T-12/MT-12 and SPG-9 replacement (other future towed systems)

GarryB wrote:If the idea of putting an old obsolete tank everywhere they were using the MT-12, they could easily have done that in the past and used T-54/55 vehicles as they built enormous numbers of them and the gun is very similar in performance too.

I do not think the material explicitly mentioned in my previous comment as replacement of the towed artillery in active service can be considered obsolete: T-90, T-72, T-80, 2S19, 2S5, 2S1 and 2S23.

GarryB wrote:The problem there is that the operational costs of keeping all those vehicles operational in roles where that sort of mobility might not be needed makes it less attractive as a replacement.

If you see the Order of Battle of the Russian units, even if not totally accurate, we see perfectly how the (M)T-12 has been serving in units with tanks and other self propelled weapons.

It means the gain of mobility would be positive for the units lossing their less mobile weapons. We can not talk about unnecessary improvement on mobility. With a replacement of the towed arityllery by self propelled artillery and tanks (in the case of the (M)T-12), the whole units improve in their mobility.

In the refered to the costs of operation bigger in this case, it is necessary to note that replacing towed artillery with tanks and self-propelled artillery in the reserve, Russia achieve several improvements:

1.- As explained in my previous comment there is a clear improvement in the performance of the weapons.
2.- There is a reduction of the cost of keeping in the reserve this material returning to active service. Reduction in the cost of the storage and maintenance in the reserve.
3.- There is a reduction of the cost of purchasing new armament. Instead, the purchase of new armament can be focused in the entry of units of the new platforms.

All it easily cancels the growth in the operational costs of the self-propelled weapons replacing the towed artillery.

Like we see in the refered to the air based platforms that some types of aircrafts are reserved, in order to use in the short term other types of less modern aircrafts, to return later the better to active service, we see it also in the land based platforms.

It has not been procurement of them. Not sure if addopted.

And it was right, having big amounts of better weapons in the reserve, after the end of the Soviet Union.

George1 wrote:i had the impression that  2A45 Sprut-B was the replacement of T-12 and RPG-7 of SPG-9

the sprut was supposed to but it never happened likely due to being more expensive, much heavier and losing the ability to act as short range artillery. 

rpg-7 doesn't have the range of spg-9. There was an article recently where they are looking at having a spg-9 type weapon back in service this likely down to experience of syrian conflict where a cheap longer range (than rpg) proved useful against armour  (they were facing) and for taking enemy positions in urban environment. having something that can effectively take out positions upto 1km in a long  drawn war like syria makes sense economically. you cant be using metis it would be overkill lol. Also sagger was proved to be useful in this role for longer ranges and it's cheap cost.

keeping a towed system in service for let's say 5yrs is much cheaper than keeping T-72 in service for 5yrs. 

and reactivating T-72 when you need them is likely cheaper than keeping T-72 in service for 5yrs. and then you have the training element of costs. and also it's not just about maintenance costs but also parts. A towed system uses less fuel than a T-72. no expensive engine to maintain and no expensive parts. you also have wages of mechanics and technicians and also the number of ghee needed. towed systems are less labour intensive. And with tanks also comes tank transporters another cost and likely you will need more tank transporters. A towed system can be towed by a truck much cheaper to use. 

A new towed system based around the 120mm calibre /nona-k wouldn't cost much to produce and design as majority of the work already done. Also you have the export potential as I mentioned. I would imagine the money saved over 5yrs of not having tanks replacing MT-12 you could design produce and buy the system and then you have export sales on top of that.  and also tanks lack the transport flexibility a towed system would have as me and GarryB have mentioned the advantages.

I do not think the material explicitly mentioned in my previous comment as replacement of the towed artillery in active service can be considered obsolete: T-90, T-72, T-80, 2S19, 2S5, 2S1 and 2S23.

The soldiers that use towed weapons either do so because they are not in an important region that justifies the cost and complication of a mechanised solution, or they are the type of force that needs to be highly mobile across rough terrain where equipment needs to be man handled up and down hills.

Or indeed as a base guard half way up a mountain.

You could get an MT-12 up a mountain via helo delivery.. you wont get a T-72 up there.

If you see the Order of Battle of the Russian units, even if not totally accurate, we see perfectly how the (M)T-12 has been serving in units with tanks and other self propelled weapons.

Well if it is a gate guard it might not move at all, which makes it much cheaper than any vehicle.

If used in a mobile force then there must be a prime mover to take it from place to place and carry the ammo and crew.

1.- As explained in my previous comment there is a clear improvement in the performance of the weapons.

But how clear is the improvement?

They weren't using the MT-12 against enemy tanks any more... they were using them as direct fire artillery, so going for a larger calibre means heavier weapon, more recoil, heavier ammo, lower rate of fire, yet the target wont know if it is being hit by a 15kg HE round from a 100mm smoothbore gun or a 20kg HE round from a 125mm gun.

2.- There is a reduction of the cost of keeping in the reserve this material returning to active service. Reduction in the cost of the storage and maintenance in the reserve.

Using reserve guns means preserving the newer models and using up old obsolete ammo in training means training the soldiers yet retaining effective ammo for a real conflict.

i had the impression that 2A45 Sprut-B was the replacement of T-12 and RPG-7 of SPG-9

Very much correct with the 2A45... it was the replacement for the T-12, but in the end they really stopped using the T-12 for the anti tank role because missiles pretty much took over.

In terms of the SPG-9... it was very similar to the 73mm gun of the BMP-1 except it had an open breach and allowed propellant blast to exit the rear whereas the 73mm gun of the BMP-1 was closed. Ammunition for the two weapons looks almost identical.

Both are pretty much effective out to between 800m and 1.3km with the HEAT round in good conditions, while the HE frag rounds are effective to about 4km or so in an indirect fire mode.

Both were pretty much replaced with man portable anti tank missiles... though the latter never really had the low cost HE fire power that resulted in the RPG-29 and 100mm rifled gun of the BMP-3.

and for taking enemy positions in urban environment. having something that can effectively take out positions upto 1km in a long drawn war like syria makes sense economically. you cant be using metis it would be overkill lol. Also sagger was proved to be useful in this role for longer ranges and it's cheap cost.

Of course with Russian infantry in the BMP-3 they will have the 100mm gun that can engage targets out to up to 7km with a HE round weighing over 12kgs.

In the next generation they will have 57mm high velocity HE shells too.

They were working on a 57mm grenade launcher at one stage that was reportedly able to fire HE rounds with the power of 82mm shells... that would be rather interesting too...

(@GarryB) Another concept for the towed mount where we talked about having a various guns 30mm/57mm gun, strelets, multiple ATGW system etc  you could of course have them on a remote operation where operator is 50m away this would help the crew not being near back blast and any possible return fire from enemy the crew are safe. another concept when it comes to 30mm/57mm guns and AGS systems etc is you could design a type of magazine type system holding X amount of rounds you clip it on the crew then move to there remote location  and fire away once empty another mag clipped on these would be larger than normal  and could be done even for 120mm mortar similar to automatic 82mm mortar but obviously it would consist of a cluster of small magazines 2-3 round clips the system holds 10-12 clips giving 20-24 bombs before reloading. having small clips like this would be easier carrying and loading by hand.
And depending on how sophisticated you wanted it you could design it in a way where u could select which clip you wanted so u could have a clip of guided mortar or a clip of smoke or a clip of illumination although that would start to make the system more expensive so likely not to have just a possibility.

@GarryB yes russians have bmp-3 although there's things you can't do with a bmp-3 that u can with a spg-9 or sagger lol. see below. Also syria has obviously been the reason why the new spg -9 system is being looked at. 

In urban warfare vehicles such as bmp-3 do have there uses but vehicles are very vulnerable in this type of warfare. The videos I've seen of syrian conflict over the years spg-9 and sagger have been deployed amongst rubble, derelict buildings and on top of roofs you cant get a bmp-3 up a flight of stairs loooool. For example a sniper in an elevated position taking shots at troops. If the troops can pin point his location and is to far away to be taken out by rpg you radio back to a sagger team sitting on a roof further back they can then engage. As had been done in syria. In fact in one video I bookmarked a few years ago  (sadly after checking it now it's no longer working) the sagger team use a thermobaric missile (never knew they existed for sagger in til then) on a derelict building from around 1.5-2km away and got a direct hit (through gap in the building) the crew speaking Arabic only word I could make out was thermobaric which was spoken in English. There was rumours that syria had found the sagger to be effective and very cheap that they were buying stocks from Belarus and Serbia (still produce it ) although no mention if they bought the tandem warhead or 2T5 version. I'd also imagine that Iran also supplied a loads of sagger as they also produced there own version.

GarryB, I do not think you are paying attention to the real examples of the Russian order of battle. Examples like these:

19-я отдельная Воронежско-Шумлинская Краснознаменная орденов Суворова и Трудового Красного Знамени мотострелковая бригада (МСБр), в/ч 20634 (п. Спутник, Владикавказ). Организация- типовая ОМСБр: управление, Организация – типовая ОМСбр,  без одного зенитного ракетного д-на,  и добавленным одним б-н СпН. На вооружении: 40 ед. Т-90А, 1 ед. Т-90К, 120 ед. БМП-3, 9 ед. БТР-82А, 27 ед. БТР-80, 6 ед. ГАЗ-233014 СТС Тигр, 15 ед. МТ-ЛБ, 18 ед. БМ 2Б17-1 "Торнадо-Г", 36 ед. 152мм сг 2С19 "Мста-С", 18 ед. 120 мм миномётов 2С12 "Сани", 6 ед. 100 мм пушек МТ-12 "Рапира", 12 ед. самоходных птрк 9П149 "Штурм-С", 4 ед. БРДМ-2, 12 ед. БМ 9К330 "Тор", 6 ед. БМ 9А34(35) "Стрела-10", 6 ед. ЗСУ 2С6М "Тунгуска", 27 ед. ПЗРК 9К38 "Игла".

7-я Краснодарская Краснознаменная орденов Кутузова и Красной Звезды военная база (ВБ), в/ч 09332 (Грузия, Абхазия, г. Гудаута): управление,  10 б-нов (4 мотострелковых, танковый, разведывательный, инженерно-саперный, управления, ремонтно-восстановительный, МО),  4 артиллерийских д-на (2 гаубичных самоходных, реактивный, противотанковый), 6 рот (снайперов, БПЛА, РХБЗ, РЭБ, комендантская, медицинская), 2 батареи (гаубичная, управления и разведки начальника артиллерии), 4 взвода (управления и радиолокационной разведки начальника ПВО, управления начальника разведки, инструкторов, тренажеров), полигон, оркестр.На вооружении: 41 ед. Т-72Б3, 130 ед. БТР-82АМ, 26 ед. БТР-80А, 15 ед. МТ-ЛБ, 18 ед. БМ-21 "Град", 36 ед. 152мм сг 2С3М "Акация", 6 ед. 122мм гаубиц Д-30, 18 ед. 120 мм миномётов 2С12 "Сани", 6 ед. 100 мм пушек МТ-12 "Рапира", 12 ед. самоходных птрк 9П149 "Штурм-С", 4 ед. БРДМ-2.

In many cases like these, the replacement of (M)T-12 by tanks from the reserve of the model present in the unit makes full sense. In the first case it is the alone towed weapon present, and its replacement by 6 T-90 from the reserve makes full sense. In the second case, the D-30 has been very likely replaced at this point, while the (M)T-12 can be perfectly replaced by 6 T-72. The strenght of the units would be improved on firepower, on range, on mobility and on protection of the crews, without cost.

Actually, to put the (M)T-12 units in a high position at less than 8 Km of the enemy is not a work that Russia wants for their helicopters. The tanks have an important advantage on range (that will be significantly increased with the very likely introduction of Rocket Assited Projectiles of 125mm). These units and many others have other options to use in high points.

At this point the (M)T-12 is necessary in Syria. The best that Russia cand do is to send them instead of other weapons of higher military value for Russia.

eehnie wrote:GarryB, I do not think you are paying attention to the real examples of the Russian order of battle. Examples like these:

19-я отдельная Воронежско-Шумлинская Краснознаменная орденов Суворова и Трудового Красного Знамени мотострелковая бригада (МСБр), в/ч 20634 (п. Спутник, Владикавказ). Организация- типовая ОМСБр: управление, Организация – типовая ОМСбр,  без одного зенитного ракетного д-на,  и добавленным одним б-н СпН. На вооружении: 40 ед. Т-90А, 1 ед. Т-90К, 120 ед. БМП-3, 9 ед. БТР-82А, 27 ед. БТР-80, 6 ед. ГАЗ-233014 СТС Тигр, 15 ед. МТ-ЛБ, 18 ед. БМ 2Б17-1 "Торнадо-Г", 36 ед. 152мм сг 2С19 "Мста-С", 18 ед. 120 мм миномётов 2С12 "Сани", 6 ед. 100 мм пушек МТ-12 "Рапира", 12 ед. самоходных птрк 9П149 "Штурм-С", 4 ед. БРДМ-2, 12 ед. БМ 9К330 "Тор", 6 ед. БМ 9А34(35) "Стрела-10", 6 ед. ЗСУ 2С6М "Тунгуска", 27 ед. ПЗРК 9К38 "Игла".

7-я Краснодарская Краснознаменная орденов Кутузова и Красной Звезды военная база (ВБ), в/ч 09332 (Грузия, Абхазия, г. Гудаута): управление,  10 б-нов (4 мотострелковых, танковый, разведывательный, инженерно-саперный, управления, ремонтно-восстановительный, МО),  4 артиллерийских д-на (2 гаубичных самоходных, реактивный, противотанковый), 6 рот (снайперов, БПЛА, РХБЗ, РЭБ, комендантская, медицинская), 2 батареи (гаубичная, управления и разведки начальника артиллерии), 4 взвода (управления и радиолокационной разведки начальника ПВО, управления начальника разведки, инструкторов, тренажеров), полигон, оркестр.На вооружении: 41 ед. Т-72Б3, 130 ед. БТР-82АМ, 26 ед. БТР-80А, 15 ед. МТ-ЛБ, 18 ед. БМ-21 "Град", 36 ед. 152мм сг 2С3М "Акация", 6 ед. 122мм гаубиц Д-30, 18 ед. 120 мм миномётов 2С12 "Сани", 6 ед. 100 мм пушек МТ-12 "Рапира", 12 ед. самоходных птрк 9П149 "Штурм-С", 4 ед. БРДМ-2.

In many cases like these, the replacement of (M)T-12 by tanks from the reserve of the model present in the unit makes full sense. In the first case it is the alone towed weapon present, and its replacement by 6 T-90 from the reserve makes full sense. In the second case, the D-30 has been very likely replaced at this point, while the (M)T-12 can be perfectly replaced by 6 T-72. The strenght of the units would be improved on firepower, on range, on mobility and on protection of the crews, without cost.

Actually, to put the (M)T-12 units in a high position at less than 8 Km of the enemy is not a work that Russia wants for their helicopters. The tanks have an important advantage on range (that will be significantly increased with the very likely introduction of Rocket Assited Projectiles of 125mm). These units and many others have other options to use in high points.

At this point the (M)T-12 is necessary in Syria. The best that Russia cand do is to send them instead of other weapons of higher military value for Russia.

I didn't realise it cost nothing whatsoever to overhaul, operate, maintain and train troops on a different system  

also I think the tank replacement option falls into same category as the sprut although it's even clearer that this option wasn't choosen. The sprut they had the design and produce a small number but didn't select it. As for tank option they have shit loads of tanks T-72/T-80 etc but clearly didn't choose that option. 

As for other options for deploying by helicopter to hard to reach areas yes there is quite a few but the idea I proposed a light system that does multiple roles artillery, mortar, ATGW, anti armour/material roles and also be able to use guided mortar/artillery rounds would allow for one system instead of multiple pieces of equipment. For instance if you wanted all roles mentioned covered you would have to transport four types of equipment instead of one with the new system and if it's mountainous areas space could be an issue. As mentioned this system doesn't have to be expensive and 90% of the work already done. 

I wouldn't write off towed systems as they still have there advantages as do SP systems. Hence the the idea I mentioned could be towed or mounted on various platforms allowing export customers or Russia various options and at the same time  stream lining calibre and systems in service allowing older equipment to be retired, storage sold donated scrapped.

Another concept for the towed mount where we talked about having a various guns 30mm/57mm gun, strelets, multiple ATGW system etc you could of course have them on a remote operation where operator is 50m away this would help the crew not being near back blast and any possible return fire from enemy the crew are safe.

Well that is interesting but you would need some sort of optronic system so you could see what you were firing at... but then it is a small step from this to putting it on its own motorised platform and making it a unmanned ground drone with different weapon fitouts that can be driven short distances through enemy fire to take up flanking positions in defence or attack.

Some sort of modular mounting system could be used for the towed mount and vehicle platform to make different weapon options quick and easy to set up or change.

You could set up to towed mount in specific positions on a base and perhaps move the weapon from position to position, or fit it to a motorised mount to leave the safety of the base and explore the local area looking for snipers or MG positions offering problems.

You could keep one position armed but during an attack fit weapons to every position with a towed chassis and just use them for observation most of the time and a weapon position during an attack.

Imagine you watch the enemy position for three days and see two 30mm grenade launchers so you formulate an attack from a different direction to avoid their fire... only to find when you start your attack not only have they been moved to the line of your attack but all of a sudden you start taking fire from the side by another 30mm grenade launcher that wont stop firing even when you deluge the area its fire is coming from with small arms fire...

[qutoe]@GarryB yes russians have bmp-3 although there's things you can't do with a bmp-3 that u can with a spg-9 or sagger lol. see below. Also syria has obviously been the reason why the new spg -9 system is being looked at. [/quote]

Of course, they both provide direct fire support with good HE rounds, but the BMP-3 operates with infantry, while the SPG-9 is light and mobile and could go to places where it fire is even more valuable... Half way up the side of a mountain where there are no armoured vehicles of any kind the HEAT round is not so useful but the 4.5km range of the HE round means most of the time if you can see the enemy you can hit him too.

Often in Afghanistan they found the 50 cal HMGs lacked the range and enemy would sit out in the open at more than 3km thinking they were safe... the SPG-9 and ZU-23-2 meant they often were not safe.

Of course mortars could do the same job but the swirling wind in the mountains can often effect the accuracy of mortars as the bombs spend a lot of time in flight...

There was rumours that syria had found the sagger to be effective and very cheap that they were buying stocks from Belarus and Serbia (still produce it ) although no mention if they bought the tandem warhead or 2T5 version. I'd also imagine that Iran also supplied a loads of sagger as they also produced there own version.

Ironically an AT-3 ATGM is a steerable unmanned drone that can deliver a HE payload out to 3km or so.... how high tech and modern...

Considering the armour in the region even non upgraded models would be fine for most targets...

GarryB, I do not think you are paying attention to the real examples of the Russian order of battle. Examples like these:

Traditionally the MT-12 and other anti tank weapons like it were used as short range self defence against enemy tanks to fill the gap where ATGMs are not so useful.

ATGMs have developed to the point where their minimum effective range is about the same as the minimum effective range of an RPG... they keep the guns because they are multipurpose... and light and cheap.

The unit based in Abkhazia will probably keep its MT-12s and D-30s longer than other units because it is a mountainous region...

In many cases like these, the replacement of (M)T-12 by tanks from the reserve of the model present in the unit makes full sense. In the first case it is the alone towed weapon present, and its replacement by 6 T-90 from the reserve makes full sense. In the second case, the D-30 has been very likely replaced at this point, while the (M)T-12 can be perfectly replaced by 6 T-72. The strenght of the units would be improved on firepower, on range, on mobility and on protection of the crews, without cost.

But would the new tanks that replace these towed weapons operate with the other tanks in the force or will they operate separately like the MT-12 and D-30s did.

BTW the T-72 does not have the gun elevation to hit targets at more than 9km with its HE rounds so it is 6km short in range over the 122mm D-30... a serious loss of performance.

Replacing the D-30 with a 152mm towed gun would retain the same range (15km) but with a much heavier projectile and only one ton extra weight (4 tons instead of 3).

Actually, to put the (M)T-12 units in a high position at less than 8 Km of the enemy is not a work that Russia wants for their helicopters.

In normal units like the ones you listed they will have MTLBs towing them around and carrying crew and ammo...

The tanks have an important advantage on range (that will be significantly increased with the very likely introduction of Rocket Assited Projectiles of 125mm). These units and many others have other options to use in high points.

With HE rounds... not that you would notice the difference... 8.2km for MT-12 and about 9km for T-72.

The main problem is that Eehnie seems to think towed systems are inferior and less capable than a self propelled system.

The price of a Tunguska system is quite expensive to operate and maintain, yet they have developed a small towed system with a little cabin that completely encloses the operator and protects them from the weather, with a large optronic ball turret in front and a single twin barrel 30mm 2A38M cannon and a quad launcher for SOSNA missiles.

2,500 rounds per minute of 30x165mm shells, plus 4 ready to fire high speed 10km range SOSNA beam riding missiles with an optronics detection and guidance system.

Even if you can afford Tunguska you could put a few of these around your base to boost defences and they will only be a fraction of the cost of a Tunguska vehicle.

Normally a Tunguska vehicle takes the lead and processes the target data and hands off targets to the other vehicles in the unit... up to 6 or so.

Many countries could not afford 6 Tunguskas per target worth protecting, but they might be able to afford one Tunguska and 5-10 of these trailer mounted air defence systems... they offer vastly superior performance to MANPADS equipped systems who usually have a range of 6km and much slower missiles.

The difference is that with MANPADS the enemy helicopters will be launching at you before you can launch at them...

With SOSNA you can launch and they probably don't even know you are there because no radar emissions or engine heat...

Why would you not want a towed system?

GarryB wrote:The main problem is that Eehnie seems to think towed systems are inferior and less capable than a self propelled system.

The price of a Tunguska system is quite expensive to operate and maintain, yet they have developed a small towed system with a little cabin that completely encloses the operator and protects them from the weather, with a large optronic ball turret in front and a single twin barrel 30mm 2A38M cannon and a quad launcher for SOSNA missiles.

2,500 rounds per minute of 30x165mm shells, plus 4 ready to fire high speed 10km range SOSNA beam riding missiles with an optronics detection and guidance system.

Even if you can afford Tunguska you could put a few of these around your base to boost defences and they will only be a fraction of the cost of a Tunguska vehicle.

Normally a Tunguska vehicle takes the lead and processes the target data and hands off targets to the other vehicles in the unit... up to 6 or so.

Many countries could not afford 6 Tunguskas per target worth protecting, but they might be able to afford one Tunguska and 5-10 of these trailer mounted air defence systems... they offer vastly superior performance to MANPADS equipped systems who usually have a range of 6km and much slower missiles.

The difference is that with MANPADS the enemy helicopters will be launching at you before you can launch at them...

With SOSNA you can launch and they probably don't even know you are there because no radar emissions or engine heat...

Why would you not want a towed system?

100% agree GarryB I remember u talking about this AD system and this would fit into our idea of having the two towed universal mounts with various options. Towed systems are also harder to spot and as you say no heat signature. As well as cost. 

Most know that I enjoy when I see older systems being made more useful and like seeing the various upgrades etc done by armed forces on a tight budget and often not its normally turned into a SP unit but as stated there are advantages of towed as is advantages of SP. SP tends to be more beneficial on heavier towed systems than lighter. And of course it all depends upon what you're mounting it on and your needs. If you take India and especially North Korea, Cuba  the latter two lacked SP so set about putting D-30, D-1,D-20 on trucks and M-46 on T--34 and other platforms. North Korea actually did a good job of mounting M-46 onto SP role with a proper enclosed turret and the unit looked fairly professional. India had old vickers based tanks and mounted M-46 on them and added a metal canopy nowhere near as good as North Korean version but hey it works the M-46 catapult they call it. 
Algeria very recently mounted their MT-12 on a truck it's obviously what they wanted and probably suits them in their flat climate to have a SP unit to fire pack up and go. But Russia has a bigger budget, and capabilities to not have use such methods. But by no means should SP totally replace towed systems. 

pics for info only.
 North Korean SP M-46. followed by 2 Indian m-46 catapult. 



algerian MT-12 mounted.

Russia also has a reserve of military personel. The retraining effect and cost would be bigger if the replacement of the current towed artillery in active service would be done with other new weapons, without available trained crews in the reserve.

Russia has enough young and decently trained crews of the needed weapons in the reserve, in enough numbers to make this replacement perfectly comfortably without training requirements:

T-90, T-72, T-80: 526 crews, likely less today
2S19: 150 crews
2S5: 100 crews
2S1: 150 crews
2S23: 124 crews

The number of units of towed weapons in active service today in the Russian Armed Forces is small, something that proves how Russia prefers the use of self-prPS Theopelled systems in overall terms.

GarryB seems to prefer to comment about "traditional" use of the weapons instead of about recent examples of order of battle that make more evident the recent use of the (M)T-12 and with which weapons has been deployed.

Like explained before this is the first form of the recent use of the (M)T-12:

19-я отдельная Воронежско-Шумлинская Краснознаменная орденов Суворова и Трудового Красного Знамени мотострелковая бригада (МСБр), в/ч 20634 (п. Спутник, Владикавказ). Организация- типовая ОМСБр: управление, Организация – типовая ОМСбр,  без одного зенитного ракетного д-на,  и добавленным одним б-н СпН. На вооружении: 40 ед. Т-90А, 1 ед. Т-90К, 120 ед. БМП-3, 9 ед. БТР-82А, 27 ед. БТР-80, 6 ед. ГАЗ-233014 СТС Тигр, 15 ед. МТ-ЛБ, 18 ед. БМ 2Б17-1 "Торнадо-Г", 36 ед. 152мм сг 2С19 "Мста-С", 18 ед. 120 мм миномётов 2С12 "Сани", 6 ед. 100 мм пушек МТ-12 "Рапира", 12 ед. самоходных птрк 9П149 "Штурм-С", 4 ед. БРДМ-2, 12 ед. БМ 9К330 "Тор", 6 ед. БМ 9А34(35) "Стрела-10", 6 ед. ЗСУ 2С6М "Тунгуска", 27 ед. ПЗРК 9К38 "Игла".

7-я Краснодарская Краснознаменная орденов Кутузова и Красной Звезды военная база (ВБ), в/ч 09332 (Грузия, Абхазия, г. Гудаута): управление,  10 б-нов (4 мотострелковых, танковый, разведывательный, инженерно-саперный, управления, ремонтно-восстановительный, МО),  4 артиллерийских д-на (2 гаубичных самоходных, реактивный, противотанковый), 6 рот (снайперов, БПЛА, РХБЗ, РЭБ, комендантская, медицинская), 2 батареи (гаубичная, управления и разведки начальника артиллерии), 4 взвода (управления и радиолокационной разведки начальника ПВО, управления начальника разведки, инструкторов, тренажеров), полигон, оркестр.На вооружении: 41 ед. Т-72Б3, 130 ед. БТР-82АМ, 26 ед. БТР-80А, 15 ед. МТ-ЛБ, 18 ед. БМ-21 "Град", 36 ед. 152мм сг 2С3М "Акация", 6 ед. 122мм гаубиц Д-30, 18 ед. 120 мм миномётов 2С12 "Сани", 6 ед. 100 мм пушек МТ-12 "Рапира", 12 ед. самоходных птрк 9П149 "Штурм-С", 4 ед. БРДМ-2.

And this is the other form, in artillery units:

291-й артиллерийская ордена Суворова бригада, в/ч 64670 (Республика Ингушетия, ст. Троицкая): управление, самоходный артиллерийский дивизион, самоходный минометный дивизион, гаубичный артиллерийский дивизион,  реактивный артиллерийский  дивизион, противотанковый дивизион, батарея управления, разведывательный артиллерийский дивизион, рота материального обеспечения, рота технического обеспечения,инженерно-саперный взвод, взвод РХБЗ. На вооружении: 8 ед. 9П140 "Ураган", 12 ед. 203мм САУ 2С7М "Малка", 8 ед. 240мм минометов 2С4 "Тюльпан", 18 ед. 152мм 2А65 "Мста-Б", 6 ед. 100мм МТ-12 "Рапира", 18 ед. 9К123 "Хризантема-С", 3 ед. ПРП-4М, 2 ед. АЗК-7.

385-я гвардейская артиллерийская бригада, в/ч 32755 (п. Тоцкое, Оренбургской обл.)  Организация не типовая АБр: управление,  гаубичный самоходно-артиллерийский дивизион, реактивный дивизион, противотанковый дивизион, разведывательный артиллерийский дивизион, батарея управления, рота материального обеспечения, рота технического обеспечения, инженерно-саперный взвод, взвод РХБЗ. На вооружении: 18 ед. 152 мм сг 2С19 "Мста-С" (по др данным 54иМста-С и 18 Мста-СМ), 8 ед. 9П140 "Ураган", , 6 ед. 100 мм МТ-12, 18 ед. 9П149 "Штурм-С".

305-я Краснознаменная артиллерийская бригада, в/ч 39255 (г. Уссурийск / п. Покровка, Приморский р-он): управление,  самоходный артиллерийский дивизион, самоходный минометный дивизион, реактивный артиллерийский  дивизион, противотанковый дивизион, батарея управления, разведывательный артиллерийский дивизион, рота материального обеспечения, рота технического обеспечения, инженерно-саперный взвод, взвод РХБЗ. На вооружении: 8 ед. 9П140 "Ураган", 8 ед. 240мм минометов 2С4 "Тюльпан", 18 ед. 152 мм 2С5 "Гиацинт-С", 6 ед. 100 мм МТ-12, 18 ед. 9П149 "Штурм-С", 3 ед. ПРП-4М, 2 ед. АЗК-7.

30-я артиллерийская бригада, в\ч 62048 (г. Улан-Удэ, станция Дивизионная и станция Тальцы): управление, гаубичный самоходно-артиллерийский дивизион, реактивный дивизион, противотанковый дивизион, разведывательный артиллерийский дивизион, батарея управления, рота материального обеспечения, рота технического обеспечения, инженерно-саперный взвод, взвод РХБЗ. На вооружении: 8 ед. БМ-21 "Град", 18 ед. 152 мм сг 122 мм 2С1 "Гвоздика", 6 ед. 100 мм МТ-12, 18 ед. 9П149 "Штурм-С".

In both cases the replacement of the (M)T-12 by T-90, T-72 or T-80 (depending of the presence of other tanks in the unit) makes full sense, and more if there is also a replacement of the Msta-B by self propelled artillery.

PS: The current reports would say there is not presence of the D-30 at this point in the active units of the Russian Army. Logically order of battle reports are less updated.

I am no expert but the Soviet divisions were mainly split between tank and motor rifle, where both had tanks and both had IFVs, the difference was the number of tanks and IFVs where a tank unit would obviously have more tanks and less IFVs, while the motor rifle or infantry div would have more IFVs and less tanks... but both would have both tanks and IFVs for mutual support.

The thing is that i seem to remember the infantry heavy units also tended to have anti tank battalions within them so they could deal with enemy tanks (having fewer 125mm tank guns within their force meant they needed extra anti tank weapons to deal with an enemy force with a lot of tanks in it) and these anti tank battalions started out as towed guns and other weapons like the SPG-9 or B-10 depending upon when it was... they also used T-12s in the same role.

Gradually these systems have been replaced by missiles... in the examples you give above... Shturm-S the Shturm/Ataka missile used by the Hind in the 1980s and is an MTLB chassis with a missile launcher that replaced the BRDM missile launcher models with Sagger and then later with AT-4/5 launchers.

This means the missiles have been replaced at least three times... first BRDMs with Saggers would be in service the one with the retracting roof and 6 missiles ready to fire, and they would have been replaced by the model of the BRDM that carries AT-4 and AT-5 missiles on a retractable launcher. Currently they use the MTLB and the Shturm missile, and in a newer, better equipped unit they would have Krisantema, which uses the BMP-3 chassis.

The point is that they keep the MT-12 because it is still useful for some tasks.

Lets face it... they are basically using the MT-12 as a super RPG-7 that can be used against targets out to extended range with a much more powerful HE round than the RPG carries... it is useful.

For the same reason they kept using the BMP-1 even after the BMP-2 was fully introduced because sometimes a 73mm HE round can get the job done that 30mm cannon fire is not good enough for. The 30mm cannon is an excellent weapon, but for some jobs it just lacks HE power, which is why the BMP-3 has an improved 73mm gun (the 100mm gun is rifled and fires cheap powerful ammo with good accuracy out to 7km) and improved 30mm gun (new design that does not result in gun gas fumes in the turret after firing).

BMP-1 and BMP-2 are still used together and there has been no move to replace the BMP-1 turret with a BMP-2 turret even though it would eliminate a calibre from the inventory (73mm).

As I mentioned above the 73mm gun on the BMP-1 is just a more efficient SPG-9 because it has no backblast and all the propellant is used to propel the projectile... the cost is that it does generate mild recoil which is no problem for the BMP... but might be an issue for a towed mount.

When developing the BMP-2 there was an improved gun to replace the 73mm weapon that was higher pressure and I think larger calibre... perhaps an 85mm but I don't recall.

Note calibres don't always increase... the RPG-16 that was supposed to replace the RPG-7 had a 57mm rocket warhead inside a 57mm rocket tube... so unlike the RPG-7 with its 40mm tube and larger calibre warhead the RPG-16s warhead did not stick out the front when loaded.

You talk like if the (M)T-12 would be to remain longer in active service than the 9P149 based on MT-LB, but this is very unlikely. The number of Khrizantema based on BMP-3 is too low to replace them, and Russia is moving to new platforms for future procurement.

In the case of the 73mm caliber, Russia does not scrap by scrap. Russia has been using BMD-1 spare parts to repair BMD-2, and BMD-1 turrets to repair BMP-1. At this point both BMP-1 and BMD-1 are declining in number very fast in Russia, and are likely to disappear also in the mid term basically by demand from Syria.

Like in the case of the towed artillery, the reports about the reserve of BMPs in Russia seems wrong. The contrast between the production data, the export data and the reports about armament inherited by the different countries after the end of the Soviet Union, says that Russia would not have large reserves of BPM-1. In fact the reserve of BMP-1 would be 0. The large reserves exist, approximately in the reported numbers, but are all of BMP-2 instead.

I would still say it takes more time and money to train crews of tanks than what the new system would. its not complex if you're talking of using reserve personal that would mean making troops using MT-12 redundant which isn't good for morale, PR and would still cosy you money in redundancies. As well as training and up skilling reserve crews and it's very likely that you wouldn't just have a basic model of T -72 but instead upgrading it which also costs money. The new idea would be much much cheaper to design produce test train and maintain than any tank option would be. training is more basic for the new system than a tank and tank mechanics. and you might have to buy more tank transporters and that would entail more troops. retraining MT-12 troops to use the new system would be minor as they are already trained in firing a direct fire weapon similar to new system and trained in ATGW sa me as new system and trained in using the gun as indirect artillery only training really is for mortar role and that isn't complex as a tank and it's maintenance. and as stated 90% of the design and testing done already. The system would also be more mobile having a variety of options for transportation and be quicker in mobility than a tank. And cover more roles than a tank can. 

As for older equipment being kept in service as it's still useful. well the spg-9 has proven useful so much so they are building a new version. anti aircraft guns are now getting a new lease of life in ground support role but also making a comeback to AA role (new 57mm system) rpg-7 despite age is still in use. The kommuna ship built in 1915 (approx) has been refitted and still in service with Russia although a slightly different role but because to build a new ship would cost millions of dollars and it still works. 
just like saying that towed weapons still in service with Russia theirs a reason for it. If they wanted 100 % SP they could easily take out of storage SP systems but there's a reason why they haven't.


A note on the order of battle wasn't it a forum rule that posts are to be made in English I know people in past have been pulled up for it. just saying.

d_taddei2 wrote:The new idea would be much much cheaper to design produce test train and maintain

Design costs of the replacement by weapons of the reserve = 0
Production costs of the replacement by weapons of the reserve = 0
Test costs of the replacement by weapons of the reserve = 0
Cost of the tank transport vehicles that Russia also has in the reserve = 0
Train costs of the crews from the reserve of the weapons from the reserve = very low
Costs of maintenance in active service of the weapons from the reserve = Much lower than the design, test, production and train (of the instructors first and of the crews later) costs of a new weapon. To note that to maintain these weapons in the reserve also has a cost that would be cancelled with their return to active service.

The solution for the crews of the towed weapons going to the reserve can be their introduction in the training prograns for weapons of the new platforms, that would be a process that can be independent.

The design and development of new heavy weapons very likely will be reduced to the new platforms. Almost all the artillery (self-propelled, of course) on the new platforms must emerge still.

Instead, the design of a new man-portable grenade launcher of 76mm for use in the SPG-9 mold is likely.

eehnie wrote:

d_taddei2 wrote:The new idea would be much much cheaper to design produce test train and maintain

Design costs of the replacement by weapons of the reserve = 0
Production costs of the replacement by weapons of the reserve = 0
Test costs of the replacement by weapons of the reserve = 0
Cost of the tank transport vehicles that Russia also has in the reserve = 0
Train costs of the crews from the reserve of the weapons from the reserve = very low
Costs of maintenance in active service of the weapons from the reserve = Much lower than the design, test, production and train (of the instructors first and of the crews later) costs of a new weapon. To note that to maintain these weapons in the reserve also has a cost that would be cancelled with their return to active service.

The solution for the crews of the towed weapons going to the reserve can be their introduction in the training prograns for weapons of the new platforms, that would be a process that can be independent.

The design and development of new heavy weapons very likely will be reduced to the new platforms. Almost all the artillery (self-propelled, of course) on the new platforms must emerge still.

Instead, the design of a new man-portable grenade launcher of 76mm for use in the SPG-9 mold is likely.

of course you forget about upgrading the tanks to the current standard which isn't cheap. overhauling and tanks and tank transporters do cost money. And you also have to think actually monetary terms to produce the new weapon bearing in mind that it's already 90% done one system would cost less than an upgrade on a tank. And of course you forget to mention a tank cannot cover the same roles. tank direct fire role and ATGW system the tank cannot due to elevation be a mortar or artillery like the new system and cannot be transported like the new system. and of course your costs are short sighted. 

Because as I mentioned earlier on a previous post you take the costs over 5yrs of overhauling upgrading training including ongoing training, wages, support elements, maintenance for a t-72 vs a towed system in those areas and even buying the system included would still be cheaper and you also have new weapon covering multiple roles allowing you to streamline systems in service and calibre. And then you have the export potential sales. 

As for training MT-12 crews that still costs money to train themail on something new a new platform whatever your suggesting? a SP unit?  what your suggesting is get crews from the reserve (tank crews) up skill/training on upgraded tank and then take MT-12 crews to train on new platforms so what you have actually done is increased service personnel of the Armed forces because you haven't made any redundancies but taken crews from the reserve and made them in full time service or have you abandoned the idea of bringing crews from the reserve in between your last post???? 
Also the human element when people join the military they tend to join a unit which they want to serve in some want to be tank crews some don't etc. changing MT-12 crew to something totally alien let's say a tank wouldn't cause retention problems and morale problems. At least the new system would still be similar to MT-12. infantry units in the uk spent 2-3 yrs in various roles light infantry were based on 4x4 and trucks, armoured in warrior ifv and mechanised in saxons although this has likely changed to MRAP. but at the end of the we infantry the type of transportation didnt change that fact, but i remember when we were waiting to find out if we were going armoured or mechanised as we had been light infantry for some years and when it was announced we were going to be mechanised morale dropped because nobody wanted to be in a saxon they were death traps and werent designed fir such role they were designed for the streets of northern ireland not in the field they were crude and old terrible off road and had habit over tipping over causing injury and even death.  This is based on my time in the forces. sometimes you have sit back people aren't robots lol. 

Also I presume because u haven't quoted my point on Russia not selecting your tank option as a replacement because if they had they would have done it by now point. just asking that's all. 

The article on the new spg-9 mentioned anti tank gun type design not a grenade launcher. A grenade launcher using 76mm rounds I can't imagine it being very man portable and the number of rounds a grenade launcher tends to carry as well. The new spg -9 system I believe is to be lighter than current one no mention of calibre it could possibly be reduced nothing mentioned yet. GarryB mentioned 57mm launcher was mentioned in the making. I know one of the complaints of spg -9 was weight and imagine that they will address that in the new one.


Also another point on towed V's SP systems is weight and I don't just mean in transportation methods available as we have already mentioned that but in terms of bridges. Many countries often have in rural areas small bridges. In my area of Scotland we have bridges that have has little as 10 ton limit most 15-20ton limit. A towed system the truck and gun weight is spread out and weights a lot less than a SP systems. 2S19 42 tons would have very few options and will most areas having deep rivers or banks too steep meaning 2S19 routes would be predictable. even the 2S1 at 16 tons would still be very limited and likely would avoid even 20ton bridges because bridges weight limits are likely based on trucks and not the concentrated weights armoured vehicles are like. on top of that numerous armoured vehicles going over bridges that are centuries old wouldn't be good to test a bridge limit that comes near to the weight of ur vehicles. and in the case of the MT-12 and truck weight or even with an MT-LB V's a T-72 you be looking at around 30 ton difference.

You talk like if the (M)T-12 would be to remain longer in active service than the 9P149 based on MT-LB, but this is very unlikely. The number of Khrizantema based on BMP-3 is too low to replace them, and Russia is moving to new platforms for future procurement.

It think they will be replacing the Ataka missiles before they replace the T-12... its replacement is already here... though the Krisantema is more expensive because it uses radar... but even their new tanks have radar sensors, so I suspect in the Armata divisions they will have an armata platform with Krizantema missiles... it might also carry Shturm and Ataka missiles as cheaper alternatives that are similar in size and shape to make it a more universal platform.

The real question is... front line... first line units that will get Armata... do they get T-12 or is it just in backwater units or mountain units... do the first line units get more missiles or different towed weapons, and equally what will the lower readiness units use when there are no more rounds for the T-12... I can't really see them putting the ammo back into production... it is a stop gap weapon that is used because it is there and it is free and it is still useful... what are they going to spend money on to replace it?

In fact the reserve of BMP-1 would be 0. The large reserves exist, approximately in the reported numbers, but are all of BMP-2 instead.

That does not surprise me because as I mentioned the BMP-2 did not replace the BMP-1 in service... they stayed in front line units together because they complimented each other, each with strengths and weaknesses that overlapped and made more sense to use together instead or one or the other.

There would be quite a few support vehicles based on the BMP-1 chassis too so in terms of cannibalising old chassis to keep other ones going there should be plenty of options.

If they wanted 100 % SP they could easily take out of storage SP systems but there's a reason why they haven't.

In some roles simpler, lighter cheaper towed systems get the job done and keep operational and maintenance costs down.

Not every rifleman needs a high performance sniper rifle either.

Instead, the design of a new man-portable grenade launcher of 76mm for use in the SPG-9 mold is likely.

I would suspect that would be unlikely... first of all they are just about to introduce the 40mm balkan automatic grenade launcher, and they also have a 57mm grenade launcher if you need longer range or heavier payload... and if that is not enough then the 82mm automatic mortar could be updated or adapted to belt feed or some such thing.

The advantage of the SPG-9 is it is a recoilless rifle so relatively high velocity so it is easier to hit point targets out to extended ranges.

Another option could be the SOSNA missile... it is rather small and compact, yet offers rather high velocity and can hit point targets out to 10km with a flight time to that range of about 12 seconds.

At 30 kgs the missile itself is actually lighter than any model Kornet, though the addition of the launch tube makes it a 42kg weapon comparable with Ataka or Krisantema...

Maybe a new scramjet powered weapon could combine long range accuracy with kinetic effect in one package...

In 10 years time there should be lots of stocks of unused SOSNA missiles that could be used up this way...

d_taddei2, your keyboard supports every thing, but the reality is different:

As example, about the need or not of modernization of the tanks:

1.- Actually in the Russian Armed Forces there are tanks modernized and non-modernized in active service. Modernization is not a requirement, and the tanks without modernization are still inside the standards.

2.- To select the 526 (approsimately) best tanks between a reserve in the order of tens of thousands of tanks in storage gives a fairly good sample.

3.- The same about the crews of the tanks in the reserve.

4.- In every unit there are tanks of at least 2 variants of the same model, because the command post is not like the rest. Neither to be all tanks of the same variant would be a requirement.

5.- Despite it, it would be easy to use tanks of the same variant in the same unit, thanks to the large reserves of most of the variants.

6.- Actually there is a process of modernization of tanks, that is independent of a potential replacement of the towed artillery, and would continue being independent.

1.- Actually in the Russian Armed Forces there are tanks modernized and non-modernized in active service. Modernization is not a requirement, and the tanks without modernization are still inside the standards.

I don't agree... the new training and doctrine of the army means they need better communications in vehicles... including being able to communicate to drones etc, and they also need upgraded viewing systems because they are now quite likely going to be expected to be able to fight at night as well as during day time and defensive systems like NERA and APS systems will increase armour performance without adding weight... while mass production and deployment of ERA and APS systems should help reduce their cost and make them fairly standard equipment across the armed forces.

GarryB wrote:

1.- Actually in the Russian Armed Forces there are tanks modernized and non-modernized in active service. Modernization is not a requirement, and the tanks without modernization are still inside the standards.

I don't agree... the new training and doctrine of the army means they need better communications in vehicles... including being able to communicate to drones etc, and they also need upgraded viewing systems because they are now quite likely going to be expected to be able to fight at night as well as during day time and defensive systems like NERA and APS systems will increase armour performance without adding weight... while mass production and deployment of ERA and APS systems should help reduce their cost and make them fairly standard equipment across the armed forces.

Today is quite obvious that not all the tanks in active service have been modernized.

The process of modernization of tanks is going forward independently, like said in other of the points.

Russia wants to raise the level but this has not been achieved still.

Russia also will raise the standards for the (M)T-12 that are lower by far than for a T-72 without modernization, as example.

GarryB wrote:

You talk like if the (M)T-12 would be to remain longer in active service than the 9P149 based on MT-LB, but this is very unlikely. The number of Khrizantema based on BMP-3 is too low to replace them, and Russia is moving to new platforms for future procurement.

It think they will be replacing the Ataka missiles before they replace the T-12... its replacement is already here... though the Krisantema is more expensive because it uses radar... but even their new tanks have radar sensors, so I suspect in the Armata divisions they will have an armata platform with Krizantema missiles... it might also carry Shturm and Ataka missiles as cheaper alternatives that are similar in size and shape to make it a more universal platform.

The real question is... front line... first line units that will get Armata... do they get T-12 or is it just in backwater units or mountain units... do the first line units get more missiles or different towed weapons, and equally what will the lower readiness units use when there are no more rounds for the T-12... I can't really see them putting the ammo back into production... it is a stop gap weapon that is used because it is there and it is free and it is still useful... what are they going to spend money on to replace it?

The replacement of the towed artillery is also there, and since longer time.

The reality is that Russia stopped developping towed artillery systems in the late 1980s, and since then, did nothing in this area, unlike in the rest.

The reality is that the D-30 has been totally removed from the Russian Army, and the replacement has been just... the 2S1.

Today, between all the branches of the Russian Armed Forces only about 1050 pieces of towed artillery remain in active service, about a half of them (M)T-12:

Russian Army:
150 Msta-B <------> 150 2S19 Msta-S
100 Nona-K <------> 100 2S23 Nona-SVK
526 (M)T-12 <------> 526 T-90, T-72, T-80
776 Total

Russian Naval Infantry:
50 Msta-B <------> 50 2S5 Giatsint-S
50 Giatsint-B <-----> 50 2S5 Giatsint-S
24 Nona-K <------> 24 2S23 Nona-SVK
0+ (M)T-12 <-----> 0+ T-72, T-80
124+ Total

Russian Airborne Troops:
150 D-30 <------> 150 2S1
150 Total

In relative terms, the Russian Army is more advanced than other branches in the replacement of the towed artillery by self propelled artillery. In a moment when the reserve of D-30 and Nona-K are 0, and there is a need of help to allies with them, with (M)T-12 and even with some Msta-B, makes sense to move all them to the reserve and use them for aid in the following decade.

For the shor-term and the mid-term this replacement is fine. Veteran weapons to work with other weapons of the same age.

For the long therm, artillery weapons based on the new platforms are emerging, and the model in which are emerging is in line with this potential change.

We know at this point that Russia wants units where all the weapons are on a single platform. Which is the meaning of it for the towed artillery? Obviously Russia is not talking about Armata, Kurganets, Bumerang or BMD-4(M) tractors of towed artillery, this is quite absurd. Obviously is fairly better to mount the weapons on the platforms.

And in the refered to the tank/anti-tank weapons we know that all the tank/anti-tank weapons of a new unit are likely to be mounted in the same platform. Which is the meaning of this for the tanks and anti-tank weapons of these units? Tank and anti-tank weapons share the same weapons today. In the refered to tanks, obviously an armata platfor with a 125mm weapon mounted is a tank. How would be the anti-tank weapons in mounted in armata platform? Just the same 125mm mounted on the same armata platforms. Anti-tank weapons on armata platform are also tanks.

For the Kurganets platform? Both tank and anti-tank designs lead to the same weapon of 125mm mounted on the Kurganets platform. In this case would not be considered a tank, but an anti-tank weapon. Some are calling them light tank.

For the Bumerang platform? Both tank and anti-tank designs lead to the same weapon of 125mm mounted on the Bumerang platform. In this case would not be considered a tank, but an anti-tank weapon. Some are calling them light tank.

For the BMD-4(M) platform? Both tank and anti-tank designs lead to the same weapon of 125mm mounted on the BMD-4(M) platform. In this case would not be considered a tank, but an anti-tank weapon. Some are calling them light tank. In this case the design has been presented, is the 2S25 SDM1.

Total standardization of platforms can not be achieved in units of the previous platforms, but to unify the tank and anti-tank roles like will be unified in the units of the modern platforms is doable in the short-term, and surely will be done at some point.

PS: vvvvvvv

eehnie wrote:d_taddei2, your keyboard supports every thing, but the reality is different:

As example, about the need or not of modernization of the tanks:

1.- Actually in the Russian Armed Forces there are tanks modernized and non-modernized in active service. Modernization is not a requirement, and the tanks without modernization are still inside the standards.

2.- To select the 526 (approsimately) best tanks between a reserve in the order of tens of thousands of tanks in storage gives a fairly good sample.

3.- The same about the crews of the tanks in the reserve.

4.- In every unit there are tanks of at least 2 variants of the same model, because the command post is not like the rest. Neither to be all tanks of the same variant would be a requirement.

5.- Despite it, it would be easy to use tanks of the same variant in the same unit, thanks to the large reserves of most of the variants.

6.- Actually there is a process of modernization of tanks, that is independent of a potential replacement of the towed artillery, and would continue being independent.

Firstly am glad u agree with my points in my two previous posts apart from tank modernization. 

However this is where you lack the human element and ex servicemen element not ur fault though because u have never served  (and that wasn't an insult) but firstly increasing the number of tanks in service increases the cost of the rolling modernization program. 
Secondly the moral in troops and commanders will be damaged as I said people join the army to pursue a certain career and tanks may not be it. Also Russia I believe have a maximum height for tank crews
 5ft 9 I might be wrong so which means anyone in MT -12  units above that cannot be with their unit. Also troops and commanders will not be happy having to operate non upgraded tanks just like my example of troops being given saxon weren't happy. 

And I revert back to the point of if Russia wanted this tank option for replacement then why haven't they done it???

As for towed artillery production the reason nothing has been produced is two reasons one they last a long time and towed artillery is quite simply towed artillery not much can be done to upgrade such a system and secondly no new guns have come into service including SP. We may yet still see a towed version of 2s35. 

Also do you have a source stating D-30 is no longer in service with Russia as I haven't seen anything. be nice to get an update.

Finally the reality comes to put the end to another long time discussion (not only in this topic).

Some people has not been able to understand why Russia has not been working in the development of new towed artillery. Russia is not interested on it.

The replacements previewed are being done approximately like predicted, while the arguments agaisnt of other people fall wrong away of the reality.

eehnie wrote:Today, between all the branches of the Russian Armed Forces only about 1050 pieces of towed artillery remain in active service, about a half of them (M)T-12:

Russian Army:
150 Msta-B <------> 150 2S19 Msta-S
100 Nona-K <------> 100 2S23 Nona-SVK
526 (M)T-12 <------> 526 T-90, T-72, T-80
776 Total

Russian Naval Infantry:
50 Msta-B <------> 50 2S5 Giatsint-S
50 Giatsint-B <-----> 50 2S5 Giatsint-S
24 Nona-K <------> 24 2S23 Nona-SVK
0+ (M)T-12 <-----> 0+ T-72, T-80
124+ Total

Russian Airborne Troops:
150 D-30 <------> 150 2S1
150 Total

https://www.russiadefence.net/t7032p125-state-armament-program-2018-2027#247180

franco wrote:Artillery

 The development of rocket and artillery troops can be divided into 2 areas: 1) this is the development of brigade and divisional artillery of motorized rifle and tank forces and 2) the development of reinforcement artillery brigades.
 In the first direction, the transfer of artillery systems to the formed motorized rifle brigades and divisions continued. Thus, in the 30th motorized rifle brigade of the 2nd Guards Combined Arms Army of the Central Military District received 15 units of Tornado-G multiple rocket launcher systems, and about 20 units of the modernized Mortar Forces of the Sledge entered the armament of 150 motorized rifle divisions of the Southern Military District.
The artillery division 55 of the mountain motorized rifle brigade of the Central Military District was re-equipped with 120-mm self-propelled guns "Nona-SVK". The Nona-SVK guns, the most effective in mountainous terrain, are designed to destroy targets at a distance of up to 12.5 km. They are capable of firing with adjustable projectiles with a probability of hitting 0.8–0.9 from closed positions and direct fire. It is possible to shoot all kinds of 120 mm min, including foreign production. A separate unit of unmanned aircraft was also formed as part of the artillery division, which was armed with the Orlan-10 unmanned aerial vehicle systems (UAVs) designed to detect enemy command posts from radio emissions within a radius of up to 120 km, as well as short-range aerial reconnaissance and observation complexes Aileron-3 ″, capable of exploration in all weather conditions.
 But the main attention, as far as it can be understood, the Ministry of Defense is currently devoting to the formation of new artillery brigades, as well as to increasing the capabilities of existing ones. With the beginning of the 2018 school year, two high-powered battalions were introduced into the state of artillery brigades, namely, the 240-mm self-propelled mortar of the 2S4 Tulip in the Orenburg region and the 203-mm self-propelled gun of the 2S7M Malka (12 units) in Kemerovo area. Also, during the course of 2018, 236 artillery brigades were re-equipped with modern weapons, namely, the MTA-B towed howitzers 2A65 were replaced with the Msta-S modernized 2S19M2. The artillery of this brigade received Shturm anti-tank missile systems. The 58th Army of the Southern Military District, deployed in the North Caucasus, received more than 30 advanced 152-mm self-propelled artillery mounts 2S19M2 "Msta-S" (SAU "Msta-S). Also, in all artillery divisions, they began to form units of UAVs. The companies armed with the UAV Orlan-10 and Eleron appeared in the 227th artillery brigade of the Southern Military District and the artillery formations of the Central Military District. In the past year, the gunners of the Central Military District received the Aistenok radar complexes and the Orlan-10 unmanned aerial vehicles. UAVs provide air reconnaissance and target detection, as well as real-time adjustment of artillery fire at maximum ranges - up to 40 kilometers.
 In addition, 18 units of military equipment entered the Saratov military training center (artillery): five Acacia self-propelled howitzers, four Msta-B towed howitzers, six Hyacinth self-propelled guns and two Hyacinth towed guns -B ". The training center was also equipped with a SNAR-10 mobile radar reconnaissance station. The 631st combat training center (artillery) is the only place in the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation for training junior specialists for artillery units. It annually for the troops prepare more than 1 thousand soldiers and sergeants. The Penza branch of the Military Academy of Material and Technical Support (MTO) received a launcher and transport-loading machine of the Iskander-M operational-tactical missile complex (PTRK).

The replacement of towed artillery by self propelled artillery is a fact in Russia today.

eehnie wrote:

GarryB wrote:

eehnie wrote:1.- Actually in the Russian Armed Forces there are tanks modernized and non-modernized in active service. Modernization is not a requirement, and the tanks without modernization are still inside the standards.

I don't agree... the new training and doctrine of the army means they need better communications in vehicles... including being able to communicate to drones etc, and they also need upgraded viewing systems because they are now quite likely going to be expected to be able to fight at night as well as during day time and defensive systems like NERA and APS systems will increase armour performance without adding weight... while mass production and deployment of ERA and APS systems should help reduce their cost and make them fairly standard equipment across the armed forces.

Today is quite obvious that not all the tanks in active service have been modernized.

The process of modernization of tanks is going forward independently, like said in other of the points.

https://www.russiadefence.net/t7032p125-state-armament-program-2018-2027#247180

franco wrote:In addition, new parts are being formed by transferring tanks from storage. For example, in the Kaliningrad region, 11th tank regiment were formed, which received T-72B arcs. 1985

The return to the active service of tanks not-modernized is also a fact in Russia today.