engagements...
They never split coz russian section are smaller then US one. Sure some soldiers can be assignet to the some sort of task but they will not do it regulary.
With all due respect, I think that you might be a little behind times on this one - current Russian doctrine calls for the dismounted infantry squad to be split into to sections as I have mentioned above. It is not as engrained as US fireteam concept, but it is somewhat similar and that is also something they very much train for. They no longer advance in line formation with "left/right go, I am covering" as per old Soviet doctrine.
As i said above MSV section will allways have support from BTR or BMP.
Agreed, but how is that different from our doctrine for mechanized/motorized forces?
-
Actually it is the R model (R for Ryta radar scope) that had a radar scope, K version could fire an anti-tank missile, but uses regular optics.
I stand corrected. Thank you for pointing this out! Am I correct in understanding that the Ukrainians have quite a few of R models along with Ks? Although I have to wonder if any of those ATGM munitions are still functional as they are probably at the tail-end of their supported lifetime...
-
I think the quality of non weapons gear depends on if the Ratnik goes into masses or not, as it is a fairly good set of equipment for an infantryman.
You might very well know this, but Ratnik is just a set of standards for all aspects of infantry gear (including comms, cammo, weapons, med kits, etc...) Whether or not it gets deployed as a whole, Russians have been on a roll to upgrade their squad-level comms and navigation gear ever since the conflict with Georgia in 2008. I have a strong suspicion that they would continue on that track regardless of other Ratnik components. After all - look at the "polite men" in Crimea last year - almost all had secure comms gear, and that's no joke even by modern standards...
-
What's the situation in US and RF basic motorized/mechanized infantry platoons with communication equipment? How many men have those? Only Platoon leader? Squad or assistant squadleader? Single riflemen? Specialists?
Commos have significant impact on capabilities and performance of the unit, not only to lead the troops effectively but also to reduce leader casualties.
At this point both militaries are trying to equip each individual rifelman with some form of radio and GPS/GOLASS positioning device. US is definitely further along, but the Russians are catching up quick. At the very least, SLs and porbably even TLs would have portable radios in both armies by now...
-
Dre and Weer,
Not to forget that bigger fireteams not only have more firepower but those can sustain more casualties, before they start to fallback and drop their mission objective. Four man fireteam suffering two man casualty still have two man left while three man fireteam has only one. Two men have theoretivally twice the firepower and better possibilities to achieve their objective compared to single man "last man standing".
Four man fireteam can also be easily be subdivided to two patrols with two man each if needed, which means more dynamical capabilities in the mission and "more cards to play" from my, or squad leader's point of view.
That is an excellent point (much like the argument that our 4 tank Pls are better than Soviet 3 tank Pls for much the same reasons). Of course, the counter argument to this has always been - does it really matter when one of your squads is going to be fighting against an entire platoon of enemy infantry and APCs/IFVs? That's where the operational aspects of combat come in and tactical ones tend to take a second seat; that's why I was careful to preface my post by saying that comparing individual unit OOBs is not that productive outside of looking at their higher formations and associated role that they perform within that formation’s operational doctrine...
-
US better at shooting while RU better in suppresive fire and movement due to better APCs.
Most of US inf are ride in Strykers and HMMVEs. Most MSV use BTRs.
To keep our friendly debate going - what makes Strykers inferior to BTRs? BTRs have a better main gun (especially if talking about BTR-80A/82A), but they have worse protection, FC, optics, and navigation gear. Now as far as dismounted infantry aspect of it - US infantry squads are made out of 9 men that split into 2 equally capable fireteams (each having a SAW), while Russian MSV squads are made up of 6 men that split into a fire-support team (TL + RPG + MG) and an assault team (3 riflemen). US seems to exert more firepower in such breakdown... Now I don't think that it's all that productive to compare individual squad OOBs outside of their higher formations - but I hope that you see my point....
-
Ah, the friendly debate is something I like and value very high, especially with sophisticated and cultivated people like you, Sir.
I also never got any other feeling from your earlier post. An earlier posts, which I like very much. Let's also drop the titles and formatilities, you can call me Tapio if you like.
-Tapio
Likewise Tapio. It's always a pleasure to share my thoughts with a worthy match. Sorry for the "sir" gig... old habits die hard. You can call me Dre (not a Dr, but I do have an MBA)
-
Best to just scale it to Veterancy/training sliders, equipment aside. CMSF did this, IIRC.
Agreed. I would even prefer to have other "aside" sliders like force morale, C3, etc...
-
No need for that from my behalf. I've shot both platforms a lot, and I simply love them both, and I see the benefits and advantages both platforms have over each other. My opinnion is that comparsion of AK and AR family weapons is very difficult and doensn't serve any real purpose. Personally, I have formed an opinnion that AKs are more like "heavy submachine guns" and AR family weapons more like "light infantry rifles", from standpoints of tactical doctrine where they were designed originally.
I also never ment that Russian weapon systems and equipment (not to speak about personell and people) are superior to their western counterparts. I personally like their equipment, respect their design mindset and product characteristics. Same thing also applies with equally many western military hardware and products. I placed my words in earlier post little unclearly.
Fair enoght good sir, I did not mean to call you out on it; just more of a friendly debate.. I would certainly agree and support everything that you've stated in this latest post.
-
The whole "semi-mechanised" irregular force equipped with high lethality weapons which has become the norm in Syria and Ukraine was predicted some time ago. They are around, and will continue to be so.
If there are to be no partisans in modules then CMBS ignores an important factor of current conflict.
To be quite honest, I would be more interested in "semi-mechanized" forces equipped with a mix of relatively-modern systems (like AT4/5 or TOW/Milan) and older archaic stuff like WW2 AT Rifles and ZU-23-2s (which are very much in use in East Ukraine). I realize that I might be in minority here, but I find these kinds of scenarios to be more tactically challenging and forgiving than T-90AM vs M1A2 battles where anything that's spotted gets blown up ASAP with no room for maneuver or tactical planning…
-
By coincidence I just read a report stating that in the past day Russian(?) tanks had assaulted the extreme left flank of the Ukrainian Pisky defense line following a massive shelling but the attackers were repelled and forced to retreat. The report claimed that two MT-12 guns of 5th battalion were instrumental in the defense. Apparently the gun's not quite as harmless as we've been assuming.
I do agree that they are not exactly harmless; but I would caution you from using any recent day reports (whener rebel or Ukrainian) as proof of anything. The propoganda war is in full swing over there and statements made by both sides can be rediculed for days. I would suggest ignoring such claims (unless well documented by video and multiple independent witness accounts) for now. Let it sit in for a few months and the truth will come out...
1980's;Modding potential?
in Combat Mission Black Sea
Posted
Couple of quick points: