Jump to content
Special Upgrade 4 Tech Tips

L0ckAndL0ad

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,857

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    11

 Content Type 

Posts posted by L0ckAndL0ad

    Armata soon to be in service.

    in Combat Mission Black Sea

    Posted · Edited by L0ckAndL0ad

    What I will clean it up to say is I frankly don't see the need in the 21st century for either NATO or the Russians to maintain huge forces arrayed against each other.  NATO has no desire to go East, and presumably Russia has no desire to go West.  And yet both sides waste billions of dollars pointing tanks at each other and justify it because "well they started it".

    I agree completely.

     

    What would I do if I was in charge of the Russian military?  I'd focus on my nuclear weapons for homeland defense.  Hordes and hordes of tanks is redundant at that point.  If you want an expeditionary force similar to the US there's a lot of restructuring that would need to be done which includes ditching all those tanks in storage.  The US has the economy to mix the two, Russia does not.

    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.

     

    Out of curiosity, what is the general status and array of ground forces in the east (aimed at China).  If we're talking implausible but possible, I'd say China going north would have been just as likely as NATO going east.

    No idea, really.

    0

    Armata soon to be in service.

    in Combat Mission Black Sea

    Posted · Edited by L0ckAndL0ad

    By that token then shouldn't we keep all of our land forces at the US and Canadian borders?  I mean we've fought wars with both of them, and our border with Canada is quite large (~4000 miles using google earth ruler tool, not exact but good enough).  By comparison, the Russian border with all of Europe is ~1500 miles, and a similar number with Eastern China (Going to go ahead and assume Kazakhstan isn't a major potential adversary).  We also have a 1200 mile border with Mexico.  Again rough numbers, but still.

     

    No? Because US and Canada are allies?

     

    I get the impression that there is a lot of drumbeating saying that the might Russian army (and it is mighty) at the western borders is all that is keeping the German/Polish hordes from repeating 1941.  I understand the need for border security, but when you have large standing forces with "colorful" rhetoric, it causes unease in the European community, and that's exactly what we're seeing.  Why does Russia need to keep so many forces at the border? Why not use larger centralized garrisons, a la the US?*

    *This does not include forward deployed US units but those have already been covered as being comparitively weak.  Additionally, the role of the US in the modern era is not the same as that of the Russian Federation.

    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.

    1

    Armata soon to be in service.

    in Combat Mission Black Sea

    Posted

    The USSR bankrupted itself on unrealistic military expenditures in an attempt to stave off a Western invasion that frankly was not happening.  The Russian military is currently expanding at a rapid rate (while maintaining significant military reserves) in an attempt to stave off a Western frankly is not happening.

     

    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).

     

    There's simply not a mission for what exists these days.  The conventional threat from the west is negligible, about the only way there's going to be a NATO-Russia shooting war involves Russia invading a NATO country which appears to be a bit beyond Russian ambitions these days.  Same deal from the Pacific.  And further the Russian deterrence policy of "any invasion of Russian territory=nuclear war!" rather puts a damper on the possibility of external threats to Russia proper.

     

    This goes to two points:

     

    1. The military district system as is, is increasingly obsolete.  No one is going to drive across the Ukraine and drive to Moscow humming panzerlied.  Having a smaller, better equipped, more agile military force, aligned against strategic movement assets (such as the highly functional rail system) better matches the current Russian military realities of covertly invading neighbors reacting to regional crises with fairly small forces.

     

    2. The Russian military, and the Soviet military before it was the biggest threat to the peace and security of the Russian people.  Simple as that.  The troubles of the 1990s have very little to do with what the west "imposed" on Russia, and everything to do with the rows and rows of T-80Us rusting away, and thousands of missiles intended for global holocaust.  The only route to Russian security, true Russian security is meaningful economic development which as this drop in oil prices has shown, is something that has not happened (indeed, minus weapons the Russian exports are largely raw materials, to be made into much more expensive, and valuable goods elsewhere),  Under the current nuclear umbrella the threat of actual invasion, or hostile beyond reason action (refusing to trade with Russia, or be engaged with Russia as a result of objection over Russian actions is something any nation has the right to do) from outside is about nil.  Simple as that.  Whatever ground or air forces Russian maintains has no value against the west compared to the nuclear element.   

     

    It is certainly tempting to point at the US defense outlay and claim it to be:

     

    1. A threat

    2. An example of how Russia is spending quite reasonably.

     

    This would be a mistake.  The first is easiest to deal with.  The US economy is the abjectly most powerful on earth.  Russia's is about on par with Italy's.  Because your neighbor buys a larger sports car than you do does not make your spending more reasonable if he owns a company, and you are the manager at Starbucks in terms of spending capabilities.  The first is a bit more complicated, but looking at what the US does have, it is largely focused on force projection (which is expensive, but is simply the reality of putting what combat power you have forward), and remains almost entirely focused on status quo enforcing missions short of full spectrum conflict.  While its pretty easy to object (and not without good reason!) to the US global presence, the numbers on the ground, it is not forces allocated to offer much more than a token threat (see the idiot maps that show Russia encircled with US bases that neglect to show that all told those have something like 3-4 Brigades total worth of combat power) unless massed in one location , which again could be equally met by a smaller more agile Russian force moving on internal lines.

     

    This is more of a political question, rather than military. And I do not wish to discuss politics.

     

    So to that end the Russian military shouldn't be a giant pile of cold war castoffs like the BMP-2 (which frankly without some major overhauling is pretty much as obsolete as the BMP-1 at this point), some newerish hardware like the 90's T-90As and BMP-3s and a small handful of Armatas and KA-52s, it should be going for broke with newer systems with a much smaller endstate manning level.

     

    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.

     

    When pairing armor with infantry/infantry with armor proximity and rate of march is pretty important.  They're not always riding in the same column, but having worked with mixed organization, your wheeled/tracked vehicles have very different needs and capabilities.  One of the reasons why the fully-tracked APC was so revolutionary was infantry could now operate literally alongside armor, and keep pace with them over the marginal terrain.  Conversely motorized infantry remained attractive because of the speed and strategic mobility involved.  

     

    By combining the two, even at higher levels you're basically negating both their mobility advantages.  A wheeled AFV "pure" organization is much better at strategic mobility (which is honestly the one advantage wheeled APCs have IMO), while a tracked "pure" organization is best suited to the sort of high intensity combat that goes hand in hand with tanks.

     

     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).

     

    It does not need to cover its borders with men any more than the US military is at dangerously low force levels in Alaska.  The threat of invasion is met by the cost of invasion being so great as to make it simply unfeasible or irrational.  The Russian threat of nuclear war, or even the threat offered by seriously modernized forces is more than enough without the currently bloated Russian defense structure.

     

    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.

     

    0

    Armata soon to be in service.

    in Combat Mission Black Sea

    Posted

    Fair enough, the BTG concept allows for the dynamic creation of battle groups based not only on the combat needs but also on operational restrictions; so there is nothing stopping the Russians from deploying lighter BTR/MTLB BTGs as a rapid reaction force while their heavy organic assets are still on the way...Although, realistically speaking that is what they have VDV for in a first place...

     

    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.

    1

    Armata soon to be in service.

    in Combat Mission Black Sea

    Posted

    Exactly, while a standard Russian BTR-based Motor-Rifle brigade does in fact include a Tank battalion, there are several Russian Army formations (i.e. 15th Peace-Kepping brigade) that are purely BTR-based and don't have any tanks or heavy artillery in their OOB.

    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.

     

    The primary reason for BMP-3 and BMD-4/4M "crawling" tunnel is that those vehicles have an engine positioned in the back of the hull which significantly complicates the ergonomics and the rear exit arrangements.  That does not seem to be the case with T-15 (which has a front-facing engine - a la T-14 reversed). That being the case, the rear dismount arrangements are probably more intuitive than those on its predecessors... We will know for sure in a couple of months, but I find it unlikely that the Russian military had commissioned a vehicle with poor rear exit setup - as that was their major gripe with BTR-90 and BMP-3...

     

    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.

    1

    Armata soon to be in service.

    in Combat Mission Black Sea

    Posted · Edited by L0ckAndL0ad

    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.

     

    wmKqllsXaKc.jpg

     

    http://codename-it.livejournal.com/968668.html

    0

    Armata soon to be in service.

    in Combat Mission Black Sea

    Posted · Edited by L0ckAndL0ad

    Re: Fifty shades of BMP

     

    To put in in comparison, the current Russian system would be as if the US kept the M60 in service and updated, and maintained M113 based mechanized infantry units to the modern day.  While the T-90 and T-72 are very similar, if they were just the same damned tank you'd be able to build one upgrade package, or at the least fleetwide compatible upgrade kits.  You wouldn't need T-90AM or T-72B3 etc, you'd just have T-81UMBSKwhatever (split the difference in numbers).  This is especially questionable because neither tank is vastly superior when properly upgraded.  They both have the same weapons system.  They both rely on the same sort of ERA arrays, etc, etc, etc.  It does not make sense to maintain both a T-90 and T-72 line, and then still have T-80s, T-62s in some corners of the Empire, and now the Armata clattering about.

    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?

     

    But when you get into the realm of BTRs and BMPS you sort of have to ask "why."  The Stryker type motorized vehicles, as much as I do not like them, are designed around being a homogeneous force of  vehicles with similar mobility, logistical, and transportation requirements, that can all be stuffed into airplanes and rapidly deployed.  In theory it does not need augmentation for most missions (in theory.  practice is a very different matter).  The BTR based units make a similar look, but you still have significant "heavy" assets that are traditionally aligned against them.  Which opens a question to the utility of a wheeled, fast transport that is tied to tracked armor logistics and mobility.  A formation is as fast as its slowest piece, as thirsty as its biggest vehicle, etc, etc.  So to that end you lose a lot of the wheeled advantages of the BTR (which is not a bad vehicle at all), while saddling tanks with forces that cannot keep up with them (off road, or in terms of survival).

     

    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.

     

    In terms of the BMP-3 vs BMP-2, it really should be one or the other.  Having two fleets and keeping them both relevant is prohibitive if in broader terms they're the same sort of role.  So either going all in because by god, BMP-3s are the future (I differ there) or committing to a total and complete overhaul of the BMP-2 fleet (more practical, and allows a much easier incrimental upgrade fleetwide) is more sound than having the BMP-3 with a whole host of updates and upgrades that often do not carry over to the BMP-2, while pursuing various BMP-2M designs.

     

    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.

     

    And so forth.  There's needless replication of capabilities and systems, or questionable alignment of tools and assets pretty much across the board.  This also goes fairly well hand in hand with the frankly bipolar Russian defense planning which amounts to an interesting pursuit of NATO's old 1960's "All conflicts threatening our borders automatically are nuclear" while trying to still maintain the sort of force that is designed to go head to head with NATO.  It indicates a lack of mission focus or understanding, no one is going to Barbarossa the border if it means nukes are a popping, which negates the need for the rather large (and to a degree wasteful, which is something even the Russian military recognizes) forces, but on the other end of the stick, Russian forces have no realistic military targets that they cannot handle with a smaller, much more focused force (see Georgia, Ukraine, etc).  A lot of units are frankly redundant and best dissolved with a stronger focus on forces better designed for the missions at hand, with equipment that's fleet standard.

     

    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.

     

    Re: prototypes

     

    Again, you've got "standard" helicopters like the MI-28, then KA-52s (flying often in the same roles as their cold war stablemates), extended evaluation programs like the AK-12 or whatever, the whole Armata package with extended testing phase for a whole fleet of vehicles, all the various "next generation" Russian fixed wing assets that are currently in service in the 20-30 airframe range, one off things like the BMPT, and all of it being done by state owned assets.  While some of it is certainly replicated by US and other free market agencies, it does deeply tie the R&D cost for programs not pursued significantly more on the overall economy which is again supporting a very large military on a GDP the size of Italy.  Pair this with a slumping economy, and slipping deadlines, and the fact that the Armatas are not even really complete as prototypes, and it starts to raise questions about the practicality of new equipment barring some major changes in Russian defense planning and focus.

    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?

    1

    Armata soon to be in service.

    in Combat Mission Black Sea

    Posted

    Was this picture introduced?

     

    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.

    Murakhovski "praised" T-14 a lot. (He is a very reliable Russian expert, unlike the other bluffers). As the more leakages coming out, more I feel that the Armata might be a real thing, enough to break my bias against Russian weapons. (well, like I mentioned somewhere in the forum, I still think that overall tech level is not enough against US) Abrams will begin ECP1 in 2017, so I hope the next expansion of CM:BS would include T-14 and M1A2 SEP v3 ECP1 (or M1A2 ECP1 ?? ) That will be really interesting match.

    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).

     

    0

    Armata soon to be in service.

    in Combat Mission Black Sea

    Posted

    I think the interior arrangement will be more like Namer.  The RWS should not protrude down into the compartment that way, and storing the fuel in the center rather than using it as part of the armor array would be stupid.

    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.

    0

    Armata soon to be in service.

    in Combat Mission Black Sea

    Posted · Edited by L0ckAndL0ad

    Possibly the last pic is a later version?

    Khlopotov said these are two different vehicles.

     

     

    A much older concept for a heavy BMP shows some similarities to T-15:

    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...

    0

    Armata soon to be in service.

    in Combat Mission Black Sea

    Posted

    Sigh, sorry man. :) now that I read that I remember you describing that a while ago. Should have googled first and asked questions later.

    I just have not been following this post for post because there is so much speculation and not enough known yet. That's my story and I am sticking to it.

    Thanks for setting me back on the right path. :)

    Oh, don't mention it. That was kinda rude of me, probably.

     

    Probably a dumb question, but what are the chances that the vehicles in the parade keep the turret tarps on?

     

    It was officially stated many times they'd be officially presented on May 9th parade, and will be concealed until then.

     

    There are some interesting things on the hull.  Looks like two radar modules (one facing side, one angled foward) and 4x "launchers" as seen on the base of the Object 195 turret.  We know smoke launchers are on the Epoch module, so I'm guessing this is "Afghanite" APS.

    Hard to say with such low resolution/quality. Maybe.

    0

    Armata soon to be in service.

    in Combat Mission Black Sea

    Posted · Edited by L0ckAndL0ad

    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.

    0

    Armata soon to be in service.

    in Combat Mission Black Sea

    Posted · Edited by L0ckAndL0ad

    There's enough to get the kruganets in a CMBS expansion sooner or later.

     

    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.

    0
×
×
  • Create New...