Jump to content

DreDay

Members
  • Posts

    477
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by DreDay

  1. As far as I know, 25th Airborne Brigade had practiced (relatively) regular para drops prior to this crisis. Also, all the airmobile personnel (i.e. 79th, 80th, and 95th brigades) were para-qualified. Now, their priorities might have shifted due to the current crisis; but CMBS storyline is based on an alternate chain of events. ...
  2. Yes of course, I totally agree that such option would be very useful and realistic; but that is an entirely different matter. I was referring to many BMP-1/2s going into combat without ATGM launchers mounted on them, as evidenced by extensive combat footage.
  3. I am not sure about that one Mike. The winter Mariupol offensive by Ukrainian forces had a pretty limited scale and scope. It was mostly executed by Azov batallion with some armored support from ZSU T-64BMs. It had stalled around the village of Shyrokyne which is only 25km away from Mariupol, so I don't think that fuel shortage was a big issue there.
  4. Those are all great points bud. I would love to see BMP-1 and BMP-2 models with no ATGMS mounted on them; as that seems to be quite a common way to deploy them (not to mention that such addition would require minimal effort). I would also love to see BMP-1s for the pro-Russian unconventional forces as they seem to be the mainstay of DNR/LNR motor-rifle units IRL. Also, it would be nice to see standard T-72Bs which are still used in large numbers by Russian and DNR/LNR forces; and are also supposed to enter service with Ukrainian Army/National Guard once their "de-conservation" is completed.
  5. Yep. As I've said, Ukrainians have been very quick to embrace the SLAT armor concept. They seem to be eager to mount them on any kind of AFV and even on stationary fortifications (bunkers). These modifications are often times done on ad-hoc basis and don't always follow an ideal methodology (i.e. SLAT cages are positioned too close to organic armor, SLAT material is too fragile and welded at wrong angles); but in general such improvised addons have proven to be quite effective in mitigating the damage from RPGs.
  6. Good point sir. Just a quick note - Ukrainian "VDV proper" consists of one brigade (25th VDV brigade based in Dnepropetrovsk). This formation uses (or at least used to deploy) BMD-1/2 IFVs. There are 3 more (79th, 80th, 95th) air-mobile brigades with similar training and traditions as "VDV proper"; but they are BTR-based. Either way though, Ukrainian forces have been quick to adopt slat armor on their APCs and IFVs; so it would be a very welcomed addition in CMBS.
  7. SOF for all three sides would be a welcomed addition. Please take a look at the past discussions regarding this topic, as it has been brought up quite a bit... I also agree that Russians and Ukrainias could use a few better-armed elite sniper teams. I am thinking along the lines of Steyr-Mannlicher SSG 04 and Truvelo .50BMG/OSV-96 for the Russians and Barret M82 along with some western 7.62x51/.308 rifled for the Ukrainians.
  8. Agreed on unconventional forces for both sides with older equipment (i.e. BMP-1s, ZU-23-2s, gun-trucks, etc.); and also VDV/USMC in order to add elite light infantry force with unique equipment for both sides. While I am certainly not opposed to Ukrainian National Guard (as in former Interior Troops) either; it would be much more difficult to find a unique niche for them; as they mostly share their OOB with other BTR-based infantry units.
  9. Yep, that is an excellent point and precisely what I was thinking as well. T-80BVs (whether Russian or Ukrainian) have very few tangible advantages compared to T-64BVs. Yes, their FC system is slightly better, and their gas-turbine engines are quite a bit more powerful... but this would have minimal impact in game terms. Don't get me wrong, I would still love to see them; but their impact on gameplay would be marginal at best.
  10. As a side note, a couple of my buddies from grad school had been involved in developing a new advanced seismic sensors under a DOD grand. Their goal was to develop a system for identifying not only the general type of target, but even such small details as its weaponry. I have no idea how far such experiments have progressed; but I did get an impression that such sensors wereto be used for advanced warning, rather than targeting (as you correctly point out). Interestingly enough – my buddies (who had very little military expertise, but rather PHD degrees in physics and engineering had mentioned that they saw the Russians and Israelis as their primary competitors in that realm. Agreed. The TRP techniques described in the OP’s article do certainly have a place in a counterinsurgency conflict where you are likely to have “free-fire” zones at certain areas and set times. However, I am not so sure that such procedures have a place in high-paced maneuver engagements (a-la BFBS) where large volumes of friendly, enemy, and civilian vehicles would travel around the roads and pathways in large groups at any given time.
  11. Again, we absolutely do not need a military confrontation to threaten Chinese energy shipments. Imagine a scenario where we decide (for right or wrong) to restrain China and low and behold - most of Chinese neighbors (not without our wise leadership of course) suddenly decide to close their maritime borders to cargo ships headed for China because… oh I don’t know... they execute dissidents, or torture pandas, or occupy Tibet, or through their weight around in South China sea… or eat cats… Sounds farfetched? Think again… Of course we would never do such a thing and China has nothing to fear; they can always take our word for it – that has always worked out well in global politics… Stalled is definitely an overstatement. It has been in negotiations for 15 years and the breakthrough was achieved when China threw Russia a huge bone by agreeing to their requested rate of $350-$400 per 1000 cubic meters of gas right after the South Stream was sabotaged by European Energy Commission. There are actually several other deals that have been signed since then. And they will certainly take many years and many trials to implement. But the official strategy by both governments is very much geared to push through these pipelines. This was most vividly reiterated by Mr. Xi Jiping last month on May 8th. Now I can find you dozens articles (almost all in English) telling us how it would never work, and of course they are all written by unscrupulous analysts that have nothing to do with our LNG companies that would take a massive hit if and when such pipelines are built.. We all know how unbiased our business (and not only business) media is. Again, I personally don’t care to discuss Armata till it materializes in a real combat-ready vehicle; maybe it is over-priced, or perhaps it is worth every penny… Only time will tell and for now I simply don’t know enough to care one way or another. Again, I simply don’t care to make any predictions about Armata right now, but if it is worth its price it would sell fine just like other Russian weapon platforms. If it is overpriced, or offers very few improvements over older models (like T-90) it would not sell well. Same logic works for all other weapon systems (politics aside); I don’t understand why you think that some unique rules apply to tanks. Lol, would you care to give me an extensive list of M1A1/2 buyers that have a real appreciation for force multipliers? Who could challenge the military organization and might of such powerhouses as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iraq? Perhaps weapon purchases follow a bit more complicated model than what you outlay above? Guess what Steve - they had tried just that (with extensive support and oversight from us) throughout the 90s, and we all know how it went. Wonna tell them to do it all over again? You are going to learn a lot of interesting words in Russian very quickly. On a side note Steve, I have studied Russian foreign and military affairs for many years in my prior life, traveled to the region over a dozen times, and still keep in touch with a couple of what you would call “power elites” there. There are plenty of things to critizes Russia for; and they are also plenty to praise them for as well. But reciting our media coverage of Russia (which is at least 90% fugazi) and then drawing conclusions that match this garbage word for word makes for a very lazy argument which, if I may say so - is below you. I would challenge you to try seeing things from a Russian perspective (amongst others), if you really want to get the full and objective picture. I am not saying that you should embrace their mentality (I personally don’t), but they do know what they want and where they are going; and that in itself is well worth trying to understand, because you will more than likely learn new things about our government and political establishment when you look at it through somebody else's prizm..
  12. Fair enough. I appreicate you spending the time to research it. Just out of curiosity - what would make T-14 so difficult to drive? I mean it uses a pretty conventional mechanized setup, and if anythig - it probably has some electornic controls to assist the driver... Now if we are talking about training a mechanic that would service and do maintanace on such an advanced machine, then I can see how it would take extensive training.. But here is a kicker - Russian word for tank driver is "mechanic", so perhaps the officer in question was talking about the mechanic the way we think of it (i.e. maintanance NCO); but the autotranslate made it sound like he was talking about a driver? Just a theory...
  13. Steve, I honestly don't have 3 spare hours to give a detailed reply to your post. Perhaps one day we could grab a beer and chat about that stuff. May I suggest breaking up your posts into smaller segments so that they would be a little more scalable? I don't mean it as an insult, just a friendly suggestion.
  14. On a somewhat related note, has anyone noticed how in-gake PKP's (Pechneg) bipod is mounted in a same spot as PKM,rather than all the way my the end of the barrell (whcih gives it a very unique look in real life). Not a huge deal as far as I am concearned, but might as well add this one to a list of "not so" accurate models...
  15. I don’t know you very well Steve, but you strike me as a man of absolutes from what I have observed. However international politics are anything but… No one is talking about us attacking Chinese shipping, or of Russia actually using the nukes… a simple reminder that such option is possible, while extremely unlikely is all that is needed to advance strategic and diplomatic agenda… Prices for what? Pipelines? Construction equipment? Russian Labor? Everything that I’ve read indicates to me that the deal is still very much in a making. It might take quite a bit before it actually materializes; but that’s how Chinese tend to do business, and I for one can’t blame them.I would love to hear your argument explaining why “Strength of Siberia” is not mutually beneficial to both countries. It’s funny how they can sell super expensive jets and AD systems (amongst others), but all of the sudden their new tanks (if they are actually worth the price) would be discarded by potential buyers… Again, I am not trying to argue, but I simply fail to see your logic here. ORRLy? Like India, Indonesia, Algeria, Brazil, China, Vietnam, Malaysia, South and Central America (amongst others) – Yeah, Western weapon manufactures would rather be caught dead than selling to those scrubs. Now handing out used Leo2A4s at bargain prices – that’s what puts us head and shoulders above Russia (and China for that matter)… Right… I think that a few decades are quite a stretch, but yeah… it would take a bit before Armat is a viable offering for export. My main problem with your argument though, is that you only focus on its price and completely ignore potential force multiplier benefits that it could offer (which might be well worth the price). Now for a millionth time -I really don’t know if it really offers those benefits nor do I care (for now); but it is a huge logical fallacy to only look at a product’s price outside of its features andplacement (as they would say in business school). Yep, no doubt. So by your logic should they stick to popping out Type 88s or maybe trying something a bit more revolutionary? LOL. So you see the current state of geopolitical affairs saying in a status quo for as long as we can imagine? That’s an odd line of thinking for a historian. If we are to follow your logic, why do we bother decking out M1A2s if all we need are some Humvees and good old USAF to win any foreseeable conflict? Or does your line of thinking only apply to undermining anything that Russians are doing, while the same standard does not apply to us and our “friends”? I’m just sayin….
  16. Of course, no one is talking about an all-out war between China/Russia/US/EU in a foreseeable future. That is simply not on a table for now as the consequences would be catastrophic for all the parties involved.What we are talking about here are means of exerting economic and strategic pressure on China without a direct confrontation. Their current reliance on sea routes for transporting oil and gas is a major weakness that limits their geopolitical and strategic decision making. They know it, and they sure as hell don’t like it. And now we have handed them a resolution for this limitation by pushing Russia into their arms. The deal is definitely moving quite slowly, but that is a norm when doing business with China. At the end of the day, it is mutually beneficial to both states (both economically and geopolitically); so there is very little doubt in my mind that it would come to fruition when the Chinese are convinced that they have bargained the most out of it. I am not sure what you mean by a balance of power… Military power – certainly not! Soft power – even less so! But it sure as hell would significantly limit our strategic means of restraining China due to missing the ability to cut off the flow of strategic resources into the mainland. I have not followed weapon procurements closely for quite a few years, but when I did (in mid to late nineties) M1A1 (export version) was valued around 4 mil, while T-90S was closer to 2.5 mil. T-72S was around 1.5 mil. I don’t understand why you assume that Russians would have a hard time selling advanced and highly competitive tanks in face of western competition. If you look at their other weapon platforms that are a much better match for western counterparts (i.e. fighter jets, SAMs, etc..) they have been quite competitive and successful with those. What would make a competitive tank any different? Now whether T-14 is that tank or not… I have no idea nor do I care to even guess that until they are service ready… I don’t necessarily except your premise that Russian weapon systems would always be inferior to the Western ones. As I’ve said above, there are quite a few examples of their weapons platforms holding their own just fine (albeit not when it comes to tanks as of late). Will Armata development spur new spending and research for western platforms that can counter it? –Of course! That’s how world works. But I really don’t understand why you expect the Russians to give up trying to build advanced MBTs… They are an advanced weapon researcher/manufacturer/exporter; so I simply fail to see why they should not research and try to field advanced armored platforms… I am really missing your point here
  17. You make a very good point Vladmir. It's not like Ukraine desperately needs US help to train a light infantry battalion... but from US perspective, it gives us an ability to evaluate the state of Ukrainian forces and to find the right starting point to improving their combat capacity. Realistically speaking, ZSU/National Guard face a ton of challenges ranging from logistics, to C3, to command structure, to training deficiencies and so on. We are not ready nor willing to tackle all of them right away, so we start at a most manageable (tactical) level and then move from there...
  18. I actually find this topic to be quite important (much more so than Armata’s export potential) so I hope that you don’t mind me straying along with you. The danger of Russia turning to China instead of EU for partnership is not so much in a formation of some Warsaw Pact 2.0 that will oppose us, but rather in their strategic and economic ties that benefit both countries, but pose geopolitical challenges for us. One primary example of this is that China would now be getting oil and gas through (land) pipelines from Russia rather than sea routes that it has relied on up until now. This is not something that you hear mentioned a lot, but our ability to block those sea routes was a major restraining factor that has given us a tremendous amount of leverage so far. Now, we would no longer have this advantage… it’s not like we can bomb Russia to block their supply lines to PRC… Agreed such numbers are meaningless without looking at the whole package that is offered in a contract. However, I find it very hard to believe that T-90MS would cost as much as M1A2 (all else being equal)… Modern MBT sales have been pretty low all across the board as of late. I mean, what new MBTs have sold at a better rate than T-90? M1A1/A2 and Leo 2s (which are mostly upgrades) for sure, but can you think of any others? I get your point, but I simply don’t care enough to debate it. Perhaps you are right. Or perhaps Armata would turn out to be a major force multiplier that would be highly valued by any military force that can procure it. It is a new generation of MBT design, a phase that any major MBT manufacturer needs to embrace in order to be competitive. Is it the right kind of MBT design? I don’t have a slightest clue… but it is inevitable that other major powers would try to field their own revolutionary MBTs sooner rather than later…
  19. Steve, I've actually seen different numbers. T-90A/S was said to cost around $2.5 mil in late 90s, and Armata is estimated to cost $4-5 mil as of now. Now I personally view Armata numbers (whatever they are) as fugazi, because the vehicle is nowhere close to being combat ready. As for its export potential - I honestly don't know, nor care to forecast such things until we have solid information about the vehicles’ readiness and features. That's a discussion that I would love to have 3-5 years from now (if not later) when the work on T-14/15 is actually completed; but for now there are simply too many unknowns for me to make any educated predictions
  20. So far we have only seen a strengthening of strategic and economic ties between Russian and China. I see no reason why this pattern would break as long as we continue isolating Russia in Europe. A conflict between Russia and China has been a wet dream of our neocons (I hate that term, but we all know what it means in this context) for several decades; but so far we have only seen the contrary… and our policy towards Russia has only strengthened this alliance with China. I personally fear that this is a great strategic blunder that would come back to haunt us in the coming years; but only time would tell.. Either way though, It is much more likely that Armatas (or at least some of their components) would end up in PRC rather than Taiwan in any foreseeable future.
  21. That's a very good point. If you are asking about real-life - Russian FOs are now trained to operate UAVs (if those are available to them) and/or to coordinate with UAV controllers.
  22. I know exactly what you are saying my friend, but the fact is that the 4th Guards Division has been receiving upgraded T-80s as of late. This was confirmed in a recent interview by its commander. You are absolutely correct to reference the earlier plans to have them switch over to T-72/T-90; but that no longer seems to be the case. Why?.. I have no clue. Perhaps it's just a move to keep the workers at Omsk pant happy.. Perhaps there are some deeper logistical and tactical reasons for that... but there is no denying the fact that they are re-arming with modernized T-80s. Also, contrary to the earlier statements by Russian MOD, 5th Tank Brigade is now slated to be rearmed with T-14/15s before anyone else. Again - Why? Perhaps because they use the oldest equipment right now (T-72B/BAs); or perhaps it is due to their (relatively) successful performance in East Ukraine during the Debaltsevo offensive.. Either way, I would not be surprised one bit if those plans change again before T-14/15s are actually ready for service...
  23. I would definitely agree that such a scenario would present more problems for the Russians, but to say that they are “sunk” is way too premature. Ultimately weapon platforms (even the most advanced ones) don’t decide the outcome of the battles (as we can clearly see in Iraq right now)– logistics, training, initiative, C3 and such have a much bigger effect on it; and Russians are much more likely to hold notable advantage over their neighbors in all of those areas. Those are the only two that I can think of as well, and if they were to get such weapon systems – it sure as hell would not come out of their budget… I am not sure that you can sum old Soviet weapon clients and the current Russian ones into one bucket. Countries like Algeria and Venezuela (just to name of few) were never known as Soviet clients. While I agree with the points that you outline above – one major one that you seem to be missing is that quite a few countries are hesitant to purchase Western weapons due to increased oversight and pressure that comes along with such purchases. Politics play a major role in international weapon trade whether buying from Russia and China or US and EU… I have purposely stayed away from any discussion of T-14/T-15 simply because so little is known about them right now. Your assumptions are certainly valid, but would they still hold true 10 years from now? Only time will tell.. Again, I see your point; but the defense sector has actually been fairly profitable and competitive for the Russians so far. Would that be the case if they embark on Soviet-level expenditures of cranking out 3000+ tanks a year? Almost certainly not, but so far they have been quite conservative with their actual purchases.. Exactly! Which is why I am very skeptical of any Russian weapon procurement plans until we see them in action; and when it comes to Armata we are still quite a few years away from those plans being anywhere close to materializing…
×
×
  • Create New...