Russian Ground Forces: News #2

The special units of the Russian army will be armed with the legendary SPG-9 grenade launchers "Kopje". In Syria, they demonstrated high efficiency against field fortifications and enemy manpower. Thanks to the long range and high accuracy of the shooting, these recoilless guns proved to be a suitable means for dueling with enemy grenade launchers. In this case, one shot for LNG-9 is much cheaper than an anti-tank guided missile. The grenade launcher will undergo modernization - will receive a modern night sight and more powerful ammunition.


Army special forces will saddle combat "Bears"
The newest Russian armored personnel carriers will be useful for raids in the rear of the enemy and the protection of columns
As "Izvestia" was told in the Defense Ministry, the anti-tank grenade launchers of the SPG-9 plan to return to the arsenal of special units. They will undergo modernization and will be used to combat manpower and suppress enemy firing points.

During the Syrian campaign, militants actively used grenade launchers of Western production - Carl Gustav and PanzerFaust. For their suppression of the range of shooting conventional RPG-7 was not enough. But the enemy was coping well with the LNG-9, which were in service with the Syrian army.

Initially, these products, adopted in service in 1963, were intended to combat armored vehicles. The cumulative grenade PG-9V has decent indicators of armor penetration - 300 mm. Later, for SPG-9, a fragmentation grenade was developed. The firing range of the "Spear" when it is used is about a kilometer.

The LNG-9 is distinguished by a fairly high rate of fire - up to six rounds per minute. This is due to the fact that it is easy to recharge, and the gunner does not need to wait until the grenade hits the target. Shooting from the "Spear" does not require long preparation, the treatment of these weapons can be trained all the fighters. If necessary, the grenade launcher is disassembled and transferred by calculation forces. If, at the same time, to distribute at least two shots to all the soldiers, then one unit will have a very solid ammunition.

Since the late 1980s, the "Spears" have gradually begun to give way to anti-tank guided missiles (ATGM) - the power of standard shots was not enough to break through the armor of modern tanks. However, ATGMs are quite expensive, so recoilless guns have remained very popular in developing countries.

Military expert Oleg Zheltonozhko told Izvestia that such weapons are in high demand in conditions of local conflicts, when military operations are conducted by small highly mobile detachments. Special forces have to deal with a well-armed and prepared enemy, so they need additional firepower.

"The militants receive the latest foreign weapons, they learned to dig in and equip positions, so the special forces need means of reinforcement, the same trench artillery," Oleg Zheltonozhko explained. - Due to the more powerful ammunition, the SPG-9 easily affects from a greater distance even the concrete reinforcements. In disassembled form, it can be transported by jeep or an armored car "Tiger", carried by a group of soldiers.

The Pentagon is also actively returning to the old grenade launchers - the Swedish Carl Gustav. In the 1980s, they were purchased for ranger battalions, later replaced with anti-tank missiles. However, in Afghanistan, the US military carried heavy losses from the exact fire of the RPG-7 grenade launchers, which the detachments of the banned Taliban movement in Russia were actively using. ATGMs could not effectively deal with such a threat. The Pentagon decided to give out to the special forces, infantry and airborne troops, operating in Afghanistan, grenade launchers. Carl Gustav have proved their effectiveness. Therefore, now the US military uses them everywhere in Afghanistan and Iraq.  

During the Syrian campaign, militants actively used grenade launchers of Western production - Carl Gustav and PanzerFaust. For their suppression of the range of shooting conventional RPG-7 was not enough.

GarryB wrote:With modern optics and a fire control system to calculate the path of the round even dumb cheap rounds can be rather effective... this is a bit like fitting a Gefest &T package to an old recoilless rocket launcher to make a cheap weapon as accurate and as useful as a much more expensive guided weapon...

GarryB wrote:

My understanding is that the RPO-M has a range of about 800m with a max range of about 1.7km and would therefore fill the role of unguided HE weapon to out shoot the Carl Gustav and Panzerfaust while being portable and relatively cheap.

I rather suspect the rounds would be smaller and lighter and more portable than the SPG-9 rounds.

At the moment I think the RPO-M has only a thermobaric warhead but it would be easy enough to develop HE and other warheads for this 90mm calibr

JohninMK wrote:Spotted this. No idea how old the picture is but the officer on the right looks very familiar albeit much younger then

flamming_python wrote:

JohninMK wrote:Spotted this. No idea how old the picture is but the officer on the right looks very familiar albeit much younger then

It's Gerasimov.

Hole wrote:Sure, but... How can someone fool himself in such a way? The whole doctrin of the armed forces of Amiland is: drop a bomb on it! Than you go around and claim that your Army is the best? Ridiculous.

kvs wrote:

Hole wrote:Sure, but... How can someone fool himself in such a way? The whole doctrin of the armed forces of Amiland is: drop a bomb on it! Than you go around and claim that your Army is the best? Ridiculous.

Well, by including France they sort of discredit the whole list.

At the end of the day it is NATO's nuclear weapons that make it a threat.   It's conventional capability is grossly exaggerated based
on propaganda adventures like the Iraq war.   I fully expect NATO to use nuclear weapons first in any war on Russia since they know
that there is no way they could win a conventional war against it.   NATO is also composed of sheep who believe that it was the
western alliance, i.e. the USA, that won the war against Nazi Germany.   Little details like the fact that 80% of Germany's resources
were spent on the eastern (i.e. Soviet) front are systematically ignored.    The only war that the USA has won against a worthy opponent
was the war against Japan and it had to use nuclear weapons to do it.

Hole wrote:Using nucelar weapons is NATO tactic from the beginning.

The fight against Japan was mostly air and sea battles. At the end of the war Russia was fighting more Japanese (in China) than Amiland had ever met in their battles.

kvs wrote:

Indeed.   Soviet forces routed the 1 million strong Japanese Kwantung army.    The USA had Iwo Jima and other such ground battles.

As for "worthy", I am comparing to Iraq in 1990.   And the USA was not all that back in 1940s.   They had to adapt to fight Japan
and did not just steam roll it.  

Hole wrote:Did someone see this aritcle in National Idiots... ur, Interest about the best armies in 2030?
Best five armies: Russia, China, India, France (Yes, the frog eaters. Their whole army has the size of one russian Division!) and the best of them all... wait for it, you guessed it, Amiland!!!!

I mean... the russian army is superior in:

Tanks
Artillery
Air defence
EW
NBC troops
Engineer troops
Logistics

How could someone than claim the Ami Army is better? Cooler sun glasses or what?