Russian army under equipped?

[JUAN DEAG]

Never mind.

http://www.janes.com/article/62628/us-delivers-raven-uavs-to-ukraine

The United States delivered 24 AeroVironment RQ-11B Raven unmanned aircraft systems to Ukraine on 27 July, the US Embassy in Kiev said.

The package included 72 hand-launched Raven intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) aircraft and associated equipment, which was transported to Boryspil International Airport.

"Several dozen Ukrainian soldiers have already completed training on Raven unmanned aircraft system in Huntsville, Alabama," the embassy said. "[The] Raven system is part of the European Reassurance Initiative [ERI] package and on-going security assistance efforts in Ukraine."

[VladimirTarasov]

7 hours ago, JUAN DEAG said:

Has the US supplied Ukraine with drones? Are you sure it was specifically a Raven and not a Furia or whatever else the Ukrainians use?

It was recently I'll send the link later on today.

[VladimirTarasov]

@JUAN DEAG http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d0e_1476032769 never mind it wasn't shot down rebels got their hands on it because it landed on their territory or whatever. 

Anyways guys I'm playing a PBEM and had a 105mm from the MGS totally bust my frontal turret on my T-72B3 probably around 800 meters or more away. Did I get unlucky or is the 105 actually capable of taking out B3s from the front turret? 

[JUAN DEAG]

48 minutes ago, VladimirTarasov said:

 

@JUAN DEAG http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d0e_1476032769 never mind it wasn't shot down rebels got their hands on it because it landed on their territory or whatever. 

Anyways guys I'm playing a PBEM and had a 105mm from the MGS totally bust my frontal turret on my T-72B3 probably around 800 meters or more away. Did I get unlucky or is the 105 actually capable of taking out B3s from the front turret? 

 

Thanks fam.

Best case scenario the T-72 has 600mm of frontal armor. The M900 has 650mm of penetration.

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

Re: 105 MM

Especially at CMBS range, late model 105 MM DU will still wreck faces.  

Re: MG vs Drone

We trained to engage helicopters with our CROWS if we saw the need to.  I have to imagine a spotted Zala/Raven is a pretty priority target, and for a mounted/stabilized gun, certainly not the hardest thing to hit (again, we're talking about something going in the 20-30 MPH range).  

Also might be interesting to see some of the C-IED jammers could do if employed as counter-UAV systems.  

[VladimirTarasov]

26 minutes ago, JUAN DEAG said:

Best case scenario the T-72 has 600mm of frontal armor. The M900 has 650mm of penetration.

Roger that

1 minute ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

Especially at CMBS range, late model 105 MM DU will still wreck faces.

Dang, should have told me that a few hours ago.  

[Machor]

21 minutes ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

We trained to engage helicopters with our CROWS if we saw the need to.

Very interesting to hear this. I guess the 'ZALA Question' comes down to the issue of spotting - how likely an Abrams or Bradley TC [Is it OK to call a Bradley commander 'TC,' or is the term reserved for tankers?] would be to spot a ZALA while scanning for ground targets (assuming that the gunner is focused 100% on ground targets).

[Kinophile]

17 minutes ago, Machor said:

[Is it OK to call a Bradley commander 'TC,' or is the term reserved for tankers?] 

Just don't call him Shirley...

 

_{I'm sorry, I just had to...}

Edited October 18, 2016 by kinophile

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

38 minutes ago, Machor said:

Very interesting to hear this. I guess the 'ZALA Question' comes down to the issue of spotting - how likely an Abrams or Bradley TC [Is it OK to call a Bradley commander 'TC,' or is the term reserved for tankers?] would be to spot a ZALA while scanning for ground targets (assuming that the gunner is focused 100% on ground targets).

BC is usually considered correct.

The spotting would really depend on exposure and other factors.  Most small drones have a distinctive acoustic profile though, so while less help to tanks, they're way less stealthy than you'd think they were.  

[Michael Emrys]

18 hours ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

Most small drones have a distinctive acoustic profile though, so while less help to tanks, they're way less stealthy than you'd think they were.  

I've wondered about this for years. I am familiar with the racket that model airplanes make and wondered how drones dealt with that. I.e., were they muffled in any way? From what you say, I guess not. Those with electric motors should be much quieter, otherwise, I suppose they depend on the general noisiness of the battlefield to provide some sonic cover and distraction.

Michael

[hattori]

I have zero experience with military drones.  However, I was at a crazy Indian wedding this summer, and they had a drone overhead doing some of the filming.  I never would have noticed without someone pointing it out to me.  Admittedly there was the noise of people talking, but that thing was surprisingly quiet.  And I guess most people don't usually think to look up in the sky at any given time.

I do know from an engineering perspective that drone noise is due to the airflow over the propellers, and the engine itself.  I think quiet electric engines are pretty easy to make, and I'd guess that the military can figure out a propeller shape that will minimize noise to have some really stealthy micro drones.  In fact, I would guess they have a lot of experience in that field making their helicopter blades quieter.

 

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

2 hours ago, hattori said:

I have zero experience with military drones.  However, I was at a crazy Indian wedding this summer, and they had a drone overhead doing some of the filming.  I never would have noticed without someone pointing it out to me.  Admittedly there was the noise of people talking, but that thing was surprisingly quiet.  And I guess most people don't usually think to look up in the sky at any given time.

I do know from an engineering perspective that drone noise is due to the airflow over the propellers, and the engine itself.  I think quiet electric engines are pretty easy to make, and I'd guess that the military can figure out a propeller shape that will minimize noise to have some really stealthy micro drones.  In fact, I would guess they have a lot of experience in that field making their helicopter blades quieter.

 

Nope.  One of the frustrating things about Ravens is they were loud enough to clue in the locals a drone was operating in the area.  We had a variety of other sensors I won't discuss, but we could see drops in activity or people who were doing  suspicious stuff stop until they couldn't hear the Raven any more.  

On the other hand, flying the Raven around worked really well at suppressing bad guy movements because they were never sure if the drone was watching them or not, so there was that much, and it gave us an awesome way to cover up some of the other intelligence assets we used (so if an informant saw them planting a bomb, we could claim it was the drone that saw them and conceal that we had someone on the inside*)

I've seen some of the little quadcoptery guys that were somewhat quiet, but I have yet to hear/see any that were truly below detection thresthold.  

*Of course, while I cannot confirm or deny it, I might have heard rumors of the opposite being done to encourage some terrorist cells to go all paranoid mexican standoff by trying to find the non-existent informant in their midst.  

[Kinophile]

We often use drones filming on set. Ones capable of carrying an Alexa Mini (film/tv grade camera)  are very noticeable at ground to, say 5th floor.

 Above that it seems to drop off,  but you'd still know something was there above you. 30m plus and the noise drops drastically. It then comes down to reverberation,  especially in a downtown core. In the countryside, I'm certain a good operator could mask their approach. But staying in one place will steadily and quickly increase the chances of noise detection. 

Also,  currently,  while they can certainly fly fast,  getting a usable image at 30+kmph is difficult. If you're going for Yup big tank shaped blob in dat dem yard,  then cool. If you want to ID people/machines you must creep/dolly (ie drift laterally) to allow focus and a stable image. And drones are inherently crazy brittle -  I'm pretty certain some fanning MG fire from 2+ sites would clip it and spiral it down. They recover well,  but it's easy to damage them. Heck,  even long range paintball  guns with a glue filled ammo would cause trouble. 

 

Edited October 19, 2016 by kinophile

[Kinophile]

Delete. 

Edited October 19, 2016 by kinophile

[hattori]

13 hours ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

Nope.  One of the frustrating things about Ravens is they were loud enough to clue in the locals a drone was operating in the area.  We had a variety of other sensors I won't discuss, but we could see drops in activity or people who were doing  suspicious stuff stop until they couldn't hear the Raven any more.

Okay, thanks -- I guess I am personally not very observant, and don't look up too often.  I would likely be the sap that eats it on the first day of battle.

10 hours ago, kinophile said:

Also,  currently,  while they can certainly fly fast,  getting a usable image at 30+kmph is difficult.

I also do a ton of work with cameras on moving objects, vehicle mounted, usually going 40 - 100 kmh.  What is the difficulty you guys face with drones and getting a good image at speed -- the vibrations in the drone?  The drone can't handle the weight of both a camera and good optical stabilization?  Or is it purely the distance and the size of lens you can mount?  Weight is definitely not an issue for me, so I don't have a good handle on what tiny lightweight cameras are capable of.  

I personally have thought that we would see a massive increase in drone usage in the future, of all sizes, but perhaps I am totally overestimating their capabilities.

 

[Machor]

Dropping this here as relevant to questions of spotting in the real world. I was surprised at how ISIS can 'hide' in an open desert in bright daylight:

"Mosul: Intense battles with IS on road to Iraqi city"

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-37701250

"A Humvee fitted with rockets spotted another group, but lost sight of them before they could fire. It was hard to see the enemy with the naked eye. They were like ghosts."

[John Kettler]

VladimirTarasov,

Would like to return to the issue you raised regarding Russian war films seen by the don't speak Russians here. When I was in junior high, we had three glorious periods away from school watching Sergei Bonarchuk's monumental "War and Peace." It ran almost eight hours and had tons of stuff to awe and delight boys--huge formations of live humans, not digital clones, vast formations of horses and large quantities of cannon depicted clashing in battle--in the full war regalia. I saw it once, and I remember, unsurprisingly, being not the least bit interested in all that court intrigue and romance (other than watching the ladies), but oh, those glorious battle scenes! My favorite was from Borodino at the Redoubt, where the gunners, serving their pieces like men possessed, were stripped to the waist. Their faces and torsos were blackened by gunpowder smoke, with normal flesh visible only where rivulets of sweat had made their way downward. Their faces were the same. With a cast of 120,000, even Cecil B. DeMille's ghost must be green with envy. Or how about a cost of $100,000,00--in 1967 dollars? It was in the Guinness Book of World Records for a very long time as the most expensive film ever made. In round numbers, that's 719 million dollars today! Interestingly, his son, Fedor Bondarchuk, directed "Ninth Company," which I recently got to see. There are technical issues with the compiled clips, but it is glorious to behold again what I saw, almost certainly with subtitles. One fabulous thing is that the Russians speak Russian and the French speak French, as opposed to British playing Germans so common in Western war films. 

Another Russian war movie I've seen, alas without subtitles. depicted the GPW in a microcosm by showing what happened in a tiny village when the Red Army plopped a 85 mm AAG there in advance of a Panzer attack during Barbarossa. Two in many ways alien cultures (civilians and really isolated rural villagers) came together and learned to appreciate each other before battle ripped things and people apart. Consequently, I do not agree with panzersaurkrautwerfer's  sweeping generalization that all Cold War Russian movies are directly tied to when they were made. to me, this was a timeless story of what happens in war, played out at practically the lowest end of CM scale. One gun and crew. It made quite an impression on me. And I watched it without subtitles! Wrote this up during the heyday of the CMBB Forum, but sadly, I have no idea what the title was.

On an almost infinitely smaller scale, I'd like to ask: What is the current ammo load is for a Motor Rifle infantryman and, if different, a paratrooper? I've read the Motor Rifleman of the Cold War had a whopping 90 rounds total--one magazine in his AK and two spares.

Very much appreciate your insights.

Regards,

John Kettler

Edited October 24, 2016 by John Kettler

[VladimirTarasov]

13 hours ago, John Kettler said:

On an almost infinitely smaller scale, I'd like to ask: What is the current ammo load is for a Motor Rifle infantryman and, if different, a paratrooper? I've read the Motor Rifleman of the Cold War had a whopping 90 rounds total--one magazine in his AK and two spares.

Not sure about the Soviet trooper, but as my father was in the military and seen combat during the Soviet Union in Afghanistan I'm pretty sure he had more than 3 magazines to spare. IIRC wartime I'd for sure have 6-8 magazines. Plus we could always resupply if needed. 

Regarding Russian movies, we have quite a few good ones, but then we have disastrous ones that make me want to unwatch. 

[Krater]

4 hours ago, VladimirTarasov said:

Not sure about the Soviet trooper, but as my father was in the military and seen combat during the Soviet Union in Afghanistan I'm pretty sure he had more than 3 magazines to spare. IIRC wartime I'd for sure have 6-8 magazines. Plus we could always resupply if needed. 

Regarding Russian movies, we have quite a few good ones, but then we have disastrous ones that make me want to unwatch. 

Standard Soviet AK pouches hold 3 or 4 magazines, so I'd say it's at least that much, or more likely 2x of that.

[VladimirTarasov]

4 minutes ago, Krater said:

Standard Soviet AK pouches hold 3 or 4 magazines, so I'd say it's at least that much, or more likely 2x of that.

Plus the magazine in the rifle of course.

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

Re: John

My contention wasn't that Cold War Soviet movies were "tied" to when they were made, it was that historical movies are more reflective of when they are made, vs the historical event. The history is just a vehicle for whatever the movie is trying to tell us.

Often the movie will go through extensive technical means to capture a feeling of the era (super accurate uniforms!  The last Tiger tank that can move under its own power!  203,000 extras!), but that must be separated from the authentic of the portrayal itself, frequently personalities and events will be changed to better make the narrative.

Soviet films can be, and I would contend are more often than not especially vulnerable to this given the way the Soviets employed movies as messaging.  This doesn't mean they cannot be good, it simply means that it must be understood to be perhaps not a reliable narrative.  

[Battlefront.com]

10 hours ago, VladimirTarasov said:

Regarding Russian movies ... we have disastrous ones that make me want to unwatch. 

I'm not surprised to hear that Russia has it's own Adam Sandler and Kevin Costner

Steve

[Michael Emrys]

How did Kevin Costner manage to survive pre-school? He must have been insufferable as a kid.

Michael

[hattori]

9 hours ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

Soviet films can be, and I would contend are more often than not especially vulnerable to this given the way the Soviets employed movies as messaging.  This doesn't mean they cannot be good, it simply means that it must be understood to be perhaps not a reliable narrative.  

I think everyone understands all war movies are like this, not just Soviet.  Pretty much all American war movies are propaganda pieces, and the latest, "Fury" made me want to cry.  I'm no soldier, and even I can see how terribly that one was done.

[cool breeze]

But that movie was "great"!