L0ckAndL0ad

Like you've said yourself, this isn't the place to discuss these sort of things.

I agree completely. Nuclear weapons are projected to be 100% upgraded/renewed. This is in fact their main focus. Exp Forces - there's no need in them in Russia. Highly mobile? Yeah. And, while hordes of tanks might be redundant, tanks themselves are still needed. Scrapping stuff also costs money. I'd say that one should make new things first, then scrap old stuff. And while we're at it, two years ago they've announced that they'll remove T-80s from service in 2015. No idea, really.

No? Because US and Canada are allies? Uhm, what? Military Districts = distributed garrisons. They do not sit entrenched along the border. They are stationed at their bases. How is that a threat to NATO? And please, leave politics aside. Military assessment only. Not sure what you mean by "centralized", and how is it done in the US, but I'd say that anything centralized is easier to destroy. And, while US only forces may be comparatively weak, combined NATO forces are not. Most people I know think that a war between NATO and Russia is impossible. At the same time, Armed Forces job is to be prepared for anything. Current Russian Armed Forces personnel is under 0.8 million, and keeps decreasing. What do you propose? Make it 500 thousand? 300 thousand? 100 thousand? What armament should it use? Right today. There's a reason why I asked panzersaurkrautwerfer to play Commander in Chief. You can participate in this too.

You're starting with false facts. The number of personnel of Russian Armed Forces have been decreasing since the fall of SU each year. Theoretical numbers are 1 million, but the actual ones are below 800-700 thousands at the moment. All units except high readiness ones are understrength (so called peacetime TOE). This is more of a political question, rather than military. And I do not wish to discuss politics. Let's make it more pleasant and interesting, and play a game. Imagine that you're the Commander in Chief on Russian Armed Forces. You've got around 500-600 T-90A, 500-600 BMP-3, and thousands of T-72s, BMP-2/1s, etc. Your current Armed Forces Personnel is 800 thousand men, with 50%+ of them being professional military. Current plan is to increase the numbers of contracted personnel to 70-80%. The size of your country is 17 million square kilometers. What are your orders, sir? I'm genuinely interested to hear what exactly would you do. Why do you neglect the importance of APCs at operational level? Also, I've replied regarding this in my previous post (regarding offensive/defensive missions). US is shielded against ground attacks with ocean. Russia is not. Advancing through Alaska is nonsense. But lets see what would be your reply regarding "your orders" as Commander in Chief.

The best way to look at it is from mission perspective. Everybody knows that, but I'll say it anyways. Heavy tank and/or IFV based forces (and BMDs = IFVs too) are intended for offense, while APC based forces are better as reinforcements, mop-ups, and to establish defense. Elastic defense on larger front is a perfect example. Tanks are just supplements, and not intended to always to keep up with BTRs.

I meant more operational freedom. At the same time, APC formations (BTR and MT-LB based) have additional organic assets like ATGMs and AGLs. But yeah, there are some pure BTR-based formations as well. True. But my point is, if they wanted to go for high level 360 security, there might not even be a rear tunnel at all. Might have limited it to existing crew hatches on the top. But yeah, one can only guess. Kinda not fun sitting and waiting, while being teased like that.

The point is that each military district is a country on it's own. And within that, logistic is based on large stockpiles of mothballed ammo and vehicles (== spare parts). Thus does not create any additional cost, or logistical problems.

To illustrate my point regarding money saving and large borders further, I'll use 60th Separate Motor Rifle Brigade from Eastern Military District, that I've stumbled upon recently, as an example. As it turns out, they still do use BMP-1s in Russian Far East. Obviously, not to invade China, Japan or US/NATO. Who'd want to do that riding on BMP-1? According to wiki, there's around 900 tanks and 1200 BMPs. Most of these are probably mothballed, while smaller numbers are kept for training/maneuvers to keep people familiar with the stuff. So it does not cost pretty much anything to maintain them. At the same time, to replace all of them with shiny new BMP-3s would cost a lot of money. But since there's no immediate threat of local conflicts in the region, Russia is focusing on updating nukes instead. http://codename-it.livejournal.com/968668.html

Oh, T-62s incoming again. Did you read what I replied to you? http://community.battlefront.com/topic/118480-armata-soon-to-be-in-service/?p=1597225 You also still haven't answered my initial questions - who Russian military needs to be better than, and in what? It is a very good point, if you can establish the idea of tanks always riding in the same column with BTRs as a solid fact. Which it is not. Again, I'm having an impression that you did not read my previous answers to you, where I gave you the numbers of BMP-2 and BMP-3 available. Aaaand again. That's a wrong statement. First, because, as I've said, Russia is the biggest country in the world, and it needs to cover all it's borders. Second, it's wrong because the size of Russian Armed Forces is shrinking every year, while trading numbers for more quality, in both personnel and equipment. If you're referring to BMPT Terminator, it's a purely export product. And I don't think anything is done by state. All manufacturers are OJSCs, AFAIK, and work both for internal and external markets. I do understand that you're busy IRL, but please, can you read my posts before replying?

How can it be? With 10 times less budget. With both countries having nukes, there's no way we're gonna be doing just ground warfare. A war between US and Russia is impossible. Only by mistake (there were quite a few instances when it could've actually happened due to glitches in the systems).

Yeah, RWS is an obvious difference. But I meant the silhouette. As for the Namer-like appearance, we'd have to wait and see. My bet is on BMP-1/2 on steroids.

Khlopotov said these are two different vehicles. Yeah yeah yeah. That's why I called T-15 Soviet. Especially when they'll refit it with 57mm module, it'll look exactly like that. And that stinky stupid tunnel.. Eww...

Somebody (Khlopotov?) decided to leak T-95 photo. The turret indeed looks very unarmored, which makes the T-95 not really a tank, but a SPA/TD. This makes a possibility of T-14 using similar type of turret even less likely.

Yeah, or there's some kinda crawling tunnel BMP-3 style all over again. Hey, what can one sacrifice for 360 degrees protection, huh?

T-15 is a mood killer for me. Kurganets-25, even though not as modern and sleek as German Puma, is good. Solid. That long thing on the other hand, I dunno. It's very.. uhm.. Soviet? The biggest problem I see is, actually, what I do not see. Exit ramp. I don't see one.

Oh, don't mention it. That was kinda rude of me, probably. It was officially stated many times they'd be officially presented on May 9th parade, and will be concealed until then. Hard to say with such low resolution/quality. Maybe.

T-15 Heavy IFV, I presume?

OMG, I did not except that kind of question from you Ian. There are 3 new gen chassis, Armata, Kurganets, Boomerang. T-14 MBT and T-15 (if that's the correct designation) Heavy IFV are on Armata chassis. Kurganets-25 is a medium IFV on Kurganets chassis.

There's a bigger res version:

It was only a matter of time before they'd order Kornet on a light wheeled base. Extendable mast, remote control, 4 salvo shots without reloading - that's a very good stuff. RWS MG version is also just a matter of time, I believe. It's out there already, just needs to be ordered.

This photo is from 2006 (or 2007). Experimental testing Dubrovichi range, Ryazan. http://btvt.narod.ru/5/vdv2007/vdv2007.htm

The guy here says there are no BMD-3s and BMD-4s in service. Only in training centers. http://otvaga2004.mybb.ru/viewtopic.php?id=853&p=29#p523542

It's not enough even to make an accurate 3d model yet. I'm thinking that Boomerang-BM/early Epoch turret would look a bit different on actual vehicles, than it was shown to us earlier. Given how BMP-2M/3/3M turrets look, and knowing that 2M's Berezhok turret is a predecessor, I'd say that they'll make some sort of ballistic protection for optics and other vulnerable spots as well.

And one more picture of Kurganets-25 from Military Photos forums: http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=231255&d=1427369769

For all we know, it might be ERA, or really just "fanERA" (фанера = ply-wood) But yeah, I've watched the interview with Kurganmashzavod representative. He said it'd have a protection on par with German IFV Puma.