Russian arms topic revived... :)

[Sgt.Squarehead]

 

[John Kettler]

Haiduk,

As ever, thanks for your most informative comments. Without you, IMHO and Kulagin, the westerners among the CMers wouldn't know a great deal of valuable military technical information, not to mention descriptions of battle particulars.

Regards,

John Kettler

[John Kettler]

This brand new analysis of what the Russian BTGs (estimated at 50-100) near Ukraine are doing and what they are positioned to do is definitely attention-getting and cause for concern, which I'm sure is how the Ukrainian authorities are finding this situation. To be clear, am NOT beating the war drums here, though I think powerful interests are. That said, this is about the origin, structure, purpose and current positioning of most of Russia's BTGs. A real stunner for me is that SAR (Synthetic Aperture Radar) imagery is part of this article. This is definitely a first in my experience when it comes to OSINT (Open Source INTelligence) analysis. Back when I was at Hughes (1978-1984) we were told that any SAR imagery better than 5 foot resolution was classified. The imagery from the Sentinel-1 SAR satellite isn't here yet, but it nevertheless is of real intelligence value. 

https://www.19fortyfive.com/2021/12/russian-battalion-groups-are-assembling-around-ukraine-what-is-putin-up-to/



Useful as the above is, a private Finnish concern has a three satellite constellation that can deliver below 1 foot resolution. Don't know if Bellingcat and others can afford such imagery, though. Nor do I believe the Kremlin would let such imaging activities over its territory pass unchallenged. Don't know how much standoff this system has that would enable imaging from Ukrainian territory into Russia and Russia-occupied Crimea.

https://www.iceye.com/press/press-releases/iceye-unveils-25-cm-sar-imaging-capability-with-current-sar-satellite-constellation

Regards,

John Kettler
 

Edited December 19, 2021 by John Kettler

[John Kettler]

Though a bit goofy in its presentation and delivery in places, this is a very good OSINT analysis of the T-14 Armata, one which goes into all sorts of details I'd not seen before.

Agree with assertions that the relatively light armor on the remote controlled turret creates a major vulnerability not present in standard tank designs. In fact, I believe the thin armor is such that, relatively speaking, cheap F-Kills could be easily obtained by all sorts of munitions that would defeat the cannon through penetrating the turret from any number of directions, but also that what kills the gun can often set off ammunition in the autoloader, quite possibly wiping out the entire tank, crew and all.

From the engineering drawing I saw, the rear bulkhead of the crew compartment is pretty thin compared to the primary armor on the T-14's front, leading to the distinct possibility of a bulkhead rupture if the main gun ammo explodes. Even if the bulkhead holds, what sort of state will the crew be in after such a tremendous shock? In a way, this design reminds me of the Panzer crews' name for the Panzer IV--Rothbard with the weak chin, so called because the otherwise well protected from the front (hull and turret) tank had relatively thin turret front armor. Given droll merciless Russian military. humor, it wouldn't surprise me if the T-14 Armata wound up with some moniker including the expression soft head in the nickname.

In footage I've seen shot from inside the T-14 while targeting and firing using thermals, I was underwhelmed with their quality, and Haiduk has indicated that the French Catherine system is no longer available and that far less capable Chinese systems are in use, thogh he didn't say which tanks. Do recall, though, he said the Chinese thermals' range was 2500 meters. Was that to ID a target as a tank or to determine whose tank? In any event, there seems to be an enormous disconnect between thermals good out to 2500 meters, a cannon good to 7000 meters and 8000 meter CLGMs. Or is the presumably MMW radar something like that on Krizantema able to do the job all by itself?
 

Regards,

John Kettler 

[John Kettler]

Ref the BTG article, would note the writer made a serious mistake by characterizing the Buk as SHORADS, when, in fact, it is a divisional SAM system of medium range. Quite the difference!

Regards,

John Kettler 

[John Kettler]

While in his analysis I believe Binkov missed some important things, such as the dual role of the MLRS for both blanketing an area with bomblets and using ATACMS SRBMs for strikes out to 300 km, there is, nevertheless, a wealth of material here on what Russia has, what Russia plans to have and when, how equivalent Russian and US units stack up, differences in force structure and why, the terrifying (to me and others) disparity between the far too few US SAMs (with effectively no real tactical SAMs (not SHORADS) at all) and the wealth of same on the Russian side and at all levels. While this won't help you win at CMBS, what it will do is provide valuable context, for your in-game force doesn't exist in a vacuum, but is instead but a small portion of a vast military machine. This context, properly applied, could be especially useful to scenario and campaign designers. Also, I noticed something about Msta-S. The recoil forces are way too much for the chassis, so there is a considerable period of rocking after firing, cutting down on ROF. Since Koalitsiya SV is bigger and on a far beefier chassis, it is considerably more stable when fired, increasing ROF. WAs very surprised to learn that the US has some 40% of its artillery park equipped with towed guns, apparently in the interests of rapid global deployment. If our tube artillery ever comes under Russian artillery fire, it's going to be ugly. Footage I've see of US troops in combat and on exercise with the M198 155 mm gun howitzer showed no overhead protection whatsoever and hardly any protection vs ground fire, either.
 

Regards,

John Kettler

 

[John Kettler]

The new to me Russian VDV AFV is the 2S42 Lotos, and when I first saw another video posted by a Russian FB friend, thought it might be a Sprut upgrade. Turns out I was partially right. It has a 120 mm high velocity gun wirth respectable performance (600-650, RHA at 1 km), but is primarily designed for FS and replaces all mortar systems in the VDV and Russian Marines. Have seen nothing on a CLGM, but it does fire the Kitolov laser guided shell. Was supposed to enter mass production last year, but that doesn't mean it happened. 
 

http://www.military-today.com/artillery/2s42_lotos.htm

Regards,

John Kettler

 

[Sgt.Squarehead]

On 12/19/2021 at 6:55 AM, John Kettler said:

From the engineering drawing I saw, the rear bulkhead of the crew compartment is pretty thin compared to the primary armor on the T-14's front, leading to the distinct possibility of a bulkhead rupture if the main gun ammo explodes.

So who is giving away engineering drawings of the T-14.....Enquiring minds (& I suspect probably the GRU) want to know. 

On 12/23/2021 at 8:40 AM, John Kettler said:

Also, I noticed something about Msta-S. The recoil forces are way too much for the chassis, so there is a considerable period of rocking after firing, cutting down on ROF. Since Koalitsiya SV is bigger and on a far beefier chassis, it is considerably more stable when fired, increasing ROF.

Msta-S is based on a T-80 chassis, the Koalitsya we've seen so far are on a T-90 chassis.....Not convinced that qualifies as 'far beefier'.

 

Edited December 24, 2021 by Sgt.Squarehead

[fireship4]

Hmm it's a pretty cool idea to have an IFV which doubles as your mortar battery, but it would have to know exactly where it was to be effective, and I guess you have to choose between direct fire support or mortars, unless the practise is the 3rd company in a battalion stays back and does it while waiting to become the second echelon... just speculation by someone without much knowlege on the subject though.

Edited December 26, 2021 by fireship4

[John Kettler]

Sgt.Squarehead,

Even during the Cold War, the. military newspaper translated Red Star and other similar periodicals, such as Standard Bearer, published similar drawings of current AFVs. Western intelligence analysts, including myself, found them valuable. Jane's Defence Review used to publish them. Here's one which I saw there.

http://bastion-karpenko.ru/VVT/T-72_07.jpg

Would also point out that Russia is trying to sell the T-14 Armata, which, I suspect, is why we have been allowed to know so much about it, a weapon system already exhibited by Rostec. As for Msta-S stability vs Koalitsya stability immediately after firing, suggest you look at the gun line in which the first few on the left are Koalitsya and the others Msta-S. The difference between the two is enormous.

fireship4,

It's long been Soviet, later Russian, standard practice to provide its artillery with the ability to defend itself, first against infantry attack, subsequently with armored attack added in. Soviet tests and combat analysis showed, too, that artillery in DF was 10 x times more effective than artillery in covered positions (Indirect Fire). Lotos for VDV and Marines and Hosta for the mainline troops are both triple threat weapons: Indirect Fire (HE, smoke, CLGP), Direct Fire (HE and Smoke) and Direct Fire vs point targets on ground (MOUT) and vs attacking armor. The US has no equivalents that I know of. The US would be far better off with a Lotos or Hosta than the MGS version of the Stryker.

Regards,

John Kettler

Edited December 28, 2021 by John Kettler

[John Kettler]

Here is a very good article to determine whether the T-64 or T-72 was better. Naturally, much depends on how that comparison is made. The article features a wealth of technical data, line drawings and photos. This is a straightforward military-technical discussion, with not a word about War Thunder.

https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/265112-t-64a-vs-t-72-ural-which-was-better/

Regards,

John Kettler
 

[fireship4]

Direct fire may be more effective shot for shot, but that is no replacement for flexible, high volume, long range, high calibre, unexpected, indirect fire.  Would be interested to see the study though.

[John Kettler]

Had high hopes for this video as far as showcasing Russian artillery and its capabilities--only to be pretty disappointed on that score. But if you want a visual showcase of the modern Russian military, then you'll likely be smiling, unless you prefer the novel experience of hearing the weaponry as well as watching it! Though the score  least it wasn't techno, it got old fast. 
 

Regards,

John Kettler

[John Kettler]

When your T-14 Armata isn't ready, and that pesky M1A2 SEPV3 Abrams is already a credible threat, the next best thing is the T-90M.

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/reboot/how-russias-t-90-tank-would-take-down-m1a2-abrams-198164

Regards,

John Kettler

 

[John Kettler]

Came across a most interesting TOS tidbit in the Wiki writeup. Rmin for the original TOS-1 was 400 meters, for a rocket with an Rmax of 3000 meters, but the TOS-1A's rocket has an Rmin of 1300 meters and an Rmax of 10,000 meters. The article segment goes on to note that because of this issue, the older rockets have been retained for shorter range combat. Given this, for certain situations, at least, I believe that TOS-1A, firing the shorter range earlier rocket, should be in the game. If a BTG routinely has, say, Grad, as an organic capability, then I see no fundamental reason that TOS-!A couldn't be chopped to it from higher. In any event, it's clear that the earlier TOS-1's rocket not only will handily fit on the map, but unlike, say, the MLRS Steel Rain, it won't obliterate a grid square, but it will be devastating over a frontage of, would say (based on live fire videos seen), several hundred meters

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TOS-1

Regards,

John Kettler

[John Kettler]

While hunting for the original Russian war movie with an SF test We Are From The Future, found this war song, which may either be the real deal or made especially for the movie. In either case, not only does the song sound good, but the video is full of great stills of the modern Red Army. The song is called "Automatic in Hand Because We Are Soldiers". But it's talking about an AK type automatic (usually transliterated as Avtomat), not a semiautomatic pistol.
 

Regards,

John Kettler

Edited January 7, 2022 by John Kettler

[John Kettler]

Consider this a highly valuable find on today's Motostrelki, what we used to call Motorized Rifle during the Cold War. It is meticulously done, shows who of what rank does what and why, lays out the comms and discusses march order, deployment from march into the attack and goes into considerable detail about conduct of the defense, to include multiple defensive layouts, what's where and why, maskirovka in positioning, local counterattacks and more. One of the things that really stood out was heavy Russian use of multi-role battlefield radars which, unlike US systems, can be fitted to such weapons as machine guns. By multi-role, I mean use against ground targets and, at the very least, air attack warning, presumably especially vs. helicopters hugging the terrain.
 

Regards,

John Kettler

[John Kettler]

This video is a must watch for both the US and the Russian players. It really delivers on its title and goes into a simply immense amount of detail, while unsurprisingly generating a lot of pertinent responses, some of which challenge or expand coverage of given topics. Not at all sure  what to make of the claim the T-90M's FCS thermals are better than those of the M1A2 SEPV3, since everything I've seen to date on how the US does things is that our thermals always are kept ahead of the opposition's, because first detection results in first shot, which generally decides the outcome right then and there. Yet somehow the SEPV3  supposedly has Gen 2 thermals, while the T-90M has Gen 3 thermals. That generated some excitement in the replies. Based on what I've seen of even the displays for the thermals on the T-14 Armata, ours are vastly better. Also surprising was that at least part of the turret roof has Relikt on it, making TOW 2B attacks somewhat problematic. But the real shocker for me is the multi-ton weight increase caused by the installation of Trophy. This is hard to reconcile with IMI (?) ads showing Trophy can be installed even on Hummer sized vehicles. That blew my mind. Something's off somewhere--by a lot! Apparently, Trophy is already operational now on the SEPV3, which has also had a new. much lower profile CROWS fitted. There is a very good discussion of ammo types and terminal performance for everything but the M829A4 for the SEPV3, where the video's creator says he has no penetration data. Also of note is that the T-90M has major improvements to survivability by having far better ammo stowage and ammo protection than previous Russian tanks. The ammo in the carousel is better protected, but the rest of the ammo is in protected compartments with blowout panels. The one in the turret bustle a la Abrams blows upwards, while the one in the lower hull blows downwards through the hull bottom. This is the result of searching Russian analysis of causes of tank K-Kills when hit.
 

Regards,

John Kettler

[HUSKER2142]

10 hours ago, John Kettler said:

One of the things that really stood out was heavy Russian use of multi-role battlefield radars which, unlike US systems, can be fitted to such weapons as machine guns. By multi-role, I mean use against ground targets and, at the very least, air attack warning, presumably especially vs. helicopters hugging the terrain.

This refers to the reconnaissance stations of "Fara" family SBR-3 or SBR-5, in US army there is an analogue in the form of "AN/PPS-15 GSR" or "SR Hawk GSR". Previously, these stations were stored as a dead weight and units in my memory knew how to use them. Since the beginning of the conflict in Donbass and the campaign in Syria, the question has been raised about training specialists who finally really appeared in the troops, now I can say with confidence that the intelligence stations are not so dead. And with the arrival of thermal imaging devices, they complement each other well. 

Edited January 12, 2022 by HUSKER2142

[John Kettler]

Husker2142,

Thanks for this info.

fireship4,

Since I couldn't recall which thread I'd last talked about DF effectiveness vs IF effectiveness, started a new thread in which no fewer than four references talk about this matter.

All,

There's a. new to me and very information rich, beautifully done Russian series called Combat Approved, and this one, posted yesterday, is on the air defense troops of both the Ground Forces and the Russian Federation at the national level. In terms of pertinence to the game, the chief material is on dealing with various types of drones, and the Russians have lots of experience in dealing with them in real world situations. There is strike footage from a Turkish Bayraktar TB2 in the Nagorno-Karabakh War, one downed by the Russians, all sorts of antidrone weaponry shown and more. Something in it I'm familiar with is the measuring of RCS (Radar Cross Section) from a hist of angles of various US and NATO operational and developmental aerospace craft. In the US, we have special ranges and test facilities called RATSCAT (RAdar Test and SCATtering). This is a Russian facility, and we got to see places I've never seen of our own. 

Flame weapons and thermobarics, with a fascinating excursion into Greek fire! In modern terms, RPO through TOS-1A, with lots of demonstrations and live fire, including RPO-A vs the far more powerful and longer range RPO-EPR. Believe the video could also be used by the modders for real world based flame and detonation VFX. Some of what the presenter does on this episode would give health and safety specialists heart attacks.
 

Regards,

John Kettler

Edited January 17, 2022 by John Kettler

[LukeFF]

"Heavenly Forces?"  My word, John, you are gullible.

[John Kettler]

LukeFF,

Youy should've seen me the day I first encountered the Cold War acronym ZRK, which expanded is transliterated as Zenitnaya Raketa Trupa (Zenith Rocket Troops). Doesn't make a whole lot of sense until you understand whats being said is they provide air defense from ground level clear up to directly overhead, the zenith. Heavenly Forces seems like something the Chinese would say, but the term for the video is the producers exercising poetic license in naming by analogy.

All,

Here is a whole episode of Combat Approved devoted to drones, drone types, drone control complexes, drone countermeasures and more. Of particular note is a new armed AFV which can operated either crewed or as a UGV. It carries six quadcopters for recon and strike! In the latter case, kamikaze drones for removal of point targets. If you recall, several of the new Russian AFVs also have quadcopter drones, meaning that not only can the AFV commander put up his own ISR, but may be able to deliver strikes as well. Thus, the Russians have created a tiny reconnaissance-strike complex. The Russians also have a military-only acoustically stealthy quadcopter which unlike the usual giant mosquito whine of quadcopters and even fixed wing drones, is almost inaudible, thanks to much slower larger rotor blades. 
 

Regards,

John Kettler

[Erwin]

Interesting that the video features the WW2 Brits using backpack flamers - range about 90 feet and enuff in the backpack tank for 30 shots.

The later "ROKS 3" had a range of over 160 feet!).  The LPO50 had a range of 230 feet.  Not sure if those ranges are in CM.

Edited January 17, 2022 by Erwin

[Sgt.Squarehead]

I really was hoping that trooper would fire his RPO when the dip-s**t presenter went and stood behind him, but sadly it appears the cameraman warned him off before we could have any real laughs. 

[John Kettler]

LukeFF,

Made a mistake in the above Zenith Rocket Troops post. Something wasn't sitting right and was gnawing away in the back of my mind. Then it hit me. ZRK is Zenitnaya Raketa Komplex = Zenith Rocket Complex = SAM site. The Zenith Rocket Troops were ZRT, Zintnaya Raketa Trupa.

Regards,

John Kettler