Russian Ground Forces: News #1

The situation with the BMPT is pretty strange.

I personally believe that the concept of the BMPT derives from the fact that a BMP type vehicle in a heavy brigade will be next to impossible to create as the internal volume is greatly reduced with the heavier armour, so putting BMP level firepower, while retaining MBT protection means that there is no space left for the Troops... and being a troop transport that would be bad.

My personal take initially was that the BMPT was an attempt to keep BMP firepower (ie 30mm cannon and 100mm rifled HE firepower in weapons capable of high elevation to hit targets tank guns can't elevate to hit) but in a vehicle with MBT level protection without the dangerous mixture of crew/troops and large amounts of ammo.
This would mean that in the heavy brigade, you would have a BTR-T heavy troop transport with maybe a single 30mm cannon and coaxial PKT, and instead of the BMPT carrying heavy gun armament and troops it would just carry heavy armament. This fire support type vehicle could help tanks operate more independently from infantry support, and also be a useful vehicle for convoy escort or in lower intensity operations in place of a MBT as it would be a gun platform with MBT level armour, but its weapons would be more versatile and useful than a tanks gun.

Then Medo pointed out that the Soviets and Russians often used anti aircraft gun vehicles in the direct fire ground support role... including the BTR-40 with twin 14.5mm HMGs which was designed from the start to engage both ground and air targets, on through the ZSU-57-2, ZSU-23-4, and Tunguska.

I think the Russians themselves are not totally sure what they want, but one of the 'stans (Kazahstan I think) has actually bought some BMPTs, so they do have some future. I personally think a change in weapons would be useful.

The new Armata chassis which the final BMPT will be based on will have three crew positions in the front hull, so I think a redesign of the turret to add more ammo below the turret ring and perhaps allow the replacement of the two single 30mm 2A42 cannon with a single GSh-30K twin barrel cannon that can fire either at 300 rounds per minute allowing single shots to be fired, or 2,000 rounds per minute to be fired when real firepower is needed, plus the addition of the 100mm gun from the BMP-3 which has very compact and efficient ammo choices including guided missiles would greatly add to the firepower of the vehicle. If you look back through this thread I have discussed this several times already... \

The idea of the brigades is chassis unification, so upgrading T-72s costs the least at the moment yet gives them a tank with the night vision and communications and data sharing capability of a new T-90 are far less cost. They probably have 10,000 T-72s, which means they will have a lot of chassis for the other vehicles in each heavy brigade. It would not make sense to just use the T-72 chassis for BMPTs as they are slightly different from T-90s and the soon to enter service Armatas. If you use T-72s and T-80s and T-90s... which they want to do initially it makes sense to make each heavy brigade homogenious... so a unit with T-80 MBTs should have T-80 chassis for all the other vehicles in that brigade so the logistics tail for that particular brigade needs T-80 components and tools and equipment.
There will be upgraded T-72 brigades, T-90 Brigades, T-80 brigades, and these will be replaced in time by Armata brigades when they are ready.

Being the top tank the Armata will likely enter service in the hot spots and danger areas first so Armata will likely start replacing T-90s and T-80s, but unless those vehicles are damaged or worn out then they will likely be sent to other units to replace older more obsolete vehicles.

Ok. Ur a Armata fan, I get it.

I really think that BMPT could be a very useful tool, if used right.

So can anyone give a rough idea of the specs of the Armata? Or does that belong in another thread?

The Russian military has decided it needs a jump in technology, so currently it is funding in two directions... upgrades of existing equipment to eliminate as many obvious problems with existing stuff as possible without a complete redesign is one direction and has resulted in, or will result in the AK-200, T-90AM, upgraded T-72s, Su-35, Mig-35, Mi-35M2, Mi-28M, BTR-82, etc etc. The other direction is brand new from the ground up systems/vehicles/equipment, with a focus on high tech and modularity and commonality. They are designing from scratch a new family of small arms, the Armata heavy vehicle chassis base, the PAK FA, an new unified attack helo, and Boomerang respectively.

With relatively cheap stuff like BTR-82s and T-72 upgrades it makes sense to start production now because they improve performance, they get the factories producing something, but ultimately teh Boomerang is going to be a 25 ton amphibious wheeled vehicle with a rear ramp door for troops to exit rapidly and easily, so once it is ready to produce then production of the BTR-82 will stop or be for export only. When Armata is ready then funding will likely go into producing those, but upgrading T-72s will be much cheaper and will dramatically improve performance cheaply so might continue.

The Armata is basically just a ground up revision of Russian tank design taking lessons from the use of T-72s in combat and the experience gained in making the T-95.
It is not a tank as such, but a vehicle chassis base that will be used for the entire heavy tank brigade... including tank models, artillery models, command models, APC models etc, with a new engine designed to be updated and giving a power rating of 1,200hp right up to 2,400hp depending on the model for different performance and mobility figures.

The purpose of the Armata vehicle family is to replace all current tanks and support vehicles for use in heavy brigades.
Boomerang and Kurganets-25 are 25 ton wheeled and tracked respectively amphibious vehicles that will be used in medium brigades and each vehicle base will have a family of variants too including a light tank model, etc.
The Typhoon is the light brigade family vehicle for fast highly mobile light brigades...

I think the BMPT will certainly be a very useful vehicle, though there are plenty of different prototypes with different armament options... of which I would personally prefer a BMP-3 based armament but with the BMPTs sights and armament layout.

We discuss this earlier in this thread, and also in this thread:

http://russiadefence.forumotion.com/t1613-future-of-russian-ifv-bmpt

Are the heavy brigades going to be based on the tanks, and the medium brigades going to be based on the motor rifles?

I don't know for sure, but I assume they will use the same structure... ie there will either be 3 types of brigades or there will be 6.

There will definitely be Heavy, Medium, and Light Brigades that will have Tank, heavy BMP, and BTR/BRDM level armour and performance.

The previous structures had Motor Rifle and Tank based units... all units had tanks and armour personel carriers, but tank units had more tanks and less infantry, while the motor rifle units were infantry heavy.

The question is... will they use the Heavy brigades like tank brigades, and medium brigades like infantry brigades, with the light brigades as light highly mobile light forces, or will there be heavy tank and heavy motor rifle, and medium tank and medium motor rifle units. Light units will probably already have heavy firepower to make up for the lack of armour and will already be so specialised that tank and motor rifle light brigades are redundant.

Note that because of reduced force numbers all units will need to be strategically and theatre mobile... whether under their own power, by rail, by air, or by ship... obviously easier with the medium and light units, but I think they will start to get a lot more funding for heavy transport aircraft and transport aircraft in general.

Another question I have is what will Amphibious and Airborne forces get... will they still get customised vehicle families, or will they have to use standard Army vehicles.

The Medium vehicles are both 25 ton class vehicles, which makes them up to 7 tons heavier than the BMP-3, so they are not likely to be air droppable, but they are both amphibious so the Navy can use them too. The VDV might need their own specialised vehicles or they might use the vehicles developed for the Light Brigades... ie the Typhoon family. (note this family is not related to the recently revealed Taifun truck from Kamaz)

So, the (future) heavy brigades are basically (current) tank brigades, and the (future) medium brigades are basically (current) motor rifle brigades. The (future) light brigades are basically a derivative of (current) VDV units.

Here's an idea. Why not equip the heavy/tank brigades with MBT's (T-90Ms), to be supported by a lot of IFV's and BMPT-type vehicles. As for the medium/motor rifle brigades their main strength can be IFV's but they can be supported by light tanks, (the Sprut-SD with improvements, especially regarding it's armour, is a good choice IMO). The light brigades can have Tigr's and/or improved BTR's as their main vehicle.

I didn't take into account any of the very recent developments or the planned developments, like the Armata, to keep things realistic (just in case the Armata becomes a total disaster or something).

So, the (future) heavy brigades are basically (current) tank brigades, and the (future) medium brigades are basically (current) motor rifle brigades. The (future) light brigades are basically a derivative of (current) VDV units.

Not really.

Tank units are tank heavy, but still include infantry and all the other elements of the infantry units. A tank unit is a tank unit because it has a higher proportion of tanks and smaller proportion of infantry vehicles and infantry.
A Motor Rifle unit has more IFVs and APCs and fewer tanks, but it still has tanks for firepower and direct organic heavy fire support.

Infantry heavy forces are useful for certain missions, while in other missions tank heavy units are more useful.

The Heavy Brigades will likely be operating in urban areas in full scale wars where every vehicle needs MBT level protection including the APCs

The Medium Brigades will be more mobile but as the wheeled and tracked vehicles will be in the 25 ton range they will likely be much better armoured than the current BMP-3 (18 tons) or the current BTR-82 (14 tons or so). The new vehicles will likely be bigger vehicles with better armour, but they are vehicle family vehicles so there will be an artillery model, an air defence model, a command vehicle model, a tank version with a heavy gun, a BTR version with light armament and a BMP version with heavier armament.

Medium brigades might use all wheeled Boomerang vehicles in areas where the roads are good, while Kurganets-25 tracked vehicles in siberia or where there are few roads.

The more I think about it the more I think they will likely have tank heavy and Infantry heavy heavy brigades, and tank heavy and infantry heavy medium brigades, and tank/fire support vehicle heavy and infantry heavy light brigades.

This means that for a specific mission they could adopt the force best suited to the situation.

For instance fighting in an urban area like Grozny would require the best armour, so you would take a heavy brigade there, but fighting in a built up area well prepared by an enemy that knows what it is doing requires lots of infantry, so a motor rifle heavy brigade would be my choice for an attack... obviously with lots of air power and artillery support.

Defending an urban area on the other hand I might go for a heavy tank brigade.

Obviously it also depends on who you are dealing with... against well equipped Chechen terrorists you want heavy armour, but against Georgian forces the extra mobility of a medium brigade might improve results especially with Glonass navigation and excellent communications systems and decent recon and artillery assets.

I didn't take into account any of the very recent developments or the planned developments, like the Armata, to keep things realistic (just in case the Armata becomes a total disaster or something).

The entire concept they are working on is unification of platforms and chassis. Driving in to Grozny they found the BMPs were the only vehicles that could elevate their main weapons to hit the terrorists in the upper floors of buildings, but the thinner armour of the BMPs meant they were knocked out fairly quickly, leaving the tanks with their HMGs being the only weapons able to elevate to hit the targets. Firing from above and the vulnerable sides and rear it was only a matter of time before they hit fuel or ammo or something important like the engine and started a fire.

In a heavy brigade the BMPs will be as hard to take out as the tanks, but will be able to fire back.

Obviously a better solution is to not drive tanks like they are on a parade straight into a trap that is a well prepared city.

The real concept however is that they will have three different fundamental types of brigade... one will be heavy, but will be very well protected, while the other two will trade protection for mobility and speed.

Without seeing the vehicle families and their armament it is very hard to say what sort of firepower they will have, but they will really only be properly implemented when the new vehicle families are ready.

In the mean time with T-72s getting upgrades I would expect they will convert quite a few to BTR-T for troop transport in the heavy brigades. The future of the BMP-T is less certain... having MSTA (T-72 based) support using Glonass guided shells, the firepower of the Brigade will actually be pretty good as although they will be losing a lot of direct fire firepower, that will largely be made up with on call 152mm firepower which should be much better coordinated with the brigade than before as specific targets can be engaged with the push of a few buttons to hit point targets, whereas before they hit area targets with much more indiscriminate fire.

That went a little bit over my head, but I think I got the gist of it.

Do the Spetsnaz brigades have tanks? I mean do they have tanks as part of their unit, instead of having to rely on tanks from other units?

Do the Spetsnaz brigades have tanks? I mean do they have tanks as part of their unit, instead of having to rely on tanks from other units?

Generally no. The work they do, like sabotage, recon, assassination, etc doesn't really require heavy armour.

If they need to attack a submarine base for example, they are more likely to sneak inside with a backpack nuke that assault it with a formation of heavy vehicles... remember these guys often swim ashore or come in by parachute, so while a vehicle would greatly improve their mobility they will generally steal something locally rather than bring it with them.

The VDV have light tanks in the form of the Sprut or Octopus.

It is a BMD-2 or BMD-3 chassis with a full power 125mm gun that can fire the full range of 125mm ammo... and is fully air droppable and amphibious. It looks like a neat little vehicle to me.

In GurKhan Blog he has mentioned that Russia refused a request from Iran to lic produce 1000 T-90S tank for political reason , what a pity to loose such a big deal.

US has no such political compulsion when it sells to Saudi and Israel , No wonder Iran has little trust in Russia.

You can't really compare Americas relationship with saudi arabia and Israel with Russias relationship with Iran.

America needs Saudi oil but Israel has the US around its little finger. The US gives Saudi Arabia high tech stuff to keep them in line and pretend they are not anti arab.

Iran and Russia are not buddies and never have been. In WWII Britain and the Soviets invaded Iran to move lend lease supplies to the Soviets. When the Soviets were in Afghanistan, the Iranians and Pakistanis each had their favourite opposition groups who both fought against the Soviets.

The Chechens that were a problem for Russia were generally sunni muslims, so Saudi Arabia and Pakistan were the problem there for the Russians... not the Iranian Shia muslims.

The simple facts are that Russia and Iran are not best buddies and neither owes the other anything.

If the Russians didn't want the Iranians to produce T-90S tanks it is probably because they feared China getting hold of secrets regarding its armour... keep in mind that the T-90s armour is pretty darn good even now, and with ERA it manages to be comparable to much heavier western armour arrangements.

I can imagine UVZ being a little peeved however... when the Russian military wont buy lots of T-90AM tanks but also wont let them sell to Iran T-90S tanks either...

Perhaps Iran should ask to buy all 2,000 operational Russian T-80 tanks and spares and support equipment in a joint deal with the Ukraine while they are still friendly. The Ukraine could upgrade them with new engines, and supply parts to support them in operation.

This would let the Russians get rid of the T-80s... which are good tanks, but with the money they could buy perhaps 500 T-90AM tanks for themselves.

This would give Iran a good tank, whose armour has already been compromised to China through Pakistan, and remove another nondomestic tank from the Russian inventory.

Haha Check the Ajai Shukla Guy with his Article , you might have to select the article becuase of colour contrast in fonts incase if you browser does not displays it fully.

http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2008/08/t-72-vulnerability-again-illustrated-in.html

Check GAZ reply

GAZ said...

Once again, the same bullshit as in gulf war...

All of you are wrong, you don't know anything of T tanks, The georgian tanks we see here are T-72M, covered with contact-1 era, these are tanks bought from Tchecoslovaquia, local versions. Their internal systems are the same as 1970's soviet T72, no any modern FCS or computer. Their armor are not composite, just steel, covered with that ERA, they are little bit more resistant to HEAT small charges, but not tandem. They are absolutely vulnerable to russian tank ammunitions, such as 3BM42/44/48 APFSDS. I bet their ammo was from 1980/1990's era.

Russians employed in this war T72B, the latest version from 1988, with a strong composite armor, modern aquisition systems, computer etc... New autoloader, reliable, and were all covered, with ERA contact 1, or heavy era contact-5 (T72BV and T72BM). If you didn't know, Not any russian MBT was lost in the 8 days war.

Such T72 versions (T72BV) were used in second chechen war, and proved to be resistant to AT chechen fire. Just a little story : Platoon of 3 T72BV in grozny, supporting infantry to take a zone held by chechen infantery/snipers.

During the battle all three tanks were hit by RPG-7 rounds, and in particular, one of them took 3 ATGM AT3 "sagger", and 6 RPG7 rounds, all in the front and flank of the vehicle. It managed to reply, and crew left the tank (hydrolic system HS), no crew injured. the tank was repaired and few days after returned to combat.
The tank had penetration on the flank (that didn't lead to any dammage), and all around, the tandem era + composite armour worked perfectly.

One more thing, the explosing internal ammo is a bullshit, in russian tanks, the rounds are in carroussel only, not in habitacle or turret, this is protected by heayvy front armor and lateral road weels + era + armor.

As you can see on photos, georgian tanks were totaly destroyed, either by APFSDS, but much more by aerial attacks from SU25.

T-80U and T90 are even better protected than T72BM.


Russia used T62 in the war, but not against tank, the gun of it was able to knock the georgians T72; but its armor couldn't stop a heavy AT round

Hahahaha... he is right... whoever he is.

Yes, he got most of it... though modest...

Didn't know where to post this, but saw a good post on a forum:
Photos of MT-LB with the 30mm turret, confirmed in these units:

17th OMCBR
http://i064.radikal.ru/1201/51/a8c7d37eabdf.jpg
http://s48.radikal.ru/i121/1112/a5/665cdd3415dc.jpg

136th OMCBR
http://s017.radikal.ru/i417/1201/1e/7a93be02decf.jpg
http://s017.radikal.ru/i427/1201/35/bf02f07a7b99.jpg

19th OMCBR
http://s017.radikal.ru/i433/1111/ac/ae49201d8d5e.jpg

27th OMCBR
http://i080.radikal.ru/1201/85/6354307d5051.jpg
http://s018.radikal.ru/i523/1201/11/3abbfcbff645.jpg

Interesting.

It would not be any better armoured than a BTR, but it would have better mobility over rough ground at the cost of higher operational costs for the tracked vehicle.

So in many ways this is a BTR-82 with better mobility in poor terrain.

Cheaper than a BMP, and with the reasonable firepower of perhaps a BTR-82A.

Yep, all, or almost all of the units that received the modernized vehicle are mountain, kavkaz based units. Makes sense.

Russian Army Buys Cutting-Edge Mine Detectors

RIA Novosti

13:21 23/01/2012

MOSCOW, January 23 (RIA Novosti) - The Russian Defense Ministry has begun buying a new mine-detection device able to spot inactivated mines, hidden underground or inside buildings, Southern Military District spokesman Colonel Igor Gorbul said on Monday.

The Korshun (Hawk) mobile mine detector, which only weighs 5 kg, is capable of detecting mines containing radio-electronic components and explosives at a distance, and can operate in temperatures down to minus 50 degrees Celsius (minus 58 degrees Fahrenheit), the ministry official said.

The ministry has already bought over 100 Korshun locators for infantry units in Russia's southern Stavropol and Volgograd regions and military bases in Armenia, Ukraine, South Ossetia and Abkhazia, Gorbul said.

Russia’s volatile North Caucasus republics are one of the most heavily mined Russian regions.

In October 2011 Chechen leader, Ramzan Kadyrov said over 2, 000 people, including 150 children, had been killed by mines in Chechnya, but did not say since when.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/russia/2012/russia-120123-rianovosti04.htm

http://twower.livejournal.com/719556.html

Great photo report by Twower, of the 6th tank brigade.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Y-iLisYeHgs

Good video. New MSTA SPGs in Chechnya, as well as the newly modernized T-72s.
One downside is there is the stupid ERA gap where the Luna projector used to be.
Does the vehicle even need the Luna, it has Sosna fire control and thermals.
Otherwise clips look good, vehicle moves well for a loaded vehicle.
Not quite like an empty T-72A, but still.

EDIT: Some of the T-72s shown on the clips definitely are not the new upgraded ones, no Sosna.
I thought the MOD said all the tanks in Chechnya were modernized and new. Maybe old T-72BA?
SECOND EDIT: Those older T-72s are probably training units, combat tanks are resource-conserved.
However, there is now doubt if the new upgraded vehicles even have the S-92 engine, as we were led to believe.

Interview with CEO of "Traktornye Zavody". talks about BMP-3 and a little sneak peak on new BMP (Kurganets-25)

http://www.vesti.ru/only_video.html?vid=394517

Translated via Khathi/mp.net

1. "Tractornye Zavody" is a large multifunctional holding and military production is only one of its four main arms: heavy construction machinery (tractors, dozers, trench diggers etc.), agricultural machinery (mainly tractors and combine harvesters), railroad carriages, and, finally, military plants.
2. Military arm of the holding consists of three main plants, in Kurgan (BMP), in Volgograd (BMD) and in Lipetsk (tracked chassis for SAM).
3. Kurganets-25 R&D is finishing and the prototype is expected by the end of the year.
4. BMP-3 and BMD-4 are fine for him, and they aren't bought mainly because the General Staff is awaiting the results of the Kurganets-25 work, so it may switch to it and not the previous generation.
5. On the other hand the GS is reconsidering the airborne troops strategy and deployment options and currently doesn't see a niche for BMD-4.
6. However plants are fine and in no deed of layoffs, as they have enough export orders, mainly for BMO-3 which is popular in the world for its amphibious capabilities.
7. Main requirement for Kurganets-25 theme is the radical increase in protection, but it must remain amphibious — that is, it still has to force the waters with up to grade-3 waves without preparations.
8. Main problem with this requirement is that it entails the radically new materials that lead to the substantial increase in the costs.
9. The price scandals he mainly blames on subcontractors, who tend to blow up their costs even after the contract is signed. The problem is profitability. The 3-5% margin is too little for them to be able to upgrade the plants.
10. The another problem is with the prices for the imported parts, but it is getting better, especially with the IR sights.
11. Monopolization of military industrial complex and the demise of military acceptance institute is contributing to the difficulties with production management.
12. The complex tries to upgrade its equipment despite the lack of investment and "long money", because it radically improves the output both in quality and in quantity, and they hope that the state will pay attention to this matter.

Interesting... significant increase in protection presumably also for Boomerang as it is in the same weight class and also amphibious so it will use the new more expensive exotic protection materials.

I would expect all four families of vehicles will use new improved protection materials which will likely effect price.

The result I believe will likely lead to production of the E300 standard chassis based on the T-90 and the resumption of production of T-90 vehicles to speed up the replacement of upgraded T-72s so the fleet of heavy brigade vehicles will include armata heavy brigades and T-90 based heavy brigades.

Ok, so I often have some random Ground Forces photos, or news tidbits, that are not quite ideal for say the T-90M thread, or whatnot, so I am goign to dump everything I find in here, I think it will be easier than starting new threads for everything, or posting in a thread that is not exactly for that subject.

http://www.otvaga2004.narod.ru/publ_w8_2012/0031_ucheniya.htm

Great photos, 4th Separate Tank Brigade, 29th March 2012, T-80U, BMP-2, etc.

If you are proposing a photos thread can I suggest we move it to the "Military Multimedia" section in General discussion?

That would also mean if you get naval or aircraft photos you want to post they could be posted without having to make a new thread...

Works for me, but what about non-photo news tidbits, or random info about something Ground Forces specific?

I don't want to clutter up specific threads with general info.

Well we could split it into a photos thread in the multimedia section and a news thread in the Russian Army section.

Really depends how it turns out I guess... is it a news thread that has the odd photo related to the news, or is it a photos thread that includes news about the content of the photos.

Yes, I realise that sounds like I am asking is it 6 or half a dozen...

The question is, is this going to be a photo thread that includes news or a news thread that includes photos... perhaps we could leave it for the moment and see which way it develops?

BTW nice set of photos in that first link... thanks for posting

http://bmpd.livejournal.com/192652.html

Contract signed with UAZ, for deliveries to the MVD in 2012. Contract contains deliveries of 2384 vehicles, including Patriot and Hunter.