Russian motor rifle disposable RPGs and rifle optics

[antaress73]

I've read a bit about what constitutes the standard Disposable anti-tank rocket for the russian motor-rifle troops. It's the RPG-26 because it is small and light. However, the RPG-27 was adopted to supplement it and packs a 105mm  tandem warhead, I wonder if it would be made available as a resupply item in BTRs and BMPs (or ammo trucks) so you may acquire it . It is heavier and bulkier so you may have a weight penalty for the troops (not as heavy as the Javelin though). It would give russian infantry more punch and is not un-realistic. I also believe the RPG-28 (1000m+ of penetration) is also available but maybe only for the VDV,

 

 

ALso, from what was said here in the forums, both the squad leader and his assistant have scopes much like they are the only ones with radios. Maybe in a next patch.

 

 

 

 

 

[DreDay]

That's a pretty good suggestion. Although, I have yet to see any type of evidence of Russian Army actively using RPG-27/28; they can definitely produce them in massive quantities if needed. It would also be nice to see some of the "mini RPOs" (i.e. PShG) available to the Russian grunts as well. Although given how poorly RPO-A performs in game, this might have to wait

[ChrisND]

A variety of Russian rifle optics and the RPG-27 are on my own wish list for the next piece of content, whether that be a module or pack. I think it's a reasonable to expect.

 

EDIT: I meant something other then RPG-27, my bad. Was referring to the latest tandem HEAT disposable RPG.

[akd]

The thing about these newer disposable AT weapons, and why they may not have much enthusiastic application in the Russian ground forces, is that aren't really lighter than the RPG-7, and are significantly less flexible. The RPG-26 is less than half the weight of the RPG-7, so it makes a lot of sense for situations where the RPG-7 is too much weight or encumbrance. RPG-27 on the other hand weighs more than the RPG-7 launcher, and is only moderately lighter than the RPG-7 launcher plus PG-7VR warhead with the exact same potential terminal performance. And the RPG-28 is a ridiculous monster of a "LATW" weighing more than an RPG-7 and PG-7VR combined. For less weight than the RPG-28, you could carry an RPG-7 launcher with a PG-7VR and an HE warhead.

Edited March 15, 2015 by akd

[DreDay]

AKD makes a great point. I personally believe that this is one of the main reason why we have not seen RPG-27/28 embraced by the Russian Army (the primary main reason being that they have not faced any type of armored force that would have required them to use that type of a heavy LAW). However, on a flip-side - these disposable launchers do offer certain tactical flexibility that you would not get with a designated RPG-7. For instance, you can have several RPG-27 operators covering multiple directions while a single specialist with RPG-7V1/PG-7VR would not have that option. At the end of the day, it appears that the future of Russian RPGs lies with the RPG-32 project and its proposed upgrade to a guided warhead; however I don't believe that it would fit the CMBS timeline.

[Stagler]

Would the assistant leader and squad leader getting optics actually have any spotting effect? I thought the entire squad had to have the optics to make it work as such.

[Apocal]

Would the assistant leader and squad leader getting optics actually have any spotting effect? I thought the entire squad had to have the optics to make it work as such.

Nah, each dude uses his own spotting gear when he goes into SPOTTING status. It's why sometimes the Javelin gunner or marksman will be the only one engaging a target while the rest of their squad or team just stand there like they don't know what's going on.

[antaress73]

So those two guys would benefit for spotting not to mention an accuracy bonus. But the leader and assistant already have binocs so I guess it would only be for the accuracy bonus

[antaress73]

A variety of Russian rifle optics and the RPG-27 are on my own wish list for the next piece of content, whether that be a module or pack. I think it's a reasonable to expect.

 

EDIT: I meant something other then RPG-27, my bad. Was referring to the latest tandem HEAT disposable RPG.

 

 

Why where they not in the first release of the game ? As I understand it.. in a russian platoon, first two squads have 4 scope 1P63 and  third squad 2..

[Stagler]

I've read a bit about what constitutes the standard Disposable anti-tank rocket for the russian motor-rifle troops. It's the RPG-26 because it is small and light. However, the RPG-27 was adopted to supplement it and packs a 105mm  tandem warhead, I wonder if it would be made available as a resupply item in BTRs and BMPs (or ammo trucks) so you may acquire it . It is heavier and bulkier so you may have a weight penalty for the troops (not as heavy as the Javelin though). It would give russian infantry more punch and is not un-realistic. I also believe the RPG-28 (1000m+ of penetration) is also available but maybe only for the VDV,

 

 

ALso, from what was said here in the forums, both the squad leader and his assistant have scopes much like they are the only ones with radios. Maybe in a next patch.

 

I dont actually think the issue medium range target acquisition scope (1P29/1P78) is modelled ingame. Thats why they are not equipped as such.

The night scope is and could suffice as a placeholder.

 

VDV for expansion should be issued with a mix of 1P29/1P78 and 1P63 optics throughout the section.

[antaress73]

Stagler: I know they are not in game Russians infantry is very accurate at (clear) night.. More than during the day because of night scopes.

[Alan8325]

Akd's point is definitely plausible for real-life, but in CM I would argue that there is higher value to decentralizing AT capability within a squad.

When the RPG gunner goes down in CM and there is an armored threat nearby, another team member cannot simply pick up the RPG and have a chance to quickly counter the threat. We have to go through the buddy aid mechanic and if the RPG gunner is "unfortunately" wounded rather than killed the buddy aid process can take disastrously long, if it even occurs at all under pressure.

Rather than getting into the buddy aid mechanics can of worms it might make more sense to add the RPG-27 to the game at least as an aquirable weapon. It could bridge the flexibly gap between CM and real life AT weapon sharing while being fairly realistic.

[VladimirTarasov]

About rifle optics, If we are talking about a Russian invasion into Ukraine, Then the troops sent there will be high tier and highly equipped, Which most will have rifle optics, Especially by 2017. Would be nice if some issues like those are fixed, Would make me playing redfor more fun. 

[Stagler]

About rifle optics, If we are talking about a Russian invasion into Ukraine, Then the troops sent there will be high tier and highly equipped, Which most will have rifle optics, Especially by 2017. Would be nice if some issues like those are fixed, Would make me playing redfor more fun. 

 

Optics are only general issue in naval infantry and vdv units afaik - indeed high readiness units.

Edited August 19, 2015 by Stagler

[Battlefront.com]

AKD makes a great point. I personally believe that this is one of the main reason why we have not seen RPG-27/28 embraced by the Russian Army (the primary main reason being that they have not faced any type of armored force that would have required them to use that type of a heavy LAW). However, on a flip-side - these disposable launchers do offer certain tactical flexibility that you would not get with a designated RPG-7. For instance, you can have several RPG-27 operators covering multiple directions while a single specialist with RPG-7V1/PG-7VR would not have that option. At the end of the day, it appears that the future of Russian RPGs lies with the RPG-32 project and its proposed upgrade to a guided warhead; however I don't believe that it would fit the CMBS timeline.

Ah, the age old dilemma between tactical, operational, and strategic concerns. At the tactical level having a diversity of weapons is generally favorable. Having plenty of them all is always favorable, provided you have rides to stow them in. But at the operational level you get into logistics headaches. When you get to the strategic level you get into production headaches.

Russia, and the Soviet Union before it, has always been weak in the logistics areas. Since 2008 it's been working very hard to overcome this and, I think, in many respects it has. However, less stress on the system is probably preferred.

Looking at AKD's points about tactical flexibility, it would seem that from a light infantry standpoint you'd be better off having more RPG-7 type launchers and rockets than more disposables because pound for pound the RPG-7 is better. Plus, tactically you can have a lot more practical firepower with 3x RPG and a 12x rockets than you can with 12 disposables. Weight/bulk dictate this to be true.

Still, I take DreDay's point that in some tactical situations you'd rather have a 12 men simultaneously poised and ready to blow stuff up than only 3. Though I would also like to point out that if you have an infantry platoon in need of 12 men on the line hot with an AT weapon, you've done something very, very, very wrong as a battlefield commander

Steve

[Stagler]

RPG-30 with its APS defeat capability would be an interesting and unique piece of equipment to give to Russian airborne. Would make them really stand apart from other Russian troops and give them a capability the US does not have.

[ChrisND]

Why where they not in the first release of the game ? As I understand it.. in a russian platoon, first two squads have 4 scope 1P63 and  third squad 2..

 

At the time that we made the equipment and models list for the game, we didn't think that these were a standard item that was common enough to warrant priority status for regular motor rifle brigade equipment. When it is time to determine the details of the first module, we'll re-evaluate that decision as we firm up the equipment list. They were included on a list of possible optional equipment that we could include, but as with every release (and every other game developed, ever) we have to stop at some point and lock the equipment down, and that always means that we don't get to include everything that we would like to. These sorts of leftovers usually become a priority for the next module, unless there is a technical reason that they are not being implemented.

[John Kettler]

VladimirTarasov,

 

Regarding your contention that in an outright overt invasion of Ukraine by Russia (as opposed to the current hidden and officially denied one), high tier units would be used, I point you to a little event in Afghanistan in 1979 in which Russia deliberately didn't mobilize and attacked primarily with forces in place, and Georgia, where ancient BMP-1s were quite common, though apparently with high grade crews in them, according, ISTR, to BigDuke6, who was on the ground and talked to them. In order to preserve operational-strategic surprise, it's quite normal not to send in the Category A formations (or whatever the nomenclature is these days), for it greatly muddies the information waters and buys time which is priceless to an invader. Time in which to swiftly secure bridges and tunnels, guard defiles, seize communications, transportation and government facilities, not to mention round up or even liquidate known and potential opposition forces. You may be right,  but I'd not make that bet or hold my breath in the expectation it would occur. 

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

[Sublime]

Dreday I brought up RPO effectiveness see my thread. someone did tests apparently anecdotal stories aside they work pretty much as intended.

and Russian infantrt vs US infantry at night is terrible. I fought an opponent with a recon company and some support teams at night. All vet crack Russ vs high quality US. we lost. badly. amd Ive won several similar infantry only qbs agajnst same opponent in daytime in the QB US units always spotted first and that was really crucial. They were also way more accurate... :/

not surprised tho. against Ukr however

[VladimirTarasov]

VladimirTarasov,

 

Regarding your contention that in an outright overt invasion of Ukraine by Russia (as opposed to the current hidden and officially denied one), high tier units would be used, I point you to a little event in Afghanistan in 1979 in which Russia deliberately didn't mobilize and attacked primarily with forces in place, and Georgia, where ancient BMP-1s were quite common, though apparently with high grade crews in them, according, ISTR, to BigDuke6, who was on the ground and talked to them. In order to preserve operational-strategic surprise, it's quite normal not to send in the Category A formations (or whatever the nomenclature is these days), for it greatly muddies the information waters and buys time which is priceless to an invader. Time in which to swiftly secure bridges and tunnels, guard defiles, seize communications, transportation and government facilities, not to mention round up or even liquidate known and potential opposition forces. You may be right,  but I'd not make that bet or hold my breath in the expectation it would occur. 

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

John Kettler you are right, Georgia basically happened unplanned, They got together the most experienced and also locals reserves too and attacked with lower tier equipment like the BMP-1, BTR-70, And even T-62s, Although there were T-72s too. The infantry was quite experienced, Infact it happened so poorly planned that some of the Russian military's short comings were seen, Such as losing a recon TU-22, And  2 SU-25s. But despite that war ended in 5 days which I mean is normal. No bad stuff was seen in terms of ground warfare, Everything went down well. But losing a TU-22 is quite embarrassing, And after that it is made sure to never lose aircraft like that again. The Georgians had a good air defense network with BUKs and Ukrainian crew, But as you said the surprise of that offensive caught them.

[Nerdwing]

RPG-30 with its APS defeat capability would be an interesting and unique piece of equipment to give to Russian airborne. Would make them really stand apart from other Russian troops and give them a capability the US does not have.

 

Wasnt Trophy upgraded to counter the RPG-30 already?  Trophy-17 or w/e.

 

Either way, it'll probably lead to a new RPG or just an upgrade for the 30, then another for Trophy and so on.

Edited August 20, 2015 by Nerdwing

[Stagler]

Wasnt Trophy upgraded to counter the RPG-30 already?  Trophy-17 or w/e.

 

Either way, it'll probably lead to a new RPG or just an upgrade for the 30, then another for Trophy and so on.

 

Trench Coat is the system which can counter RPG-30. That isn't in the inventory of US forces in CMBS. The decision to level the field in the favour of the US on speculative arms transfers is in the hands of the devs.

Edited August 20, 2015 by Stagler

[Battlefront.com]

Yup. The track record of the US military so far indicates that it won't happen any time soon. There is institutional and financial reluctance to adopt active defense systems. Putting them in without a strong indication that has changed would be counter to our philosophy of keeping our games based in reality rather than fantasy. We apply that same logic to Armata, so fair is fair

Steve

[John Kettler]

VladimirTarasov,

 

Appreciate both your candor and the informational fleshing out. I've also read Georgian artillery (with drones no less) tore up the Russian artillery, which was still in that insane straight line with the guns closely spaced and completely exposed in the open, not dug in, without so much as a single camo net in the pic I saw. I gasped aloud when I read that brief article and viewed the picture. This wasn't it, but here, at least some branches were used, but note how close the guns are.

 

http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/OA-AV682_rusinv_20080809184441.jpg

 

That old style gun line is nothing compared to this unbelievable even from my military analyst days super concentration of BM-21s seen here beginning at 0:35. Video quality makes "wretched" look good!

 

 

In looking for a link, I came across this US Army Strategic Studies Institute report The Russian Military and the Georgia War: Lessons and Implications, by Cohen and Hamiliton. This thing is quite succulent and has all sorts of informed commentary. According to it, page 39, the now accepted figure for Russian aircraft losses is "7-8" which is 2-3 x greater than your figure.

 

There is wealth of material in this on the who, what where and when, on just about every topic imaginable: thorough Russian planning, primacy of Russian operational-strategic concept and execution, surprising Russian tactical deficiencies;  info warfare strategy, Russian use of Chechen irregulars, destabilization ops, Georgia's superior Israel-supplied avionics and tank FCS, western thermals, intel failures by Russia, Georgia, the US and several european countries, cyber warfare by deniable means, The report describes the effects of the lack of GLONASS and the denial of GPS, the ubiquity of battlefield cameras, Russian preparations for war including flying in 50 journalists before Tshinkashvili was "massively attacked by Georgian artillery" (hardly a house burned in the whole town, as was later conclusively proven), acute Russian maintenance issues, running out of ammo, and vastly more.

 

What drives me mad, though, is that there is effectively almost nothing on artillery at all to speak of in terms of its tactical use, both generally and in terms of Georgian actions. But the Iskander is praised heavily as both an innovation and for its effectiveness. I don't know what the authors' deal is with artillery, but they seem to treat it as though it's leprous. But you'll never look at the Pchela the same way again after this scathing assessment (p. 61) by the Russians of their truly awful drone--which is in CMBS! Russia ordered Israeli drones a month after the war. Bold mine.
 

In September 2009, Popovkin announced to representatives of Russian defense firms that the Ministry of Defense would purchase equipment abroad if they could not provide it. Later that month the Ministry signed a contract with an Israeli firm for the purchase of UAVs.101 Given the abysmal perfor- mance of the Russian-made Pchela UAV in the war with Georgia—Russian commanders said the images it sent were so poor, they were useless and it “flew so low you could hit it with a slingshot and [it] roared like a BTR”102—it is unsurprising that Russia chose to seek a foreign vendor for this key platform. In Septem- ber 2010, Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak and his Russian counterpart, Anatoly Serdyukov, signed the first military cooperation agreement between Russia and Israel. Under the agreement, Israel will provide Russia the UAV and other technology.103

 

You can find for yourself the unsurprisingly name withheld Russian's statement that 50% of the defense budget goes for graft and the authors' observation that Russia is  attempting to compete with the United States at 80% of the force size, on 1/5 the budget. This report is quite the read, and I've read great chunks of it. The report has a great deal to say about Russian invasion paving/justifying strategems which we later saw used in Crimea and continue to see in Ukraine and elsewhere, cracks in NATO, Russian geopolitical aims and moves, events since, etc. I do find it telling that Russia has had to foreign outsource so much key high tech gear, though I've read Putin's spent a fortune to replace capabilities lost when Ukraine became independent. Fortunately for Putin, putting decent optics on AK-100s and other weapons, though far from cheap, is doable without going outside the country. But that's not necessarily ironclad, given the VDV purchased 30 Steyr-Mannlicher sniper rifles, likely fitted with Leupold scopes.

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

Edited August 22, 2015 by John Kettler

[VladimirTarasov]

Huge thing I have to reply to 

 

John, I understand that the source you have showed me is written quite educated and in a organized manner. But keep in mind that the US was on the Georgian side during this war, And they got most of their information from Georgian intel, And reports from them. Russia didn't lose any artillery as far as I know. Also Russia didn't use Chechen irregulars they used real Chechens who volunteered to join the Russian forces, And it turned out they did so well because the Chechen men are quite tough, Experienced in the mountains of the Caucasus. Onto the loss of 7-8 aircraft. If that were to happen the Russian government would have no choice but to tell. Georgians don't have any evidence of shooting down that much aircraft if they do by all means show me.

 

 I would hate to get a forum locked Mr. Kettler so we should turn the topic back on track.  

Edited August 22, 2015 by VladimirTarasov