Jump to content

Russian army under equipped?


Recommended Posts

On 02/04/2017 at 6:18 AM, John Kettler said:

If you wanted to enlist before, this should make you INSIST on doing so! One thing I like is that Russian female soldiers seem to get to generally have their hair down, which, in my view, is much less severe and more flattering than the hair up US approach. 

 

On 02/04/2017 at 7:41 PM, John Kettler said:

Real, I'd say. Of course, they're obviously not all like that. There are lots of Russian women who don't look like that, but with 35,000 women in the Russian military as of two years ago, you're bound to get some great looking young women as a result. Naturally, everybody's less hefty at that age, too, and food is harder to come by, further holding down weight

 

On 02/04/2017 at 7:41 PM, John Kettler said:

You may also be interested to know that a list of the 10 most attractive armed forces with females, the US is 10th and

Russia 2nd.


This is not the kind of spotting that we were talking about!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 2.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

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

A little humor....😎

Guidance helicopters VKS RF to strike at ISIS.  

Posted Images

2 hours ago, John Kettler said:

If you have any information at all regarding their use for on-call fires other than Final Protective Fires or via FO, would love to see it.

In the offensive, an artillery strike is caused by an artillery gunner in the subdivision at the request of unit commanders (platoon-company-battalion). This can be done and the platoon-company commander has maps with the adjustment. Calling a MLRS strike only with the permission of the brigade commander or chief of staff. It all depends on how the unit acts in the defense or attack of the company or battalion.If the battalion acts, then all artillery strikes only through the battalion commander.

В наступлении артиллерийский удар вызывает артиллерийский наводчик в составе подразделения по запросу командиров подразделений ( взвод-рота-батальон ) . Это могут сделать и командир взвода-роты имеет карты с пристрелкой . Вызов удара РСЗО только с разрешения командира бригады или начальника штаба . Всё зависит от того какое подразделение действует в обороне или атаке рота или батальон . Если действует батальон , то все артиллерийские удары только через командира батальона .

Edited by HUSKER2142
Link to post
Share on other sites

HUSKER2142,

If I understood you correctly, tube artillery FS can be requested from as low as Platoon CO, but MRL fire is by permission of Brigade CO or his Chief of Staff. Is that right? Makes a lot of sense to me, if so, for tube artillery is a rapier compared to the giant maul that is MRLs. You absolutely have to have tight control of that class of fires, because the consequences of a SNAFU are 1) dire and 2) over a broad area unless using individual rockets with GPS/GLONASS guidance, a new capability that really scares me. Nor would I find it all surprising to learn there are MRL rockets with laser homing. Makes all the sense in the world since 122 mm Kitolov-2M is already in service and has to withstand 100,000 Gs on firing. Could you possibly sort out Tornado for us? My understanding (if you can call it that) is that it is a common platform, to which no fewer than three different armaments can be mounted: 40 (or is it 36?) 122 mm Super Grad, if you will, 220 mm and 300 mm. Don't recall the tube count, but I want to say the last is four. What I've pieced together is that Tornado-G (maybe replaced since by a newer Tornado) is 122 mm and is a Division asset for TDs and MRDs. Presumably, the big nasties, then, are at Army and higher. Is this correct?

Regards,

John Kettler

 

 

Edited by John Kettler
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just found this most useful and informative manufacturer's video (Russian with English subtitles) for Kitolov 2, Kitolov 2M and Gran. Gets into all sorts of technical details, such as general system description (rounds basically identical) what categories of information are and aren't needed, limits vs moving targets, minimum ranges (which vary), interference issues, firing norms for conventional artillery vs guided rounds to complete the same job (includes mission times and own losses to CB) and much more. As far as I'm concerned, this thing is info gold, since it provides a wealth of data I've not seen before.  Am more concerned than ever the US is in a deep dark FS hole that's going to take a lot of work to leave.

Regards,

John Kettler

Edited by John Kettler
Link to post
Share on other sites

John Kettler ,

I will explain,  platoon - company commander can only request artillery strike of the barrel artillery if the company acts as RTGr (company tactical group). In addition to tanks and other units, the company is supplied with an artillery battery from division.
If BTGr (battalion tactical group) acts, then all artillery queries go through the battalion commander. But the request to strike a MLRS can only be requested by the battalion commander, and only if the commander of the brigade approves this. Either this BTGr is given more attention, then the commander of the battalion requests the impact of the MLRS bypassing the brigade commander.  If I am a member of the BTGr and I need to destroy the platoon stronghold, I will ask for an artillery strike from the battalion commander. And this does not mean that the whole division will work for me, it will be a platoon or battery of guns.
On the use of a large-caliber MLRS can not be prompted. As well as the use of laser target designators artillery spotters, since I was given such a man several times.

I understand that the US has a gap in MLRS systems, but the division compensates for the presence of its army aviation.

 

Я поясню , командир взвода-рота может запросить только артиллерийский удар ствольной артиллерии если рота действует как РТГр ( ротная тактическая группа ) . Роте придаётся помимо танков и других подразделений и артиллерийская батарея из состава дивизиона .
Если действует БТГр ( батальонно тактическая группа ) , тогда все артиллерийские запросы проходят через командира батальона . Но запрос удара РСЗО может запросить только командир батальона , и только если это одобрит командир бригады . Либо же данной БТГр уделено больше внимания , тогда командир батальона запрашивает удар РСЗО минуя командира бригады . Если я составе БТГр и мне нужно уничтожить взводный опорный пункт , я запрошу артиллерийский удар у командира батальона . И это не значит что на меня будет работать весь дивизион , это будет взвод или батарея орудий .
По применение РСЗО крупного калибра подсказать не могу . Так же как и применение лазерных целеуказателей артиллерийскими корректировщиками , так как мне такой человек придавался всего несколько раз .

Я как понимаю у США пробел в системах РСЗО , но дивизия это компенсирует наличием своей армейской авиации .

Edited by HUSKER2142
Link to post
Share on other sites

HUSKER2142,

This is getting better by the minute. Am going to pull out something from my Cold War days, specifically a formation we called the LMSD (Lead March Security Detachment), which seems very much like what you describe. As I recall, it was a reinforced MRC, consisting of 10 X BMP, 3 X Tank (T-62, say) , and one 6-gun SPH battery (2S1). In performing its function, 1 x Tank and 3 x BMP were stripped out and led the formation (save for some poor devils in MG armed motorcycles and a solitary BRDM-2 even further ahead of the point I described) , with the rest in trail a few klicks back, the idea being that the point was strong enough to blow through thin defenses and would hunker down and call up the rest of the force if stronger resistance were to be encountered. The US did something similar during WW II and for the same reasons.

If I understand you correctly, if this reinforced Company you describe is operating on its own specific mission, it has a battery attached to it. Do you mean in the way I described for the LMSD, or do you simply mean that Brigade specifically assigns one battery's fires to support what I'll now call the CTG (Company Tactical Group)? If the latter, this is what in US artillery parlance is known as a dedicated battery.  Moving up one echelon, I believe you are saying that all tube artillery fire requests must go through the battalion CO and that he can have MLRS support only with the direct permission of the Brigade CO, right? The exception to this rule is if the BTG is at the point of main effort, for then the BTG CO can contact the MLRS battery directly and order fire, skipping the Brigade CO altogether, correct? Even at the level of the Battalion CO, there is no ability to call in the long range 220 mm and.or 300 mm MLRS fire? Am not quite sure what you're saying regarding a laser-equipped FO, but am fascinated to learn you were/are some sort of CO. If possible, could you provide further information? This is quite the education in modern Russian combat organization and procedures, for which I'm most grateful.

Regards,

John Kettler

Link to post
Share on other sites

Before the dreaded radar equipped ZSU-23/4 Shilka arrived and terrified the West, there was the ZSU-57/2 which had none, but the 57 mm AAG is about to return as a single barrel state-of-the art SPAAG designated ZAK-57 Derivatsiya-PVO. It won't be ready for tests until 2017, but it's designed to defeat--planes, helicopters, drones, cruise missiles and MLRS rockets--and to do it at very high hit probability and far more cheaply than a SAM. And did I mention this is explicitly a DP weapon, one designed to defeat aerial and ground targets?

https://thaimilitaryandasianregion.wordpress.com/2016/06/24/new-russian-made-derivatsiya-pvo-57mm-anti-aircraft-artillery-system-ready-for-tests-in-2017/

Regards,

John Kettler

Link to post
Share on other sites

From the same site as my prior post comes this sweeping and heavily supported assessment of Russian armor in the international market. There are also some pointed commnets about perceived value of Russian tanks in light of the poor showing of the LeClerc and M1A2 (really M1A2S) in the desert and mountain environment of Yemen, as well as the vulnerability of the latter to the 9M111/AT-4 and 9M113/AT-5.

Regards,

John Kettler 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, John Kettler said:

From the same site as my prior post comes this sweeping and heavily supported assessment of Russian armor in the international market. There are also some pointed commnets about perceived value of Russian tanks in light of the poor showing of the LeClerc and M1A2 (really M1A2S) in the desert and mountain environment of Yemen, as well as the vulnerability of the latter to the 9M111/AT-4 and 9M113/AT-5.

Regards,

John Kettler 

The Leclerc didn't performed poorly in Yemen, quiet the opposite actually, the Emiratis are very happy about it. It showed a very good operationnal availability, good endurance and long range. They still had minors problems due to the harsh conditions, rocky terrain and lot of sand that wear the tracks faster, sometimes jammed the tank's MGs as well as the cooling fans. Several tanks were disabled by IEDs and one was  hit by a RPG7 that was disabled by the rear slat armor, but no crew was injured in those attacks and all the dammage tanks were field repaired and put back into action. One tank was hit by a Konkurs-M in the driver hatch area that killed the driver and amputated commander legs. However the tank was repaired and put back into action because no critical part was dammaged.

Poor display by M1A2 isn't really the tank's fault but rather the very bad Saoudi crews and overall performance, even if the tank is a fuel thurtsy beast which make its sustainability on the field hard for any army that doesn't have the massive US supply chain.

I don't think the Saoudi's would have performed better equiped with T90s.

Edited by FoxZz
Link to post
Share on other sites

FoxZz,

Since I knew squat all about the combat use of the LeClerc going into the article I cited, I very much appreciate the info you provided. As for the Abrams the Saudis operated, the way they were used was, I'd say, criminally stupid. I saw videos of one Saudi tank after another, clearly with none others in support and no infantry present, bring picked off by RPG-29 teams or ATGMs. It was so bad I had to stop myself from screaming! 

Compilation mostly of ATGM attacks on Abrams, with bonus of TOW vs T-90 with Kontakt 5 and Shtora off. In the first attack, the ATGM had a huge height advantage and was fired against the side. I think something similar was the case in the second, but there was not a whole lot of height difference. Heat shimmer made it very hard to tell much of anything.

Yemen again. Close up of a thoroughly destroyed Abrams, but not any video of how it died. Video has some great stuff with other Saudi armo (Stryker armored Hummer, unknown AC, heavy AC), a spectacular collision caused by I'm not sure what and the advanced course on AFV fires. Oh, Vein!

Houthis evidently zapped a Saudi column, but I not sure where the Abrams shown late in the video is relative to the primary trail of destruction. Resolution is poor, and I could see no impact mark, so suspect tank was hot on other side.
 

Regards,

John Kettler

Link to post
Share on other sites

FoxZz,

Continuing the, well, massacre of Saudi armor videos, here we have a tank park collection of sitting ducks. The only damage limit here is how many ATGMs the Houthis have on hand!

Am still looking for the RPG-29 team stalking and killing a Saudi M60 sitting in the Yemen desert, buttoned. It was  fat dumb and happy--until it got hit. Believe  the above videos cover three, maybe four, of the six known Saudi Abrams losses. I see I also forgot to include the link several posts ago to the article about Russian armor and the export market. Let me fix that.

https://thaimilitaryandasianregion.wordpress.com/2016/04/10/military-defense-industry-technology-russian-armoured-vehicles/

Regards,

John Kettler

Edited by John Kettler
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes the Saoudi are pittyfull, it seems they're using their tanks as relocatable pillboxes. 0 cooperation and communication between tanks and infantry, poor situation awarness, their shortcomings are so numerous it would tale too long to name them all. I think there is a video on the internet where you can see the infantry running waway letting the tanks alone. I wouldn't like to be a poor Saudi conscript.

Link to post
Share on other sites

John Kettler

In the case of the action of RTGr, the artillery support is within the range of the range. The exception may be mortars, which can be in the composition of RTGr. In the case of BTGr, the battery 2S3 / 2S19 is in the subordination of BTGr or within the range of firing. MLRS 220 and 300 mm in the subordination of the commander of the operational-tactical unit and above.

В случаи действия РТГр , то артиллерийская поддержка находится в пределах радиуса стрельбы . Исключение могут составить миномёты , которые могут быть в составе РТГр . В случаи действия БТГр , то батарея 2С3/2С19 находится в подчинении БТГр или так же в пределах радиуса стрельбы .  РСЗО 220 и 300 мм в подчинении командира оперативно-тактического соединения и выше .

 

In the US battalions there is an analogue of russian company-tactical groups ?

I can assume that this could be 2 mechanized platoons on the M2A3 BMP and 2 platoons on the M1A2 tanks. Plus the reconnaissance department and ATGM on the Hummers.

Edited by HUSKER2142
Link to post
Share on other sites

Back when I was in Armor Officer Basic Course, we had a few exchange officers from other countries.  Some where mostly forgettable outside of wearing a different uniform, others more memorable.  The Saudis however were absolute pure and unmitigated garbage.  They wouldn't show up up half the time, etc, etc.

We were doing a formation run one morning, and one of the Saudis must have accidentally shown up. One of the Saudis winds up behind me.  We kick off and after a few minutes I hear what sounds like someone dying behind me, and I come to the conclusion that this one Saudi has decided to stick it out.  This wasn't much of a run (like 3.5 miles or so), but the fact he's still there just fills my heart with pride, that this Saudi at least, is doing the right thing.  The breathing gets heavier and heavier, and then we pull to a halt for cool down stretches.

I turn around to congratulate the Saudi for sticking it out, but before me is a absolutely beat the heck looking, rather rotund looking American.  He asked me if we were with 3/16 CAV (or something like that, one of the units that supported training at Ft Knox), I told him no, he swore and waddled off at high velocity in the direction of 16 CAV's offices.  I asked the other guy in the back of the formation when the Saudi dude bailed, and he said he didn't even start running, he just stood in place while the rest of us took off, before lighting up cig in the no smoking area.  

I could write more, but in so many words, the Saudis believe because they have M1 tanks they are capable vs actually spending time training their crews to be capable.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding the Saudis there are some cultural issues that sound like they have yet to be sorted out. Until you actually live in the region it's often difficult to understand what you are dealing with.

There was a lot of nepotism as well as some ways of going about business that would be very foreign to a Westerner.

Also in the Saudi army many of the soldiers are not even Saudis but foreigners who are fighting for the Saudis. They are often not treated well. Money and a way to get away from your situation at home where ever that may be is the prime motivation.

Whether that is still the case I can't say for sure but I highly doubt things have changed as things change very slowly if at all in that part of the world.

Training, motivation and good leadership trumps equipment all the time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, db_zero said:

Regarding the Saudis there are some cultural issues that sound like they have yet to be sorted out. Until you actually live in the region it's often difficult to understand what you are dealing with.

Probably my nomination for understatement of the year! :lol:

I've not lived in the region personally, but plenty of my good friends have and their comments match yours pretty closely.....Theirs' were just a little more 'flowery' though TBH!  ;)

This article might be pertinent:

http://www.meforum.org/441/why-arabs-lose-wars

Edited by Sgt.Squarehead
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

I could write more, but in so many words, the Saudis believe because they have M1 tanks they are capable vs actually spending time training their crews to be capable.  

No doubt. One question that I have though (outside Saudi issues) is the performance of turbine engines in high altitude. I remember hearing that their performance gets significantly downgraded when you get high above the sea level. Is there any truth to that, or is that just an old wife's tale?

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, DreDay said:

No doubt. One question that I have though (outside Saudi issues) is the performance of turbine engines in high altitude. I remember hearing that their performance gets significantly downgraded when you get high above the sea level. Is there any truth to that, or is that just an old wife's tale?

Ostensibly, this makes sense. Air density lowers with altitude and gas turbines are more sensitive to the amount of air entering them. But, even in Colorado (for example), the air is on average only 90% as dense as sea level, which I imagine impacts engine performance even less than 10%.

An ICE will also run a little worse too, so I'm not sure the difference between the two would be too significant though.

I'm no expert though, my experience is mostly with other types of engines.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, John Kettler said:

FoxZz,

Since I knew squat all about the combat use of the LeClerc going into the article I cited, I very much appreciate the info you provided. As for the Abrams the Saudis operated, the way they were used was, I'd say, criminally stupid. I saw videos of one Saudi tank after another, clearly with none others in support and no infantry present, bring picked off by RPG-29 teams or ATGMs. It was so bad I had to stop myself from screaming! 

Compilation mostly of ATGM attacks on Abrams, with bonus of TOW vs T-90 with Kontakt 5 and Shtora off. In the first attack, the ATGM had a huge height advantage and was fired against the side. I think something similar was the case in the second, but there was not a whole lot of height difference. Heat shimmer made it very hard to tell much of anything.

-snip-

Regards,

John Kettler

No APS on these Saudi Abrams?

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...