Question about vdv

[emccabe]

I know they will use the bed but besides that do what other special gear do they get that normal mech infantry doesnt

[DreDay]

I know they will use the bed but besides that do what other special gear do they get that normal mech infantry doesnt

 

Lol! Pealse don't take me the wrong way, but it did take me a couple of tries to figure out where your question was headed Besides all the versions of BMDs  (including BTR-D and 2s9) they also use 2s25-SD Sprut tank destroyer, and they are currently testing out a new Rakushka personel carrier as a replacement for BTR-D and an overall mounted weapon platform.

[DMS]

They have less firepower than motor rifle, yes. Their strong side is physical training and motivation, but they are trained not so good as special forces. Analogue of marines? But organisation table looks like light tank unit with tankodesantnikis. Small platoons, BMDs with symbolic armor.

[L0ckAndL0ad]

I know they will use the bed

"Daddy, you're not even trying!"

 

http://youtu.be/Cizlx6ODhuE?t=1m31s

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

Basically they're better trained, but have worse PCs (the BMD's in so many words, usually offer similar firepower, worse carrying capacity and "armor" if you get my drift).

 

The selling point of the BMD is something that isn't well told by the capabilities it mounts.  In so many words its trying to be the one eyed man in the blind, an armored vehicle in the enemy's rear area.

 

On the other hand it will be straight up murdered by anything with "AP" in the round description, to include by some accounts, small arms.  The reason the VDV in Afghanistan used BMP-2s was because the surviability of the BMD was so low that it simply did not endure much of anything well.

 

Which will go back to the scenarios to use them in.  A big airborne attack against the rear NATO areas is really strongly doubtful, but hey if you build it someone will play it.  If we're talking about a VDV force facing a US heavy force, it's going to be a very bad time.  If you're pairing them up against Strykers and non-tank supported USMC, you ought to be fine.  

[L0ckAndL0ad]

That's the price most of Russian vehicles pay for high mobility. Until there is a new generation stuff made of more advanced materials. As far as I know, BMD-4M is protected against 12.7mm from the front and the sides (with side armor plates on). It weights just under 14 tons, which is lighter than Stryker, but packs thermals/panoramic optics, and has a firepower of BMP-3.

 

Edited March 1, 2015 by L0ckAndL0ad

[emccabe]

damn auto correct on my phone

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

Yeah.  Again, it's not a bad vehicle, but it is one that makes some pretty clear compromises in capacity and surviability.   It certainly is not a BMP, and it is the sort of vehicle that has to be mindful of 40 MM HEDP and such (I'm just going to assume it's going to have side armor fitted as a matter of course given the sort of conditions it would deploy under).

[DreDay]

Basically they're better trained, but have worse PCs (the BMD's in so many words, usually offer similar firepower, worse carrying capacity and "armor" if you get my drift).

 

The selling point of the BMD is something that isn't well told by the capabilities it mounts.  In so many words its trying to be the one eyed man in the blind, an armored vehicle in the enemy's rear area.

 

On the other hand it will be straight up murdered by anything with "AP" in the round description, to include by some accounts, small arms.  The reason the VDV in Afghanistan used BMP-2s was because the surviability of the BMD was so low that it simply did not endure much of anything well.

 

Which will go back to the scenarios to use them in.  A big airborne attack against the rear NATO areas is really strongly doubtful, but hey if you build it someone will play it.  If we're talking about a VDV force facing a US heavy force, it's going to be a very bad time.  If you're pairing them up against Strykers and non-tank supported USMC, you ought to be fine.  

 

You make a lot of good and reatonal points sir, but the reality (as oftern is the case) condriticts that rationale quite a bit. The VDV units had actually perfromed quite succesfully against armored  (T-72) Georgian formations in the war of 8.8.8. Their answer to Gergian firpower advantage was to pound them with ZU-23-2 fire that had stripped georgian tanks of all the sighting equipment and set their defensive perimeter on fire. Of course such tricks would not work nearly as well against US forces, but it just goes to show how lightly armed, but well trained and highly motivated forces tend to overcome the firepower advantage of less capable foes.

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

I think measuring the success of Russian forces against the Georgians is to take the success of US forces against the Iraqis in 2003, then kick it up a few notches.  

[DreDay]

Please discard... wrong thead.

Edited March 1, 2015 by DreDay

[Childress]

You mean this VDV?

 

[BTR]

VDV roles in a conventional conflicts against a technically advanced force are pretty clear. Rear insertions and subsequent disruptive operations. 

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

 

 

VDV roles in a conventional conflicts against a technically advanced force are pretty clear. Rear insertions and subsequent disruptive operations. 

 

Yeah, but given a narrow front like the Ukraine, where are they going to insert from?  It's going to be airspace that's dangerous to be a small high performance fighter, let alone a transport.  Unless they're going to drop outside Warsaw because YOLO, seems doubtful given the concentration of air defense.

[DreDay]

Yeah, but given a narrow front like the Ukraine, where are they going to insert from?  It's going to be airspace that's dangerous to be a small high performance fighter, let alone a transport.  Unless they're going to drop outside Warsaw because YOLO, seems doubtful given the concentration of air defense.

In theory, dropping a VDV regiment somewhere between Dnepropetrovsk and Kharkov could have huge strategic impact, as the roadways connecting those two regions are responsible for majority of Ukrainian industrial transportation and are fairly lightly guarded. But in practice, if the Russians were to invade (which I don't see happening for now); VDV would probably be used as a spearhead force for their advancing formations due to their high training, morale, and initiative. Much the same way that 1st USMC Recon Battalion was used as a preached for US invasion of Iraq.

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

I'm just going to stop being oblique about it.  The only way a VDV regiment would be dropped anywhere is somewhere a little inside the range of whatever ADA/NATO combat air patrol is on station, and the majority of the troopers involved would be falling at terminal velocity.  

 

It is as simple as that.  If you're looking for historical parallels, read up on Operation Varsity, which was the last time paratroopers were dropped in anything resembling contested environments.  Despite the defenders being generally war weary Germans, relying on optical guidance only ADA assets, with no air cover, significant air, and paratrooper losses still occurred. 

 

Moving forward some 70 years, the chief advances in air dropping are:

 

1. Transports are faster to arrive at drop zone

2. Precision of drops is much more reliable.

 

Neither of those overcome the vast leaps and bounds in  air defense or fighter aviation.  It's still a huge mass of slow, unstealthy planes, that arrive over a spot, slow to speeds that won't kill paratroopers when they leave the plane, or strip chutes off of cargo pallets, and generally present the world's absolutely best target for anything that is designed to kill planes.  Expecting this all to fly in the face of the NATO air arm, or ground ADA platforms is just, lawl.

 

The same standards of course apply to US paratroopers.  Which is really getting into another discussion about the utility of paratroopers in the first place.

 

Re: Spearheads

 

That's not really what the Marine recon did.  It's closer to whiskers on a tiger than the teeth if you will.  

[DreDay]

I'm just going to stop being oblique about it.  The only way a VDV regiment would be dropped anywhere is somewhere a little inside the range of whatever ADA/NATO combat air patrol is on station, and the majority of the troopers involved would be falling at terminal velocity.  

 

It is as simple as that.  If you're looking for historical parallels, read up on Operation Varsity, which was the last time paratroopers were dropped in anything resembling contested environments.  Despite the defenders being generally war weary Germans, relying on optical guidance only ADA assets, with no air cover, significant air, and paratrooper losses still occurred. 

 

Moving forward some 70 years, the chief advances in air dropping are:

 

1. Transports are faster to arrive at drop zone

2. Precision of drops is much more reliable.

 

Neither of those overcome the vast leaps and bounds in  air defense or fighter aviation.  It's still a huge mass of slow, unstealthy planes, that arrive over a spot, slow to speeds that won't kill paratroopers when they leave the plane, or strip chutes off of cargo pallets, and generally present the world's absolutely best target for anything that is designed to kill planes.  Expecting this all to fly in the face of the NATO air arm, or ground ADA platforms is just, lawl.

 

The same standards of course apply to US paratroopers.  Which is really getting into another discussion about the utility of paratroopers in the first place.

 

Re: Spearheads

 

That's not really what the Marine recon did.  It's closer to whiskers on a tiger than the teeth if you will.

I don't get why have even considered being oblique about it. Your point is completely valid. Airborne drops are extremely dangerous now (compared to WW2) due to high sophistication and dense coverage of SAM systems (not to mention enemy AF). Yet there is still a role for them - mainly as a rapid deployment force to third world countries that don't have sophisticated AD net; or as a follow-on to comprehensive SEAD/Jammer assulat on enemy AD network (whcih is very hard to do, but is certainly feasable and viable).

[DreDay]

Re: Spearheads

 

That's not really what the Marine recon did.  It's closer to whiskers on a tiger than the teeth if you will.

I am sorry, I am not sure what you mean by this. Can you please elaborate?

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

Re: Oblique

 

The reality is that in a shooting war against peers, airborne operations anywhere except for the far periphery of operations is going to be a suicide mission at best, an abject and total disaster at most likely.  It boggles my mind anyone would even think that waves of big fat transport planes, flying through a radar rich environment, where there's enemy forces with entirely modern and functional fighters is remotely a good idea.  I was taking the oblique route because telling people the previous is generally caustic and not especially helpful in conversation.

 

 

 

mainly as a rapid deployment force to third world countries that don't have sophisticated AD net

 

This and this alone.

 

 

 

or as a follow-on to comprehensive SEAD/Jammer assulat on enemy AD network (whcih is very hard to do, but is certainly feasable and viable). 

 

Against an intelligent enemy, if you just punched a hole in this ADA network, and you're now pumping the air with jammers, what do you think you've just told him about your plans?  What do you think the outcome would be against an enemy that is comprised of pretty much the 8 out of 10 of the world's largest air forces?

 

It's not feasible, or viable, it's just a way to rapidly feed regiments better used on the ground into said ground at a few hundred miles an hour.

 

 

 

I am sorry, I am not sure what you mean by this. Can you please elaborate? 

 

Marine Force Recon was forward not as an assault force, but instead to basically determine where the enemy was, or was not, and to destroy lesser forces where available.  Force recon is such a light force that it's really good at rapid movement, and it has some good recon tools, but in terms of overcoming the enemy, it was much more reliant on the regular Marines behind it (and further, the US Army advance dispensed with light scouts all together and instead led with tanks and IFVs given the limits on "light" motorized element capabilities)

[Apocal]

I am sorry, I am not sure what you mean by this. Can you please elaborate?

 

A cat finds it around using (among other things) its whiskers, right?

 

1st Recon was basically hopping from road net to road net, driving through town after town to determine what level -- if any -- of resistance the rest of the division was going to encounter. If the battalion had run into anything too intense to handle, the division would just take a different route and bypass the presumed strongpoint. They were basically helping the rest of the Marines feel their way around the Iraqis defenses so as to move as rapidly as possible and prevent them from massing combat power against the Marines.

 

This worked because in 2003 there weren't enough Iraqi formations to cover all the approaches, so some were left empty or near-empty by necessity. On paper it would still work against more competent opposition although, given that 1st Recon was rolling in not-uparmored Humvees, probably not against more numerous or better equipped foes.

Edited March 1, 2015 by Apocal

[DreDay]

A cat finds it around using (among other things) its whiskers, right?

 

1st Recon was basically hopping from road net to road net, driving through town after town to determine what level -- if any -- of resistance the rest of the division was going to encounter. If the battalion had run into anything too intense to handle, the division would just take a different route and bypass the presumed strongpoint. They were basically helping the rest of the Marines feel their way around the Iraqis defenses so as to move as rapidly as possible and prevent them from massing combat power against the Marines.

 

This worked because in 2003 there weren't enough Iraqi formations to cover all the approaches, so some were left empty or near-empty by necessity. On paper it would still work against more competent opposition although, given that 1st Recon was rolling in not-uparmored Humvees, probably not against more numerous or better equipped foes.

 

Right, I get what you're saying, but that is precisely what a spearhead force is supposed to do. They had not only "probed" enemy defenses, but actually assaulted and captured major objectives... basically fighting "rather than scouting" their way to Baghdad. Of course this trick would not fly against a more competent opponent, but they were exactly the right force to use in 2003 as a spearhead due to their high level of initiative, training, and morale when facing an enemy that was lacking those key traits... In the same vein, Russians had used their VDV BTGs as spearheads in the war of 8.8.8 during their advances on Gori and Poti. Whatever those units were lacking in durability and firepower, they more than made up in morale, initiative, and training... and again their enemies were just not good enough to capitalize on the weaknesses of such light spearheads.

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

 

 

Whatever those units were lacking in durability and firepower, they more than made up in morale, initiative, and training.

 

Bullets usually care more for armor than they do morale.  Force Recon went as far as it could against light opposition.  They'd have had to stop if the remaining Iraqi armor was in their AO (or at least drive around it and have someone else handle it).  

[DreDay]

Bullets usually care more for armor than they do morale.  Force Recon went as far as it could against light opposition.  They'd have had to stop if the remaining Iraqi armor was in their AO (or at least drive around it and have someone else handle it).  

 

Oh wow, really? You don't say, Captan... well guess what - they didn't stop and they had performed their objectives quicker and "cleaner" than a heavier force that would have been expected to perfom the spearhead role under a more conventinal doctrine. That was exactly the plan of their operational command and it had worked out perfectly. Nothing in war is absolute.. it is all relative. And in this case the relative "human factor" advantage of Marine Recon units was more improtant than the absolute armor thinkness or gun size of their opponents...

[VladimirTarasov]

VDV would be used in 3 types of ways in a war like this, 1) To get to a area first and hold and secure it before bulk of force will arrive, 2) Escorted by SEAD aircraft will land in a area and take out logistics, and Artillery batteries, And support ect, ect. 3) together with the bulk of the motorized forces will attack together with frontline units. VDV can be assigned tanks too but not for roles such as 1 and 2. Imagine it like this, VDV is given the objective to get to a strategic area and used as a behind enemy lines asset and they will be used in surprise can compare to a blitzkrieg, SU-34s and other SEAD aircraft will be used and troops in BMDs and mortar support also btr-mds coming with their respective AA support like Verba for example, They make it to the objective  and attack enemy from the rear while also making a defense for the main force for when they arrive. And now you already have a successful front, Now you can assign tanks and attack choppers to the VDV and they can work in combined arms strategy. 

[DreDay]

VDV would be used in 3 types of ways in a war like this, 1) To get to a area first and hold and secure it before bulk of force will arrive, 2) Escorted by SEAD aircraft will land in a area and take out logistics, and Artillery batteries, And support ect, ect. 3) together with the bulk of the motorized forces will attack together with frontline units. VDV can be assigned tanks too but not for roles such as 1 and 2. Imagine it like this, VDV is given the objective to get to a strategic area and used as a behind enemy lines asset and they will be used in surprise can compare to a blitzkrieg, SU-34s and other SEAD aircraft will be used and troops in BMDs and mortar support also btr-mds coming with their respective AA support like Verba for example, They make it to the objective  and attack enemy from the rear while also making a defense for the main force for when they arrive. And now you already have a successful front, Now you can assign tanks and attack choppers to the VDV and they can work in combined arms strategy. 

 

On top of that, some of VDV units (i.e. 7th and 76th Divisions are actually Air-Assult capable as well); so they might also be used as a tactical force to capture improtant objectives in heli-borne assaults.