Jump to content

Krasnoarmeyets

Members
  • Posts

    76
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Krasnoarmeyets

  1. Apologies for bringing it up again, but are You still intending to do the plain green version of the BRM-3K? As it currently is, it is the only vehicle standing out from the rest either by using old camouflage, or by being extraordinarily clean. Thank You.
  2. 2K22 'Tunguska' was intended as a replacement for ZSU-23-4 'Shilka' SPAAG, with the primary weapon feature being the more powerful 30mm cannons over the older 23mm ones. The SAM engagement capability is secondary to the vehicle's concept. 2K22 were intended to be used together with 9K35 'Strela-10' (a dedicated SP SAM system) in the regimental / brigade anti-air missile-artillery squadrons, and they still are. A replacement for 9K35 is in development ('Sosna'), but in the meantime it remains in service and will recieve an upgrade (which will bring it to 'Strela-10M4' version).
  3. 4GTD is armed with T-80U, UK and UE-1. All Russian UD were phased out of active service in 90's and early 00's due to unavailability of 6TD line engines. There is a number of them (perhaps a few hundred) stored at central vehicle reserve bases, with some being used as turret donors to produce the UE-1 version.
  4. And before this topic irrevocably slides into yet another pointless arguing, here are some more running vintage vehicles (including T-20, T-27, T-37, T-26, BT-5, BT-7, T-28, T-60, T-70, T-34, T-34-85, SU-76, SU-100, ISU-152, etc.), at 22:00:
  5. Okay, bringing things completely off-topic now. It was the Type-96G/A that participated in the biathlon. One curious bit of insider information is that apparently Chinese were allowed to use APFSDS munitions during firing challenges, while everybody else had to use HEAT practice rounds.
  6. Interesting - nice to see so many different vehicles in running condition. Do they belong to reconstructors, or are they borrowed from some museum?
  7. Yes, it is somewhat hard for it to stand out when it is just one brief thing among many during a more than hour long event. Besides, we spoilt it for ourselves by hunting for every little glimpse of it during the previous months. But here is a bit shorter and more dramatic version for you, set to some classical music : Duly noted, veering off topic now. The other two most notable parades this year are probably those that happened in Donetsk and Lugansk Peoples' Republics. Not bad for the first time ever:
  8. I just noted that because cmrd BTR likely meant the chief parade on the Red Square (which the topic is devoted to) when he said "no hiccups".
  9. This is not Moscow, but the city of Chita that lies over 4500 km to the east of it in Siberia.
  10. Here is a recording (the vehicles parade starts at 56:30): I am slightly displeased with organisers - very little coverage of "Armata"-HIFV and almost no "Boomerang" (Air Force could easily have waited another 5 seconds). The most prominent AFV (in directors / operators eyes) seemed to be... T-90A. Also, looks like the footage from the vehicles POV is not transmitted live, but is a recording from the final practice run, and the one from "Pantsyr" (at 1:07:28) really should not have been used... P.S.: But the beautiful roar of T-34-85's and SU-100's makes up for all of that. P.P.S.: Всех с 70-й годовщиной Великой Победы! And congratulations with the 70th anniversary of Victory over fascism to everyone!
  11. From our side it looks like it is the West (or, more specifically, the ruling elites of the United States and the governments under their influence) that is being deliberately adversarial, unconditionally demanding and hypocritical. It likes to crusade all around the world under pretense of dispensing justice and protecting the oppressed when it suits its interests, but screams bloody murder when Russia tries to protect its own people and their brothers at its borders from oppression by tyrants that are useful to the West, or does not see the sense in making yet another middle eastern country (which government has been inconvenient for the West) fall to religious extremist rebellion. Since becoming an "ally of the West" (read: United States puppet) would entail losing any real measure of national sovereignty and any prospect of doing what is best for your people, Russia is better served by sticking to the allies it has now. China is at least honest about its demands. All right, since this is likely to turn into an endless back-and-forth where neither side can convince the other, and therefore be a waste of time and energy, I will cease this tangential political discussion. Yes, we need a new Revolution to restore the power of the people...
  12. But in order to avoid a sudden incapacitating strike against nuclear forces you need to cover them with an air and missile defense shield. And that shield itself has to be protected from being taken out by ground threats with ground forces. Not to mention that it is a very dangerous and unreliable arrangement when your only two options of dealing with rising crises on your borders is either ignore them or immediately start a nuclear war. Perhaps not. But currently the western countries are at the nadir of their military adventurism due to exhaustion from involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq. The situation may well be different ten or twenty years from now. The temptation to use the quick option of military force in order to achieve your political goals is always present, and grows stronger the weaker your opponent becomes. And the stakes (and therefore political goals and considerations) may get higher, since geopolitical turbulence might force Russia to involve itself ever closer to NATO sphere of influence, possibly having to use force (or threat of it) in Ukraine (if the Kiev government attacks Donbass again, or threatens Crimea), Moldova (if it puts Transnistria under blockade) or even NATOs fringe in Baltics (if radical nationalist forces come to power in Estonia or Latvia and start to harass the Russian population). Especially in the last case, it would take a lot of threat potential to convince NATO leaders that it is better not to engage the collective security protocols, but to put enough pressure on the nationalists to pacify them. Besides, NATO is not the only major potential threat. China is in a "friendly" phase now, but friendship is best when both sides are on relatively the same level. And Japan has been slowly but surely upgrading its military capabilities, and has standing claims on Russian territory. And the new platforms have many different complectation options with varying degrees of sophistication. That may not always be an option, and even if it is, you can probably get a much better deal when you have a credible threat of force as an alternative. "Talk softly and carry a big stick." Unfortunately, there is no resting in the marathon of geopolitics. Any ground lost can only be recovered by great effort and expense. You have to take care of your economy and military simultaneously. If you focus on just the economy, you will probably find out that you have fallen hopelessly behind in military capabilities and technologies twenty years from now. And Russian capabilities had suffered a decade of rapid contraction, followed by a decade of painfully slow restoration, so that now it has to run twice as fast. P.S.: Russia would very much like to be a part of the global community - as long as this community is not dominated by objectives and priorities of capitalist elites (the current Russian government is quite happy with these elites though).
  13. But capabilities degrade and become obsolete, and you have to start introducing new ones today to have them available and ready tomorrow. You have to run to stay in your place.
  14. Since the WW3-type scenario that ultimately leads to total obliteration of at least one participating side is now a rather remote prospect, Russian Armed Forces no longer have to be capable of winning a drawn-out total war against NATO, but to present credible threat of doing enough damage to make the option of initiating any kind of military action against Russia politically impossible for Western leaders, or highly impractical for the Chinese ones. Which is why, among other things, the conventional forces have to increase their capabilities to the maximum achievable technological level as long as the potential enemies to be deterred are doing the same. This is one side of the issue. On the other hand, actual possibility of participating in local and regional conflicts calls for steps to reduce political, psychological and socioeconomic costs of such involvement, which is answered, among many other things, by increased protection and survivability levels of the new generation of vehicles. Combined, these considerations make introduction of the new platforms a worthwhile effort, however long and arduous it will prove to be.
  15. But maybe... they can suddenly land in Seattle using merchant cargo ships! And then airdrop in some T-80s on big red parachutes! And mechanized bears! But, seriously, even Alaska does not present any realistic military targets of strategic consequence (what good would disabling only a part of air/missile interception capability do in the long term?), nor is it a viable potential territorial possession (even if you manage to take it and hold it unopposed, what use would it be when inhabited by hostile foreign population?). Well, personally I would prefer a more accurate if lower-definition model to a prettier but inaccurate one.
  16. 90+ Mi-28N as of Dec. 2014, 75+ Ka-52 as of Jan. 2015, including about 3 Ka-52K (which future is now uncertain in light of Mistral situation).
  17. Definitely fake or misreporting - 248 tanks is about the entire combat-capable Ukrainian fleet. As far as we know, the Ukrainian mechanized units in the area of Debal'tsevo consisted mostly of 2 battalion tactical groups (from 128th mountain inf. bde and 30th mech. bde). Each mech BTG typically includes 10-15 MBTs (depending on the technical condition of the vehicles). There were also a couple handfuls of vehicles from 1st and 17th tank bdes, reinforcing various motorized airmobile and territorial defense units. After the encirclement was completed, the last reserves, consisting of another mech BTG of 30th mech. bde and company-sized force of 17th tank bde, attempted a partially successful de-blocking action. It should be noted that the 17th tk bde's company had been equipped with newly restored T-64BVs from long-term storage, and about half of these vehicles very soon broke down and had to be towed to the rear by the still operational ones (so it probably did not participate in the battle for long). Therefore the total number of Ukrainian MBTs in the combat area for the fighting period was probably no greater than 60-70 vehicles. Out of this number, by Lost Armour's count, 20-24 were confirmed destroyed (location uncertain for 4, might be another section of the frontline) and 25 captured by militia (majority of them abandoned without significant damage - probably due to mechanical problems). Similar proportions are present for other AFVs (126 Ukrainian BMPs and BTRs lost during period of Jan. 1st - Mar. 7th 2015). Personnel losses are harder to verify, but the more reliable figures that I have seen are in the area of 1200-1500 Ukrainian KIA/MIA (with ~800-1000 for militia).
  18. And not to forget the CBRN protection supersoldier program:
  19. DPR's "Diesel" battalion (armed with T-72B1 and BMP-2) exercises:
  20. Can vehicles from CMSF / CMA be imported? (Had not seen the previous reply while typing this post - so, only model replacement is possible, no stats modification?) That would make it much easier - most of American and Russian equipment is too advanced (better suited for imaginable future conflicts that can be the extention / repeat / outcome of the current ones perhaps), and Ukrainian MBTs are too rare to accurately represent most other notable forces (especially when it comes to finding two of them that can come in contact with each other). Russian vehicles can be used to represent the Indian Army: T-90A is visually very close to T-90SA (the major difference being more ERA modules instead of Shtora emitters; CMSF already has the T-90SA itself), T-72B3 can be used as 'Combat Improved Ajeya' stand-in (though CMSF T-72MV TURMS-T would probably serve better), BTR-82 can represent BTR-80, BMP-2/2M and BRDM-2 can be used directly. The opposing side would have to be the Pakistan Army: Ukrainian BM Oplot might be used as a stand-in for its predecessor T-80UD, though it is heavily modified compared to it (is it possible to at least remove parts of the vehicles' models, or make them transparent?), backed up with BTR-70 and BRDM-2. Another possibility is the Algerian Army - T-90SA, BMP-2/2M, BTR-80, BRDM-2. Opponent - Egyptian Army: M1A2 to represent M1A1 (especially if its specifications can be downgraded), M2 to represent EIFV (again, downgrade desirable), HMMWV. Potential battleground - Libya. Saudi Arabia has M1A2 SEP, M2A2 and HMMWV. Kuwait has M1A2, BMP-2 (Ukrainian can be used), BMP-3 (can it be used with vehicles from other side?), HMMWV. Iraq has M1A1M, BTR-4, BMP-1 (BRM-1 can be used as a relative stand-in), BTR-80 (use BTR-82 if it can be transferred or more distant BTR-70), HMMWV. Some combination of these forces can be used in Iraqi turmoil against irregulars, paramilitaries or imaginable former Iraqi military units that have switched allegiance (how about an Abrams vs. Abrams type of conflict for a change? ). Iran can also get involved (downgraded T-72B3 as T-72S, BMP-1/2), especially if you imagine a possible future where it receives more advanced equipment (T-90SA/SM, T-72B3-type upgrade, BMP-2M/3/3M, BTR-82A).
  21. Is it possible to remove / make transparent the Malyutka ATGMs on these BMP-1s? They would only be mounted in combat, and certainly would not be left on 'abandoned' vehicles. P.S.: Are you planning to finish the Russian vehicles line, or are you done for now?
  22. One point to keep in mind is that many vehicles with minor damage have been summarily written off for dismantling because any repairs were deemed uneconomical due to the presence of huge numbers of surplus vehicles (with the post-Soviet armed forces reduction and CFE treaty limits). Many observers got the impression that these vehicles vere destroyed, which led to significant overreporting of the numbers of the lost vehicles.
  23. The two primary support vessels - "Fotiy Krylov" and "Nikolay Chiker" are not simple tugs, they also provide surface and underwater rescue, firefighting and medical assistance capabilities. Both were introduced before "AFSU Kuznetsov" went into trials, and were planned to accompany heavy cruisers from the start. The reason that they and other similar vessels are included into fleet groups is not the mechanical reliability of the ships in general (though it did suffer greatly in '90s and early '00s, the things have been steadily improving for the last decade), but the fact that if something does happen, the fleet would not have anybody but themselves to rely on thousands of miles away from their base (whereas NATO vessels can use the extensive network of American and America-aligned bases around the world). Also, it would perhaps be worth noting that project 1143.5 is not really an aircraft carrier, but a missile cruiser that happens to have a few airplanes to reinforce the group's air defenses somewhat (though the planned overhaul (that gets constantly delayed due to the need to have the vessel demonstrate the presence in Mediterranean near the coast of Syria for the past few years) might see the ASMs replaced by additional hangars and storage compartments to increase the carried air wing; further indication is that though the first batch of ordered MiG-29Ks is already delivered, the Su-33s that they are supposed to replace seem set to receive an overhaul too and keep serving alongside their lighter counterparts as originally intended). In general, the Soviet (and therefore Russian) navy was always doctrinally and ideologically oriented for anti-ship and anti-submarine warfare, with "power projection" believed to be the province of the Western fleets (the expression being "the aircraft carrier is the weapon of aggressive imperialism"), though recently Russian navy has been increasing its anti-shore capabilities with several cruise missile-carrying platforms.
  24. "Tanks are obsolete because they can be destroyed by much cheaper RPGs/ATGMs" = "Aircraft are obsolete because they can be shot down by much cheaper SAMs" / "Ships are obsolete because they can be sunk by much cheaper ASMs/torpedoes/mines" / "Infantrymen are obsolete because they can be killed by much cheaper bullets/grenades/shells", etc. Let's disband everybody and settle every conflict with ICBMs... P.S.: Though it might also be then concluded that humans are obsolete in general because they can be wiped out by much cheaper WMDs.
  25. Ah, I see. I saw that the initial reference was to "the best", so I thought it would be about qualitative comparisons (of which produceability and fleet maintainability are large factors IMHO).
×
×
  • Create New...