ikalugin
-
Posts
773 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Posts posted by ikalugin
-
-
On 9/11/2020 at 7:46 PM, Armorgunner said:
It´s mainly, a matter of doctrine (and availability) I think. US, use their BCT´s. In the same manner, Russia use their BTG´s. The BCT´s, is the main fighting elements, of a US division. But Russia, only uses one BTG. From each division, or brigade in Ukraine. And Russia use, a lot more proxy forces.
The main difference is: Russia use their best/proffesional soldiers, from the Brigade/Division, in their BTG. In Ukraine, at least.
In a US Division, all soldiers are proffesional. So the US, can use all their BCT everywhere, at Anytime!
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.
-
7 minutes ago, Erwin said:
Until Russia does...
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. -
On 8/22/2020 at 11:21 PM, Erwin said:
Interesting. As someone with family in Estonia and Latvia, they certainly would disagree (perhaps obviously). The Baltic nations have too small amount of real estate to mount even a delaying action. Perhaps one could argue that theirs is already a lost cause, whereas Ukraine has a lot more territory to fight over. Would the West abandon the Baltics like they did Poland in 1939 is the big question.
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.
-
On 8/20/2020 at 11:10 PM, Haiduk said:
No, indirect fire of tanks or BMP guns is not implemented. As well as AGS-17/30 can't fire indirect, though mainly its used exacly in this way.
Indirect fire of combat vehicles practiced as far as in USSR times. During Donbas war there were many examples of successful attacks against vehicles or fortified points by Ukraininan gunners of tanks, BMP-1 and SPG-9. The spotter with PDA (and sometime with the light UAV) with artillery soft transmitted data fire to the crew and they hit the target with indirect fire. There was a video, where enemy BMP-1 in the trench was hit with two indirect shots of SPG-9
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.
-
On 6/5/2020 at 5:02 AM, Sulomon said:
The same didn't happen to U.S. forces. The U.S. military has massively more funding and resources and are in a much better shape than Russian forces.
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.
-
On 4/26/2020 at 4:02 PM, IMHO said:
So you say the difference in length is due to the fact they added one meter to the chamber but it's covered by armor so we cannot see it? One whole meter of length to the volume of the gun chamber? Are you kidding? It'll blow up the whole tank not just the gun.
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.
-
6 hours ago, Vanir Ausf B said:
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?
-
9 minutes ago, IMHO said:
That's exactly the point. T-90 on the picture is not a T-90M - it's an older one that has 2A46 as it should by the design. And there's no difference in tube length because Armatas are rolled out with 2A46 as well. Because we have troubles producing 2A82 in quantity. Now you say we should believe some propaganda article in the Russian Army newspaper. Though magically they yet to show a single photo-shoot of an T-90M with 2A82. And they go to great lengths and produce Armatas with the old 2A46 though it should only come with 2A82 by design. Do not you think there should be a strong reason why they do it?
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.
-
6 minutes ago, IMHO said:
Can you post here some photos of T-90M with a 2A82 gun?
Again one meter of excess length of the tube is unmistakable. And if you cannot find these and T-90M on all parade pictures in all official propaganda brandishes an 2A46 may be there's a very compelling reason why it is so?
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.
-
Just now, IMHO said:
Sorry, I don't want to spend time answering questions of FSB investigators. If you post it here yourself - I'll discuss it happily. But I won't do it myself. Again it's not arrogance - just simple precautions.
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.
-
4 minutes ago, IMHO said:
I have provided you with a source that proves that when people responsible for the tank development in Russia make statements those statements should not be taken for their face value.
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.
-
On 4/19/2020 at 5:35 AM, IMHO said:
I'd rather not post it on an English-language forum - it's too detailed. Please understand it's not arrogance or disrespect.
A link here would suffice. It would not overload the readers with non english discussion and could provide evidence to back your claims.
-
On 4/19/2020 at 5:21 AM, IMHO said:
https://echo.msk.ru/programs/arsenal/1621962-echo/ The interview of then CEO of UVZ where he said the number of Armata-based vehicles in the State Defense Procurement Program is 2300 by the year 2020. Do you see them around?
Not directly relevant to the discussion. I have provided a source that refutes your statement.
-
On 4/19/2020 at 5:12 AM, IMHO said:
2A82 is whole one meter longer than 2A46 so it's impossible to miss. Do you have a picture of T-90M with a longer barrel?
PS That's not T-90M but it illustrates the point.
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?
-
While finding a direct quote by the CINC ground forces from Zvezda is non trivial it does seem to contradict your narrative.
Again one meter of excess length of the tube is unmistakable. And if you cannot find these and T-90M
How to deafeat, a Russian BTG. US perspective. IRL.
in Combat Mission Black Sea
Posted
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.