[Armor topic]

Yeah, ignition method is a non-factor in this discussion, just pointing out to what I know :). 

[Armor topic]

AFAIK, no sensors exist for Relikt, and higher ERA sensitivity is an attributed to a more responsive explosive component. It is still contact triggered, just with better response times and some clever layering/timing of metal casing mixed with several explosive layers. 

[Armor topic]

I think it does come down to under-modeled CE protection on the T-90 series after all. Not the first time lack of armor surfaced up though, I believe pre-patch there were significant issues with .50 being too useful against T-90A in particular. 

There is another thing to discuss, namely trophy (HV an LV) APS. Below is a video sent to me from Winking, unfortunatly in Russian only. First minute describes the setup, one AT-14C, a couple of disposable RPG's on infantry and one Shturm. If you want to skip to the action in question start from 1:00.

So what we have are three intercepted projectiles over the course of four seconds and one rear turret impact. Knowing how Trophy is advertised to work, I find that hard to believe since the munitions need to undergo a reload process that is far from instantaneous. If you skip to 2:47 you can see a rear-turret impact with a subsequent penetration. Assuming all safety protocols are met, wouldn't such impact cause a mission kill or at least some serious shock to the crew with the bustle rack venting its ammo load through the blowout panels? I don't want to bring Yemeni videos as proof here, since I believe not all safety protocols on those Abrams were met prior to engagement. Moving on, at 3:35 you can see a second ATGM impact into the rear turret. If first hit can be counted as survivable with the bustle rack acting as a giant ERA panel, this second hit should have burned through now empty rack entered the turret. Or am I missing something? 

 

[Armor topic]

As for the T-90AM. A Skiff (1000-1100mm) will penetrate both Relikt (effective against tandem warheads) and the base armor of the front hull  everytime in the game (again, I did many tests). That means less than 1000-1100mm of protection against CE with base armor and Relikt COMBINED. Relikt augments protection against CE by 50% So base armor protection on the T-90AM would have to be less than 700-750mm against CE for that to be possible.  I find this very hard to believe. I hope this is revisited in a future patch. Numbers for the front Turret should also be verified with new sources since if it was that much mistaken for the front hull, it likely is for the turret too. 

Regular Skif is said to have a guaranteed penetration of 800mm behind ERA by the manufacturer. That should give it a chance to do some damage to T-90 and T-72B3 frontal projection weakspots (as pretty much any ATGM). I think that's it though, blunt frontal hits to glacis and turret shouldn't have any effects according to what we know about general T-90A protection. Against Relikt though, regular tandem warheads should have generally reduced effectiveness due to counter-coursing explosion directions. Counter-tandem technology is one of the centerpieces of Relikt development. According to NII STALI, TOW-2A was taken as the archetype munition for RnD. 

[Armor topic]

What's javelin's direct guaranteed penetration in mm RHA CE? T-72B '89 LOS glacis was 573mm without ERA, and had triple polymer inlay. With that Korsar would have trouble delivering any damage (reliably or at all) since its quoted guaranteed penetration is said to be 550mm RHA CE, and as we know, composite armors usually have a higher RHA rating against CE then LOS allows. It is much easier here, since no discrepancy between valuation methods exists. Caeteris paribus for T-90A and AM (really a stretch), and there you have your answer. Can't say anything about the Javelin though. 

[Modern Russian infantry battalion structure]

1) How is the 2B9 82-mm Vasilyek Automatic Mortar used generally? "The 2B9 can be fired as a mortar, using bombs loaded manually from the muzzle, at a high barrel elevation angle, or for automatic direct fire in the manner of a light or anti-tank gun (direct sights are provided) using the breech magazine loading feature." In support of a battalion does that mean it is well forward or held back? 

2B9 can be auto-fired both directly and indirectly. The loading mechanism doesn't really care for elevation. It can also be used in semi-automatic mode while firing a 5 round clip.

Automatic indirect mode, semi-automatic indirect mode, automatic direct mode. Honestly never seen it in manual muzzle loading mode. Also, all videos are of 2B9M which is air-cooled instead of 2B9 which is water-cooled. 

To address previous questions - MT-LBM 6MAs, just like MT-LBM 6MBs, were procured as company for army trials back in 2001. As evidence points, the extra saving wasn't worth it, so the MoD ordered only 6MBs. Test vehicles must have remained on MoD's books since they showed up in Ukraine back in summer 2014. In any case, 6MAs are very non-standard equipment as far as we can tell. Worth having them in CMBS just for variety though, although it is a strange pick to include them over other more proliferated equipment. 

[Armor topic]

It is more complicated than simply right of wrong. Some materials (and therefore densities) are not what they are IRL as well as LOS armor coverage is over/under estimated. I would think that BF needs to run their own analysis if they have used SB values, that is all I was saying. Also, please note I am not saying that the book is bad, it provides a great theoretical framework, just the actual values are all under question now. For instance Leopard-2 armor is both too thick and too light at the same time. I also don't think the book takes in account difference in methodology for RHA valuation between east and west which gives around 5-8% difference in absolute RHA mm values. 

[Armor topic]

I believe Armor Basics book, on which SB is based no longer represents reality. I've also heard Paul Lakowski mentioning he is now working on new estimates, but I can't find the references to that anymore. 

[Armor topic]

Relikt's been in the public eye since around very early 2000's, so I'm sure US had plenty of time to at least theoretically come up with a solution. Which is probably why Relikt has been cleared for export in 2011 with a small scale  Kazakhstan BMPT contract (10 vehicles). On the other hand, that means that US couldn't have had any significant amount of testing samples prior to 2011. RHA methodology and penetration success rate differences between Russian and US calculations are a lot of times not considered though, leading to under-protection or over-penetration in theoretical scenarios like we have in CMBS.

I hope no radar-command junk is present for the Relikt in CMBS like it is on the M829A4 wiki page .

 

[Russian Arms Expo 2015]

usual Russian production values.

Enjoy...

[Armor topic]

Why does it cause a nuclear explosion almost every single time? I could see such overmatch at 1000-1500m or so, where frontal penetration may be enough to reach the autoloader and whatever ammo that is stored vertically behind it (3+m LOS), but to assume that happens at 4000m? Really feels like reading a marketing brochure or something. 

[Armor topic]

Did a bit of a "ideal gas" situation test.

Parameters:

• Conditions perfect, noon, visibility 100%. 
• T-90MA - 2A46M-5 gun firing 3VBM22 or 3VBM23 on a M1A2 SEP V2 at 3981m rage/ crew veteran/ Leadership 0.
• M1A2 Sep. V2 M256A1 gun firing M829A4 at a T-90MA at 3980m range/ crew veteran/ Leadership +1.

Results:

T-90MA engaging M1A2 SEP V2:

Hit - weapon > 120mm cannon destroyed
Miss
Hit - weapon mount > 12.7mm MG destroyed
Hit - left front turret > no penetration
Miss
Miss
Hit - left front turret> no penetration
Miss
Miss
Hit - lower front hull> no penetration
Hit - upper front hull> no penetration
Miss
Hit - weapon mount> penetration/ casualty> commander/ 7.62mm coax destroyed/ CITV destroyed/ IR optics destroyed/ FBCB2 destroyed
Reload test
Hit - lower front hull> no penetration
Hit - right front turret> no penetration
Miss
Miss
Hit - lower front hull> armor spalling/ no damage
Miss
Hit - weapon mount> partial penetration/ no damage
Miss
Hit - left front turret> no penetration
Miss
Miss
Hit - upper front hull
End test

Seems alright. Weird weapons mount penetration, but otherwise fine. I'm not sure whether upper front hull on an M1A2 would handle an APFSDS even at 4k meters, however I lack indication that it wouldn't. 

M1A2 SEP V2 engaging T-90MA:

Miss 
Hit - weapon mount> penetration> knocked out through catastrophic explosion (!) 
Reload test
Miss 
Hit - forward top hull (hatch area)> penetration> knocked out, two crew survived.
Reload test
Miss 
Miss
Hit - ERA (front glacis)> no penetration
Hit - lower left hull (hit mark shows track area)> penetration> knocked out, two crew survived.
Reload test
Hit - superstructure front hull (right side)> penetration> knocked out through catastrophic explosion (!)
Reload test
Miss
Hit - lower front hull (center)> penetration> knocked out through catastrophic explosion.
Reload test
Hit - superstructure front hull (far left side)> penetration> destroyed, all crew survived.
Reload test
Miss
Hit - front turret (?)> penetration> knocked out through catastrophic explosion (!)
End test

This seems a little wonky to me. 87.5% chance to frontally knock out a T-90MA at 4km from first round, 71.4% chance to cause a catastrophic detonation at 4km frontally. I might be missing something, but a catastrophic detonation through an HMG weapon mount? Lower left, lower center and hatch hull penetrations are legit, but landing frontal center glacis shots that cause that much damage at 4km? I wander if anyone has data to support such weapon effectiveness.   

[Russian "Verba" MANPADS]

I dare say akd's picture is a just a printed demonstrator which may lack some details. The picture looks shopped overall. Also Tunguska's is a variation on series-5 GM general purpose tracked chassis produced by MMZ. The general chassis archetype is shared between KUB, BUK, TOR, Tunguska as well as respective command vehicles, loading equipment and other related special purpose G2A equipment. Nothing to do with T-72's there ;). 

[Modern Russian infantry battalion structure]

Part 5 - Recon battalion

 

Preface. By nature, recon traditionally is one of the more secretive operational activities which translates to very poor quality media coverage and lengthened research. In that light we perfectly understand why CMBS chose the structures they chose, but they are more fictional than real. Due to that we decided to cover full OBRBAT instead of just TOE discrepancies like the last parts. It is still appropriate to start with small tool discrepancies first.

1 - Currently GAZ 233014 “Tigr” has varying amount of seating places and crew places depending on which team rides what vehicle. The total amount of places (10) is right, however in reality in *all* the recon TOEs, designated driver only takes up one place leaving 9 others for general use. In that light, we don’t really see a need for these many variants within what should be one vehicle. I think it is best and most correct to handle Tigrs like BRDM-2 was handled in CM:A. 1 crew and the rest of the slots are up for the taking, including weapon operator slot.

2 - Russian recon squads in game lack a lot of the designated equipment that makes them “recon” in the first place. No laser designators (LPR-1/2/3 family), no Doppler stations (SBR and PNSR) and no thermal binoculars like the TPN-1. Essentially their role is abstracted to better equipped infantry which does reflect their designation IRL. More on how equipment is distributed below.

3 - We understand that CM doesn’t dabble in technical micromanagement, but if the devs want to spice things up, seismic sensors could be included. This security operations equipment was standard issue to recon battalions from the 70’s and mirrors similar equipment used by the US Army infantry. These seismic sensors are the same type that mines use as well. Here it is labelled “СД”: Link (Инженерные боеприпасы. Руководство по материальной части и применению. Книга шестая. Военное издательство. Москва.)

4 - There is some strong evidence that points to BRDM-2s (or 2Ms) not being deployed for army recon duties since the switch to new brigade organisation in 2009. There are no recent photo-proofs from exercises involving BRDM-2 as a vehicle for recon units and it is not included in 2009+ TOEs. That leads us to believe BRDM-2 should be removed as a recon vehicle in CM.

Further we will examine a general structure of a recon battalion.

Structure:
Battalion HQ>

• Intelligence processing section

• HQ

Recon company>

• Company HQ

• Recon platoon (x3)

Tech company>

• Company HQ

• Recon (observation) platoon

• Tech platoon

COMINT company>

• Company HQ

• Information processing unit

• COMINT platoons (x3)

• ELINT platoon

Comms Platoon

Supply Platoon

Medical squad.

We will drop the examination COMINT, comms, supply and medical formations as they are removed from a direct field role.

5  

1. Battalion HQ comprises of three vehicles, two of which are applicable. The  int. section of 4, including one driver  rides an MT-LBU based command vehicle (PPRI-5) and serves as a center for all battalion information. Standard AK-74M for all men.

2. HQ squad of three including one driver rides a command vehicle of a R-149BMR family. One particular TOE variant we have on hands shows MT-LBU based R-149BMRG, but we are unsure if any R-149 command variant can’t be used for the same roles, especially in BTR MRB’s.

6

1. A recon company riding Tigers is comprised of three platoons. Company HQ though is made up of 9 people, including two drivers. One driver takes care of company command's Tiger, while another takes care of the truck with company’s supplies and belonging. All men are armed with AK-74Ms By our TOE, company HQ also has one thermal binocular of TPN-1 type. As of February this year there have been confirmed deliveries to recon troops: Link.

2. Platoon is made of command and three squads. Platoon command of three (RATELO, Com. and Medic) do not have their own transport, and are all armed with AK-74Ms. First recon surveillance squad, much like in motor-rifle battalions, is made of 5 people including one driver and is based around an SBR-3 or SBR-5 station. One LPR type laser designator is also present. This squad is armed with AK-74Ms and one RPG-7.

3. Two other squads are of 8 people including one driver. Along with AK-74Ms, these squads have a VSS, one PKM and one RPG-7. These squads are also equipped with TPN-1s.

7. Structurally “Tracked” companies appear the same with some minor differences. First recon surveillance squad rides a BRM, which eliminates SBR operator from squad composition. Tracked recon crew is made of two people, instead of one, adding one member to each squad. Company command has one BRM and one BMP. There are also BTR based recon companies, but not enough information is available to us. From what we have, the appear to be structured exactly the same as Tigr ones, for the exception of 2 crew instead of one driver.

8.

1. Tech recon company HQ is comprised of 8 people including two drivers and two RATELO operators. All men are armed with AK-74Ms and mount one Tigr and one truck with company’s supplies.

2. Recon observation platoon is made of one HQ (2 men including one medic), and three homogeneous recon observation squads of five including one driver. These squads are centered around one LPR device, one RATELO operator and one TPN-1 thermal binocular. All men are armed with AK-74Ms.

3. Tech recon platoon is structured very similarly to recon observation with some minor differences. It has only one officer acting as HQ, two tech recon companies of five (including driver) based around PNSR doppler stations and two signals station of five (including driver) based around 1K119 signals complex. The 1K119 complex is designed to track seismic activity through 8 separate sensors connected through two signal amplifiers. Operational range is between 5 and 23km depending on what connection is used. This equipment is out of CMBS combat scope, so we won’t go into detail on what it does exactly.

9. UAV companies are a bit of a special thing. There are sometimes entirely separate (to the point of being a separate formation), and sometimes are included as a entities in recon battalion. Most southern MD UAV companies are not separate as far as we’ve managed to gather.  

[Russian "Verba" MANPADS]

I think the picture from Janes is an Igla-S with thermal optics, at least Karpenko reports it so. In terms of Strela-10M3 vs Igla-S, the warhead is twice bigger (5 vs 2.5), which is why I mentioned they are not in the same category. Their hit probability is reported the same.

Latest Sosna news (as of 10.Dec.15) are that state trials have been shifted to Q1 of 2016 to make sure the MoD can have an assessment of them by Q3. Overall it looks like a beastly thing when compared to 10M3, but then nothing special versus a Tunguska-M1. 

 

[Modern Russian infantry battalion structure]

Right of the bat I can answer that 6MB is in service in full service, there are several brigades that are confirmed to have this modification. I don't recall seeing any 6MAs, but maybe someone can help me out on that. I'll investigate further on that though. 

[Russian "Verba" MANPADS]

From what I gathered, there are two different Verba Systems, battalion level and squad level integration. Latter one being lighter and more independent, thus being supplied only to the VDV. Perhaps they also got their hands on battalion level complexes. Again, I'm sure if the second system in the video is that though. Different launcher color doesn't have much to do with system difference here, they are simply different training tools. Yellow being a systems sim, silver being a procedural sim or something like that.  

Strela-10M3 and the system you presented are not in the same weight category. Strela-10 missiles are around twice more powerful then Igla or even Verba missiles. A more direct evolution of Strela short-range optical regimental/brigade SAM niche is this:

However, I've not heard anything about it. More than likely it never made it due to being redundant in light of Tunguska's versatility and capabilities. 

 

 

 

[Russian "Verba" MANPADS]

I think the eye piece is also Verba, just with a different tracking configuration, perhaps radar-independent. Don't quote me on that though. In therms of women in the army, there are around 50 or so K serving. Used to be around 90K back in 2010's, but then re-organisations hit. I'm not sure what the connection to the Strela-10 is, I don't think it shows up on 9S932-1 monitors we see in this video. I'm not even sure they can interface properly. 

[Russian "Verba" MANPADS]

Here is a Verba training video from the Army. A surprisingly complete video, showing off inside a 9S932-1 SAM CnC vehicle from Barnaul-T AA automation complex.

 

 

[Modern Russian infantry battalion structure]

Motor-rifle brigade recon battalion is around 70% complete in research. We will backtrack to motor-rifle battalion to expand on a few things like 2S34 usage, and an extra BMP per company which seems to be a big discussion point behind the curtains .  

 

[Armor topic]

Why does Armata have PKT then, if such is inevitable?

p.s. 12.7mm on T-90MS was seen on static display at RAE this year, but cool to see it in action.  Also nice interior shots.

What we saw on the parade were factory trial vehicles, not army trial ones. I am almost willing to bet money army trial versions have 12.7 loud-out, and that 12.7 is a serious point in the requirements.  

[Armor topic]

Just as I was supposing in 2014, 12.7mm made it onto the T-90MS as it would have for Ru MoD contract. 

Original video here.

[Modern Russian infantry battalion structure]

I crewed (as a driver) a command vehicle back in 2010-2011. ZVO, MRB :).

[Modern Russian infantry battalion structure]

NVG's are very much dependent on what branch you had your service at. VDV (I believe your branch) obviously has a preference for all types of optical enhancers and aiming devices. Regular army is a much more modest and varied picture. My personal experience was even more modest than infantry would have, albeit that was some time ago already. 

[Modern Russian infantry battalion structure]

Same reasons why legacy equipment is still in use. 

• It is available in the armory or storage. So for everyday service and practice it is what is used to prolong service life of new equipment.
• There are three types of readiness, "A", "B", "C". A being maximum readiness and fully staffed, C being the exact opposite. Sometimes "B" units linger in-between having halved personnel and using storage equipment as primary. 
• Some formations just aren't ones going into battle and get their equipment from a "trickle down effect", for example commandant companies, and military police.

As we mentioned, these types of variations are either rare or probably not the most applicable to CMBS. Despite that, we felt that if we are going to prepare information, might as well prepare all of it.