BTR

I believe we'll see something as early as late February. There is an upcoming ministry visit to UVZ plant, and I'm sure they'll leak something out at this stage.

I believe S-1 and S-2 performance is comparable (S-2 might be better, I don't know as I don't have solid evidence), but I don't think depleted uranium would be used in Ukraine. Tungsten is bad enough as it is for the environment to throw around radioactive materiel.

What the Ukrainians are missing are T-64B1M. That tank is a lot more proliferated than the included BM Oplot, and has seen action (and destruction) over at NVR territory.

Yes, I though of that afterwards in order to get more credibility. However, as I just found out, you can't edit posts after 15 mins of their creation.

While most of the **** is contained inside "Strategic and tactical realities in CMBS" thread (sorry OP), allow me to make a first thread of my own. This is a case-study about what is T-90MS with a bit of speculation of what T-90AM could be if it enters service. So, what what we know about T-90MS? General: -Mass 48+ tons. T-90MS: Armament -2A45M-5 -Main gun linked PKT -22 rounds in the autoloader with increased protection -10 round stowage bin with blowout panels -8 round internal storage -PKT in T05BV-1 unmanned turret -Ability to use longer rounds in the autoloader -Most recent rounds available: 3BM-48 “Svinets-1” APFSDS round (guaranteed 650mm KE at 0 at 2km); 3VOF-36 HE round (3.1kg of explosive); 3USh-3 “Ainet” AB round (500-400m radius at 9°pellet incidence) 3VBK-25 HEAT round (600mm HE at any range) 3UBK-20M “Invar-M” TGM round (850mm HE after ERA, 900mm HE without ERA at any range) Breakdown of ammo storage, green is the relative positioning of the engine. FCS Kalina. No current information on sights is available, therefore I used available information on current export sights with comparable characteristics. I have Sosna-U, but I am currently searching for PK PAN commander sight, as soon as I find it, I will update the charts. -Integrated tank information system -Integrated, automatic battalion-level CnC control system (with or without a plug-in to Constellation-2M) -Friend or Foe target spotting; -Hunter-Killer capability; -Automatic target tracking capability; -Digital image enhancing for both commander and gunner sights. -Improved stabilizer that can handle 40°/sec. -(tentative) 4 perimeter cameras that feed visuals to both driver and commander -Agat-MDT Independent two-channel (TV + Thermal) commander’s panoramic sight with integrated laser rangefinder. Stabilisation accuracy of 1° min. Day channel sight view angles 1x magnification at 7°15’ x 27°40’ and 8x magnification at 6°10’x7°15’. Effective day “tank” target type acquisition in clear weather is up to 4km. Thermal channel with 320x256 matrix with digital image enhancing with 1x magnification at 2°10’x2°40. Effective night “tank” target type acquisition in any weather is up to 2.5km with. Laser rangefinder capable of calculating from 0.2 to 4km in automatic mode. Approximate ranges and angles for commander: -Irbis-K two channel, twin-axis independently stabilized (Optical + Thermal) gunner’s sight with integrated laser rangefinder with a laser beam for TGM control. Stabilization inaccuracies no more than 50’’. Thermal channel at 4x288 with wide view angle of 6.8°x9.0° and centered view angle of 2.3°x3.0°. Capable of automatic range-finding, adjusting for weather and compensating for gun stabilization inaccuracies including gun canting and thermal bending. Soft-adjusting from 2.7x to 12x. Commander can also fire the gun in manual mode. Effective day and night all-weather range at 3.2km. Effective day range of target acquisition not less than current Sosna-U sights on T-72B3. Approximate ranges and angles for gunner: -Digital ballistic calculator with a 32 channel exchange-booth, I estimate it’s built on Elbrus-4C CPU architecture: 65nm tech level with 4 cores at 800mHZ and 64 gFLOPS. -Additional power-unit integrated to support emergency FCS operations. Protection -Relikt ERA on glacis, turret and sides. -Protection increase estimates: 2 times for CE (~800mm RHA at 0 per block)< K-5 offers 1.9~2 times for CE 1.5 times for KE (~350mm RHA at 0 per block)< K-5 offers 1.2 times for KE -BTVT estimates T90A at 800-830 versus KE and 1150-1350 versus CE. with K-5 for thickest turret parts. Please note - btvt is likely to underestimate the T90A performance due to strong anti tagil bias -With relikt, those numbers would be 1000-1038 KE and 1150-1350 for CE on the thickest part of the turret over what K-5 can offer. -Relikt is Estimated to dissipate >0.6 (60%) of KE Rod energy -RPG “nets” on engine and rear (turret and chassis) roof has a good slope, which increases both LOS thickness and ERA effectiveness. Below is the approximate armoring breakdown for frontal projection. R: ~1000-900mm KE O: ~890-660mm KE G: ~650->400mm KE W: Inert Countermeasures -Shtora system is present on T-90MS, however optical jammers are not included in the demo version we all have seen -Both Arena and Afganit are possible. Arena is however an export system with Afganit geared towards RA use. Since there is no idication of how Afganit looks and performs, going with Arena is the only option for CMBS. -That said, Arena-E is also functional as demonstrated on RAE-2013 and is more compact than regular Arena. -Kalina FCS supports TShU-1-2M automatic smoke launcher integration (currently present in CMBS I believe) Powertrain -V-92S2F2 engine with 1130hp (23 hp/t) -Assisted gear-changing (not fully automatic) transmission -(tentative) chassis management system as a function of ITIS (CLICK as it's found on T-72B3M) What we anticipate from T-90MA (speculation) Appart from Agat and Irbis sights, one basic change that begs the question is armament change. Re-gunning T-90AM from 2A46M-5 to 2A82 seems like a logical step because: It is available and has been in development for nearly 25 years. It fits the caliber, and weight requirements of T-90 platform. The autoloader capable of longer rounds is installed in T-90MS. Ready rounds have been declared (Grifel-1(2) APFSDS rounds/ Grifel-3 HE round) while 9M119 TGM series can be installed to work as well 2A82 can be married into the FCS with software adjustments thanks to ITIS. What do we know about the 2A82? Not too much really, but plausible numbers for estimation. Muzzle energy is claimed to be 1.2 to that of Rh120 L/55. It is longer than 2A46M. How much can be estimated, however glancing over what’s available on the internet I’d think some 40~50cm or so. Why wasn’t it present on the T-90MS? As product placement for the MS has been geared towards export, the 2A82 could not be positioned since it is prohibited from export. What could prevent 2A82 from being placed on the T-90AM if such a thing goes into service? Cost. Not that 2A82 costs is any more prohibitive than 2A45M-5, but the cost of manufacturing new ammo set might be. Armata preferences. The reason T-90AM isn’t being looked for as a procurement item, is because the budget is being geared towards Armata series. If it goes to production alongside the estimated T-90AM, then spending preferences would not be in it’s favour. Another interesting point is the CPU unit used for FCS. Elbrus series is progressing forwards, releasing 8 core version for tests earlier this year with a 16 core version planned for production in 2017-18. So are the thermal matrices. Currently 768x576 and 1280x960 are available, but haven’t been utilized in any complexes Sourcing:

They are daily rations rather than meal rations though IIRC.

Hmmm, Armata field kitchen. I'm sure if that it would be a good idea. Heavily armed mobile kitchen on tracks that can get anywhere? Don't say that you wouldn't like that. I know that whoever served thinks it's a good idea.

@ Pictures - SOF units operating, supply convoys, special purpose equipment. That all has been discussed and is within the boundaries of what most Russian citizens believe to be our involvement in Ukraine. It is within boundaries of what I believe our involvement to be as well. No proof of any masses of greenhorn recruits riding around in battalion formations spanking Ukrainians though, and there will never be unless they actually do it. @Larger Russian involvement - Every time the Ukrainian's fail, they always have a good scapegoat - the ghost divisions. That memorial stone that is so spread around everywhere, that comes back to my first point. Small scale involvement is undeniable. Ukrainians crying wolf every time they lose is also undeniable. @T-72B3/BTR-82A - Ukrainian conflict proves a supreme testing ground for those vehicles, so sending them there in limited amounts makes sense to me from testing perspective. It makes a good case for why we haven't seen any more since early-late autumn. @NATO vs Russia in terms of being silent or clear - When you are the world hegemony, you can afford to be vocal about almost anything. When you are not, silence is sometimes the best case scenario.

I believe he has, and those suits are in CMBS already . Those helmets add a piece of kevlar over the regular crew helmet, which is a nice thing since it doesn't add too much weight and keeps the helmet soft. As you can see in the picture below, it's quite thick.

Those are T-80U's (or potentially UD's). The vehicle that looks like a BMP-1 is actually a BMP-1KSh (0:11). Then there is a logistical vehicle that appears to be BREM-1 (0:12). After that comes BTR-D (0:15) as far as I can tell followed by 1V119-1 Reostat (0:17). After that come BMD-2's (0:24), then 2S9 Nona's (0:30). More BMD-2's followed by BTR-D right after (0:36) with BTR-ZD (0:46) and potentially BTR-RD at (0:49) however I'm really not sure about the last one. More BTR-ZD's at 0:51 with more BTR-RD's right after. There is definitely one there at 0:54. Maybe a R-149BMRD at 0:57, but that's another one I'm not sure about. Aaand, that's it really.

T-72BM was also once an export designation for T-72B '89 at one point in time I believe.

Which looks like a supply battalion (I presume) since no actual fighting vehicles are there, which doesn't go against hardware support efforts for the local militias as I've mentioned. In effect, since border control is non-existent, no precautions have been made.

Which was done at scale during the first and, more interestingly, second Chechen campaign. We've been on the receiving end for a while, and while it's unfortunate, a) every country should be prepared for this eventuality, I'd rather see proactive territorial geopolitical actions, then reactive ones. That said, the whole Russian involvement has been largely a reactive one to the Maidan.

I see. In terms of organization, ATGM's have traditionally been battalion level support for Russian organisations, so having guided launchers per squad is something unheard of. It's usually disposable launchers per person, RPG-esque weapon per squad, 4~8 ATGM's per company.

I can buy a Russian uniform in my hunting shop, and a lot of that actually has been done by our volunteers for the separatists in Ukraine. Doesn't qualify though. Ranks, comms, battalion tactical markings are things that are unique. More specifically comms, since those are the most hi tech and are usually state produced. Everyone has to answer that question personally. For me that's ok.

Наряд - so much in such a small word.

How many Javelins are there per platoon or battalion? I'm honestly oblivious to how US military is structured.

Then put forward actual evidence. -4 BTG's (4200 men) in active Russian service active in Ukraine before. -X amounts of whatever formations crossing the border in Ukraine now. In the age of everyone owning a camera and almost everyone having access to internet, that shouldn't be impossible. There is no doubt in my mind about consultancy and hardware support for separatists (which is sort of logical given the geopolitical objectives). Russian nationals have also been involved on their own accord. Now, that's what we can clearly see and prove. The rest is really up to faith on both sides. What I don't like is some sort of self-righteous attitude of some members here, like you know better. Facts and figures, that's all that counts. Which is a slightly childish thing to say, I hope you don't get offended. This begs a question of why? Because Ukrainian media reports fall within a certain mentality's pre-conceived notions? Doesn't make it any more valid, and over the course of the conflict, from the beginning in last year, Ukrainian media has been caught red-handed way more on average, not only twisting the story, but outright creating them out of thin air.

More here:

If you look at the road wheels, the are from BMP-3, which would suggest that the vehicles on the photo are BMD-4M's without add-on armor. BMD-4's have solid thin road wheels alike BMD-3.

Slightly more on topic: (I hope this doesn't bother people that I post images without a spoiler or something)

@ Steve in regards to demonstrations. This is a subject of faith and point of view as much as any other spread by media. Ukrainian media and their stories have known to be grossly skewed and outright fabricated, so how much is really happened is unknown. You could say the same about Russian media as well, which wouldn't be untrue. However, what baffles me is that people chose to believe one, or another instead of discontinuing both altogether. @ Cogust, With such a massive media campaign or hysteria (take your pick here whichever word seems to reflect your opinion on the matter more), the Swedish military were bound to find something. I think they ever found more than one (correct me if I'm wrong), which is quite representative.

As ever, until there is proper evidence I'll dismiss these claims as another "Swedish submarine hunt". These declarations have been so numerous, and the amount of Russian casualties declared so high, that it reminds me of the boy who cried wolf.

Hearts and minds, connecting to the locals, that sort of this. Every military tries to cultivate some sort of local support whenever they are in a combat zone to gain legitimacy if nothing else. Still, current doctrine has nothing on militia formations and their deployment on the front-line.

One correction to add to this. VMF =/= Naval Infantry. VMF = Naval Infantry + Coastal defence. CD as opposed to NI do historically have heavy equipment being the defensinve branch, while Marines proper have lighter equipment. 126th CD Regiment stationed in Crimea had T-64 + BMP-2 back in the 80's. Now that 126th CD BDe had been re-activated, I assume they currently have T-72B + BMP-2 (large amounts of refurbished T-72B delivered early this year suggest that) and will receive T-72B3 + BMP-3 (since contract for those has been re-signed).