ikalugin

I think it is less about the capability to build such weapon than the requirement to have it, I mean what for would you use such rounds?

Not that I know of. The reason for this (I would think) is b/c we are not interested in making the Grad into a point strike weapon - it is an area saturation one. Hence why we are going for various cluster options (mines, general purpose and seeking AT sub munitions, ECM modules).

There are no laser guided MLRS rounds for the Soviets/Russians I think, but there are seeking AT submunitions, those have passive IR heads. Those would be fairly profilated for the Grads and Smerches (as well as the TBMs).

Where? Start the thread and specify which OOBs you wish to look into.

It takes about 20 seconds to salvo your entire load and you could get back to moving again more or less straight after that. A BM21 divizion would fire 720 rounds in those 20 seconds. 720 rounds give you up to 1440 seaking AT submunitions.

It is already operational.

I think that calling in a full grad divizion salvo would essentially end the match.

Hitting it with 125mm "fast" HE-FRAG is also an option I think.

It is the age old argument between a certain Polish and a certain Ukrainian man on the intetwebs.

Well some points: - Armata (and all other tanks with the 2A82 gun/related weapons system) use long (890-930mm) KE rounds - Grifel 1 and 2 as well as "fast" HE-FRAG round Grifel 3. A longer round is known to have been in development. Thus the 2A82 armed vehicles would not suffer from any limitations to round length, even with the standard autoloader. - we expect Armata to have some sort of GLATM type weapon. - GLATM would be used against helicopters and long range shots (working against the ATGM platforms for example). - There is no point in HEAT shell anymore, as GLATM and "fact" HE-FRAG give you better performance in AT and anti infantry roles. The reason why we don't really like turret bustle autoloader is b/c it increases the internal volume and places ammo in a threatened area.

That book ("inside Soviet Army") is horrible, works by Hackett were (as absolute majority of other works pre late 80s) strongly biased. If you wish to read a novel about cold war going hot - I would suggest Red Army by Peters (who went mad post cold war but still). TacError is a forum member. One of the problems that the analyst had was the historic bias, which came from WW2 histories (especially the early ones), coupled with poor understanding of the Soviet way of making war (which would require them to read Russian materials and learn an entire dictionary only new terms) it lead to some major issues.

In his WW2 era books there are numerous factual errors (numerical ones - such as the tank numbers and historic ones - such as what the various tanks were developed for, how the events were unfolding and so on, not to even begin on his idea that it was the USSR that attacked first). In his post WW2 historic books there are numerous factual errors such as the manner in which Soviet units were to be employed, OOBs, concepts of operations and what not. Basically - even though there may be some odd grains of truth in his works, they cannot be used as basis for creating a view of cold war era Soviet Armed Forces. The materials (which were greatly influenced by him) that did come out during the time period were also wildly inaccurate and with strong bias (which itself came from WW2 histories, which were initially written from purely German perspective). By late 80s/early 90s there were some materials about to be published (like the new generation of field/threat manuals), which were adequate, but they were not actually published due to the changed geopolitical picture. If you wish to know more specific criticisms of Rezun (or cold war era western materials on the Soviet Armed Forces) - please message TacError, he has studied the subject in detail I believe.

Why "rescue" the ruble? Foreign investment comes from other places, such as PRC (via the currency swap deals for example). We have anti corruption laws (anti corruption comity head mr.Kabanov http://president-sovet.ru/members/constitution/read/24 ismy friend), free (but regulated) market, political stability and other factors that you have mentioned. Thus your arguments are just factually wrong.

Inflation and rising prices is the same thing by the way. We got into (natural) population growth in recent years actually. http://www.cbr.ru/hd_base/default.aspx?Prtid=mrrf_m Yes, they got down in the 2014. Would still last a few years though. Collapse of the ruble is actually a good thing for the budget - their foreign currency revenues would allow them to keep non protected budget article going. The stagnation/recession was coming even before the Ukrainian crisis and only points that we need an economical reform, which was promised by Putin during his address to the Federal Council It is inevitable regardless of those factors, as this is how our laws regarding the budget work. Over simplified version of those is: - there are core "protected" budget articles (which include defence spending) - those are balanced with reliable incomes. - other budget articles, those are balanced with additional non reliable incomes, such as the incomes from foreign trade (gas/oil included). - it is assume that most of oil/gas incomes would go into reserve funds anyway.

Yes you got it more or less right. There are 3 warheads for avtonomya: - HEAT. - EFP (for top attack). - HE-FRAG (for anti infantry duties). True, however to all intents and purposes the result is the same - both missile attack via the weak tank roof.

Why "rescue" ruble, if it allows the state to maintain its budget?

Those are two different ATGMs.

Those tanks are without engines, engines are stored separately (and are already in non operable condition due to rusting). Basically they are husks of what they used to be, as they were stored under open skies for years if not decades/

MSV=Мотострелковые Войска=Motorised Rifle Troops.

T64E and BMP64 would certainly be an interesting combo. The problem that Ukraine faces is that it was selling the less worn out T72s (with mods) and was about to shift to T64 sales b/c of T72 chassis shortages. The problem with T64 reserves is that a lot of them were not stored properly like those in Kharkiv:

The relative increase in defence spending is the result of how our budget is formed, it is one of the "protected" items, meaning that it is not dependent on revenues from trade.

Or it won't as it's sector of responsibility doesn't cover that specific airspace (that you are flying in). Hypo-theoretically? 4 Brigades means 24 divizions or 96 fire units of S300V4, which in turn have around 564 simultaneous engagement channels between them. In radar, within the S300V4 forces, terms: - 96 multirole radars. - 28 high power ABM x-band radars. - 28 general purpose search radars. - 4 mobile UHF/VHF radars. Well, the "Giant" round with the improved fuels and guidance package (with trajectory improvement) gets you that kind of range. Note, 250km class range is nothing new really, S200 had that long time ago (Ukrainian S200 round shot down an airliner over the Black sea by a accident a decade ago or so I think), as do the new S300P series rounds (such as the 48N6DM).

I think you were talking about this:

http://ria.ru/defense_safety/20150123/1043960668.html According to this Defence spending as part of GDP would rise from 3.7 percent of GDP in 2014 to 4.6 percent of GDP in 2015 and as part of budget from 19.2 to 23 percent. The share of the rearmament program is expected to increase to 59 percent of the budget by 2017 (from 37 in 2013) and up to 70 percent by 2020. This is not to begin economical/political discussion, but to illustrate the commitment to the rearmament programs we have.

Clearly it is powered by Horilka, as this is a captured and reprogrammed defender of the airport.