ikalugin

A product of hasty ad-hoc organisation for a mission they were not prepared for, with the search for the volonteers and the like. It is amusing however how this is being projected onto an open high activity war.

So the problem is that the bulk of current combat forces are made out of proffesional servicemen. "Small elite core" has been an obsolete concept, particuarly after the 2012 shift in the reform and the return to regional/large scale war focus (I use the official doctrinal terms intentionally). BTGs are just fetishised tactical units because Western military thinkers suddenly found out that Russian (and Soviet before then) military actually has a lot of thought going into flexible, mission orientated battalion level task forces. Not that this is a new thing, just new to the people who suddenly realised in 2014 that Russian military is relevant and needs study.

I am familiar with the book, I just happen to disagree with it on this point based on how the exercises happen. Nor do I believe in the war between Russia and US staying very limited, I think it would become either a regional or large scale war. As to the article - the author asks how a brigade would be fighting a reinforced battalion and in general offers poor and confused insight.

Blocking water supply and/or electric power is not the way to win hearts and minds of the Crimean people though.

And then confirmation bias kicks in which lines up all interventions in one convenient line up without looking into the unique circumstances of each. We don't even need to go far - there was the discussion about how Russia would remove Lukashenko pre-elections based on his arrests of PMC servicemen in transit. Or how Russia would send combat troops to help him now under the CSTO umbrella, based on the idea that Russia must always act militarily. But then there were Kyrgyzia and Armenia and their stories get forgotten because they do not fit the pattern.

Baltics have that "one British Soldier" so to speak to ensure article V going through (and fighting any forces that may be considered by the agressor to be below the level of war).

The irony is that BTGs were used as a product of Donbas specific limitations, not because they are the standard approach. Which together with the US tactical bias now leads to US preparing to fight the wrong threat (BTGs vs large scale action, regiment and above).

We have seen war scares happen with every exercise be it Zapad-2017, Kavkaz-2016 or Kavkaz-2020. Every time people invent this or that reason for Russia to invade and we don't.

The meaningful difference is that those fancy Russian combat modules (ie Bahcha-U) are integrated via datalinks with the artillery spotters which leads to much easier NLOS use of the 100mm guns.

Did US field XM-25 grenade launchers in mass that the game has? No programs were delayed or cancelled? That was my point - the game has many weapon systems that did not see widespread adoption in the real time line, for example Oplot tanks for the Ukrainians, because it is hard to predict the future. As to funding and resources US sure does get a lot of money, but maybe not as much in relation to other countries as you may think:

It is the problem with predicting the future, same happened to US and Ukrainian forces.

Not exactly but yes. The increase in the chamber volume is there to both increase pressure and to allow longer sabots. This is incidentally the bigger challenge for T90M - it needs to fit the autoloader which is non trivial. Note both the longer sabot with extra charge and the longer powder charge that goes behind it when compared to the classics.

Sadly by this point he was already removed from the insider information and as you could see by the dates (pre 2015) this information is rather outdated and he finishes it by stating that factory number 9 did complete modernisation.

Consider this diagram again: On both tanks we see those conical sections, however if you look at this diagram you could see that 2A82 is significantly longer beyond that point.

You are just comparing the wrong elements. What we can see on the photos of T90A and T14, for example the one that you have provided, are the tubes (труба), not the barrels (ствол) as in both cases the chamber (that is a part of the barrel but not the tube) is (fully?) obscured (if anything it is even more obscured on the T14 due to all the covers), you can recognise the chamber from the conical element on the barrel, the change between the diameters. As such the difference in the lengths of barrels that does indeed exist is not visible to us to the extend you seem to expect (1m) but rather to the extend that the difference in tube length is. Same goes to lengths as measured in calibres - the longer chamber (not visible on both tanks) takes a signifciant chunk of it.

But to help you out - which source do you use for the 2A82 length? I mean if you are basing your entire argument about T-14 using a 2A46 on the basis of the 2A82 being one meter longer, surely you would have a handy citable source? This is for example the good old leak by Gurkhan which shows a significantly smaller difference. Maybe you have a good, reputable source that refutes this information, which you would surelly produce and which would support your 1m length difference claim?

Ahh, so you do claim that T-14 used/uses 2A46. Forgive me, I thought better of you, I thought it was too outlandish a statement for you to make. Because T14 did/do use 2A82, now consider the implications of that on your T90M argument.

If it is unmistakable can you please show the difference in visible gun lengths on the photo that you have provided? If no, then how would you otherwise identify the two apart?

It is hard on you because it loves you.

So you are going to make questionable claims and provide no supporting evidence, I see. Disregarded then as insubstabtial. In the future, please, do explicitely state when your are posting conjectures.

So you are nitpicking a specific claim related to delays in production and say not the others, that were realised, to discredit such statements in general, particularly by other people working in other institutions and in other subject matter areas (tank specifics)? And, again, please cite your sources ie steel production and the older gun selection.

A link here would suffice. It would not overload the readers with non english discussion and could provide evidence to back your claims.

Not directly relevant to the discussion. I have provided a source that refutes your statement.

It would if there was a visible length difference. On my screen both barrels are 5cm long. And I wonder why. Or are you claiming that the parade T-14s used 2A46?

https://www.vpk-news.ru/news/52719?__cf_chl_jschl_tk__=0e4b7548163591348be75896386b2029696a3228-1587261240-0-ATc-z1gwr6Ae5IidMXqXDuq9q7LP7JQjhPvmNNCiTai7o8rPOFz8Sk9P1fmOjhxjqUxUZwARHyo4L5UpgNhQvUafj15VwiSZLE7zc4RTz0onMb--oTrN4KPGA_nZMZqcVgYmqZn9Hl7d0chQvhiXDRGipF9yLwQgIYSD2h0aLo38fpKrDyiil8TsBVyAVRgIpauupMFdE38wDFsbSLV2AeiJVu50IM0LuBIoSmFzIjyMS0u669FBra0YgbdF1wWJKqXoBG9ZdYP_g1dMzsLGt6vJBkQ8i3siy2xBoHxVIRbe While finding a direct quote by the CINC ground forces from Zvezda is non trivial it does seem to contradict your narrative.