Jump to content

Russian army under equipped?


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 2.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

A little humor....😎

I think the Abrams in CMBS is somewhat more godly than in reality. I also think the technical aspects of armored vehicles matters less in real wars than in war games. In an actual war between NATO and

Western tanks were designed to hold the Fulda. They're heavier, bigger and designed with ergonomics in mind. They were to hold out as long as they could, focusing on the anti-vehicle role. Disable as

Posted Images

That's a pretty mean sounding weapon.  So the idea is to be able to shoot the guys in the face at near point blank range with a grenade launcher, without killing yourself, right?

 

JK, I got curious about what you were saying about the strange calibers, was hoping to read more but my googlefu was lacking and I'm feeling lazy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

cool breeze,

In his important (so important it was on my bookshelf at work when I was a Threat Analyst) and revelatory Cold War book, Inside the Soviet Army, the famous/notorious GRU defector Viktor Suvorov (cover name)/Vladimir Rezun, who was successively a CO of a BTR-60 PB MRC and a T-55 Tank Company, has, in Part V, a portion called "Why do Calibres vary?" The answer, in a nutshell is the Russians have learned the hard way that ammo confusion cam be deadly, so they've learned to use unique calibers to prevent this. Supposedly, this is the result of a GPW screwup when Stalin was to see the BM-13 Katyusha fired. Big problem! The rockets were 122 mm, and somebody got crossed up and delivered 122 mm howitzer shells. This was expected to bring doom on those involved, but Stalin took it well and issued an order stating the rockets were now designated 132 mm. What this really comes down to is wartime, where shipping the wrong ammo can result in disaster. The Russians didn't want people trying to fire high velocity 76.2 mm cannon ammo through the low velocity 2A28 Grom on the revolutionary BMP-1, so instead designed the bore to preclude this, thus drove the intel specialists nuts  by choosing 73 mm. Similarly, separate loading GPW era 122 antitank shells must never be found in conjunction with the altogether different (smooth bore vs rifled) auto loaded hyper velocity cannon ammo intended for the T-64 and successor tanks.  Thus, 125 mm. Lest you think the Russians nuts, I would note the US M19 Recoilless rifle, though actually 105 mm, was officially designated 106 mm to prevent such issues from arising. Murphy rules in war with an adamantine fist, and wise design choices can help avert the blow.

Regards,

John Kettler

Edited by John Kettler
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, cool breeze said:

Thank you for the thorough reply JK, that's just the sort of thing I was looking for!

I would be very careful about taking anything forwarded by Suvorov as substantiated fact.

He has a notoriously poor reputation as both a historian and author. His "Icebreaker" being almost universally panned by historians. He routinely made claims in the face of reality and when challenged to substantiate them falls back on "secret sources" and gossip from his time as a GRU member. 

Time has only further eroded his reputation, as the ever opening Soviet Archives continue to not produce any of these so called secret sources. 

 

Edited by Rinaldi
Link to post
Share on other sites
  1. GM-94 is in no way a standard equipment. Not part of TO&E even for "standard" SF units. Guess production numbers are within dozens if not less.
  2. Stated reason for going over 40mm you may deduce from the higher volume of HE warhead AND low lethality radius for all-plastic grenade shell. But real reason for a strange caliber is much more mundane. Lock in buyers regarding ammo suppliers. It's just business :)

PS Sorry for being too obvious - I just know the stuff from other sources so I went to look through ARES report after writing the text. Then to make things interesting - you may want to pay attention to the fact that Internal Troops were original clients for the GL development.

Edited by IMHO
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, IMHO said:
  1. GM-94 is in no way a standard equipment. Not part of TO&E even for "standard" SF units. Guess production numbers are within dozens if not less.

Partly true. It is at least operated in the 45th Brigade by the VDV. Maybe not your standard recon units, but still over a dozen in at least one contract. LPO-97s are also allegedly in limited operation by flamethrower companies of some marine battalions (I've never seen proof of that though), and have shown at least once in regular CBRN flame-throwing company possession. That was most likely at 1st Mob. CBRN Brigade. 

Edited by BTR
Link to post
Share on other sites

Rinaldi, cool breeze, et al.,

You may find this rather deep and even-handed historiographic article about the whole Icebreaker scenario and the tremendous impact it's had within academic circles in a bunch of countries a worthwhile read. It is heavily documented, and the author states he does not believe Suvorov's/Rezun's argument, so it's hardly pro-Suvorov/pro-Rezun. Like him or not, his central premise has rocked the very perception of how things really were in the run-up to Barbarossa. 

"Did Stalin Plan to Attack Hitler in 1941? The Historiographical Controversy Surrounding the Origins of the Nazi-Soviet War"

By Christopher J. Kshyk
2015, VOL. 7 NO. 11 | PG. 1/2 

https://www.inquiriesjournal.com/articles/1278/did-stalin-plan-to-attack-hitler-in-1941-the-historiographical-controversy-surrounding-the-origins-of-the-nazi-soviet-war

As for 

On 2/10/2017 at 0:35 PM, Rinaldi said:

the ever opening Soviet Archives continue to not produce any of these so called secret sources. 

 

suggest you read what Foreign Affairs has to say on access to these archives. What access? 

"Closing the Archives

What Russia's Renewed Secrecy Says About Putin"

By Ilan Berman

April 2016

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/russian-federation/2016-04-24/closing-archives

Euromaidan has a real eye-popper which is quite specific on a number of archival matters. It's not just outsiders who are being denied access, but Russians, too! Also, it turns out the amount of Stalin's secret papers is close to 3 X what was officially stated.

"Control over the past: Russia’s archival policy and Second World War myths"

http://euromaidanpress.com/2015/06/30/control-over-the-past-russias-archival-policy-and-second-world-war-myths/

Returning to whether or not Suvorov/Rezun  (who was CO successively of a MRC (BTR-60 PB, during which he helped invade Czechoslovakia)  then a TK CO (T-55), and later became an intelligence officer in the Carpathian MD HQ should be trusted when it comes to gun calibers and such, time and again the things he said about Russian weaponry were borne out, sometimes years later! Inter alia: Vasilek automatic grenade launcher, Gun-based TDs, IT-1 Drakon, SAM formations far exceeding (in some cases 50% the standard western OOBs, TVDs, the truth behind Operation Dnieipr (the gigantic "peep show"), the existence of the T-64 (seen briefly by him  there in the run-up, but later withdrawn and not shown; the US didn't actually have a sighting until 1980 in the DDR. There was also "baby Grad" or Grad-V.

I didn't see my first photo of Vasilek (classified or unclassified) until 1985 at the earliest. The existence of the IT-122 was made painfully evident during the Czechoslovakian Invasion, thought not generally known (happened to see it in an Osprey book in the mid-1980s). First saw Grad-V in a 1980 (?) DIA pub The Soviet Airborne Division. The ultra expensive IT-1 Drakon was built and demonstrated on the Poligon for Premier Khrushchev and top brass. It did go into service in two separate units, according to Tank Encyclopedia. Based on the importance of the weapon system, it would've been Army or Front level, so we're not talking some regimental or divisional asset. As it turns out, 220 were built, with one formation in the Carpathian Military District (a Front in wartime), the other in the Belorussian Military District (also a Front in wartime).

All in all, when this guy holds forth on Russian weapons and their design, I think it's wise to pay attention.

Regards,

John Kettler

Link to post
Share on other sites

https://ria.ru/arms/20170110/1485417181.html

On the arms began to receive the latest modernization of the T-72B3 (Т-72B3M). At the end of the month will be training shooting  and probably invited journalists.

На вооружение стали поступать новейшей модернизации Т-72Б3 (Т72Б3М ) . В конце месяца пройдут учебные стрельбы и скорее всего пригласят журналистов .

Link to post
Share on other sites

While trying to find any video showing any ATGM other than Javelin (France and Canada's Eryx can) being fired from inside a building, I came across this great (unfortunately only in Russian) older video on most of Russia's ATGMs, including the long-legged Vikhr.
 

Hadn't seen any video on Gran, so thought I'd share my discovery.
 

John Kettler

Edited by John Kettler
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

BTR-82A put thermal imaging sight, thereby increasing its effectiveness. Plus to increase its export demand in the global arms market.

На БТР-82А поставят тепловизионный прицел , тем самым увеличить его эффективность .  Плюс увеличить его экспортный спрос на мировом рынке вооружения . 

 

http://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/3568367

http://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/3332957

Link to post
Share on other sites

TJT,

Great video--except we didn't get to see the post-firing targets! What I observed is that the weapon, even in full auto, has very little muzzle climb, particularly relative to the notorious for muzzle climb AK-47. But look at the AK-74 relative to the AK-400. The AK-74 still exhibits noticeable muzzle movement. Not AK-47 scale, but movement nevertheless.

 In other news, I've learned the SVD type sniper rifle I saw some of Putin's "Green Men" armed with in Crimea was an SVDS which, inter alia, has a folding stock! Very handy if you've got to get in and out of BMPs and BTRs.

John Kettler

Link to post
Share on other sites

HUSKER2142,

The most I've ever seen on the BMD-3, period, let alone the BMP-3M. Wish there'd been English subtitles, not so many clip repeats and something, anything, showing VDV ops. Quite the ride, even so. Thanks for posting it.

Ivanov,

As Spock would say, "Fascinating." Had no idea the Syrians, if they did create this, had the tech base.

Regards,

John Kettler

Link to post
Share on other sites

Found this, but where it says modernized T-80s will be delivered to the Red Army in 2017, I have some vague recollection seeing on the Forum that one Russian armor division already has T-80s. Are these the old models or the upgrades if what I remember seeing is right?

http://defense-watch.com/2016/11/15/russia-put-overhauled-t-80-tanks-back-service/

Regards,

John Kettler

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, John Kettler said:

I have some vague recollection seeing on the Forum that one Russian armor division already has T-80s. Are these the old models or the upgrades if what I remember seeing is right?

  Kantemir Division (4th Guards Tank Division) is equipped with T-80U.

Edited by Vanir Ausf B
Link to post
Share on other sites

Russia ceased production of the T-80 in the 1990's although Ukraine still produces variants. The T-80UK command tanks have a thermal gunners sight as do a handful of T-80Us that were upgraded in the 90s before Russia shifted priority to the T-72B, but the basic T-80U does not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...