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....ūüėé

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

Guidance helicopters VKS RF to strike at ISIS.  

Posted Images

26 minutes ago, JUAN DEAG said:

More ammo and more armor.

Armor - yes; although I am not convinced that it's necessary when taking out VBIEDs. Ammo - it's not so simple. The 100mm cannon on a BMP-3 can take out enemies in most fortified positions while 30mm AC could not even dream of that...

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, HUSKER2142 said:

For this, there is an ATGM with a high-explosive warhead. Plus is compensated by a large amount of ammunition to 30 mm guns.

How long are those ATGMS going to last? Or for that matter, will they even make it to battle? Need I remind you what had happened to the Tunguskas of Maikop brigade in Grozny?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, HUSKER2142 said:

I think we both perfectly know how the troops did not use the correct methods. And also the fact that 50% are servicemen drafted into the army for less than six months. Compare the losses in the battle for Grozny in 1995 and 2000, they are significantly different.

I agree 100%. My only point was that un(or lightly) protected missiles don't tend to stay on top of armored vehicles very long; especially in intense combat engagements. That's not a matter of training - that's just the physicality of it

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

I agree 100%. My only point was that un(or lightly) protected missiles don't tend to stay on top of armored vehicles very long; especially in intense combat engagements. That's not a matter of training - that's just the physicality of it

As an option, an armored cover, as on the M2 Bradley IFV.

Perhaps after a certain time, a combat module with 100 mm will appear, in the USSR an Object 782 was created.

d203d23e3aad.jpg

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, HUSKER2142 said:

As an option, an armored cover, as on the M2 Bradley IFV.

True. That's one of the reasons that BMP-3 designers had taken a different route.

Just now, HUSKER2142 said:

Perhaps after a certain time, a combat module with 100 mm will appear, in the USSR an Object 782 was created.

d203d23e3aad.jpg

 

I saw that, but then you might as well stick to a regular tank :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Try and elevate the gun on a tank like that.  ;)

Urban assault vehicles of this type will soon start to proliferate, count on it.

I have nothing against vehicles like up-armored BMP-3 that can deliver heavy firepower into the zenith; although so far no one else seems to be jumping on the band wagon. My point is that BMPT is not suited for that role very well.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, DreDay said:

My point is that BMPT is not suited for that role very well.

Says who?  It hasn't been tested in action yet, but apparently it soon will be.....I look forward to seeing the outcome.  B)

15 hours ago, akd said:

Coming soon to a TOW kill video near you.

It's quite remarkable how head-choppers keep finding brand new US made weapons lying around in a country that traditionally uses ex-Soviet stuff isn't it.....Must be kind of embarrassing for the US really.  :D

Edited by Sgt.Squarehead
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Says who?  It hasn't been tested in action yet, but apparently it soon will be.....I look forward to seeing the outcome.  B)

I believe it has been driven and fired at every single Russian Arms Expo for the past few years. I'm sure you could find some videos.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

It's quite remarkable how head-choppers keep finding brand new US made weapons lying around in a country that traditionally uses ex-Soviet stuff isn't it.....Must be kind of embarrassing for the US really.  :D

This is not surprising. The SDF/YPG are armed almost exclusively with US equipment and these weapons can get captured or abandoned. The Iraqi army also has lots of US equipment that can be captured or abandoned (like Mosul 2014). Also, Qatar, UAE, and others provide weapons they may have purchased from the US to arm Islamists.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Ministry of Defense of Russian Federation has begun the formation of unique military units - regiments, battalions and companies of multi-axle heavy wheeled tractors.

In each company of "heavy bicycles" there will be more than 30 tractors, while the regiment will include more than 600 KamAZ-65225. In addition to transportation of equipment, parts and divisions of MTCT will be used to transport fuel and other goods in special metal containers.

 

http://iz.ru/608113/aleksei-ramm-dmitrii-litovkin/tankisty-peresiadut-na-tiazhelye-velosipedy

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think it's stowage, low on the hull like that is how you lose your kit.

It's an interesting layout though, it looks like it's strapped on vs bolted (see the angle of the bottom piece, straps appear to be at least in part to hold the contents of the bag in place).  Containers look like they're fairly easy to access with asks interesting questions about the contents (or looking at the weight of say, a complete set of SAPI plates, that's not something I would strap to the outside of a tank, let alone any sort of passive armor on a tank scale).  The straps and bags don't seem under a lot of tension too though.

I wonder if it's not just a kit version of the various cardboard or wood bundles we've seen as adhoc standoff armor?  Coverage is also so-so, although it does do that thing T-72 skirts do not do if it is armor.

Too big for ERA though, unless it's a series of cells in one bag, but that configuration doesn't make a lot of sense.

Conjecture A: It's some sort of fairly light stand-off material,  Counter-argument is that it's not very comprehensive and it's not a lot of standoff.
Conjecture B: It's some sort of passive armor array that has been bolted to the skirt, but has bags over the top to conceal it's actual nature.  The counter-argument to that would be it's a lot of work to cover up something that isn't earth shattering, especially if it's not something that couldn't just be tarped/netted over.
Conjecture C: It's like that triple stacked ERA we saw back in the 80's, less so actual armor, more so something to make military intelligence gears spin for a while.

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...