runaway wrote:Many of the "pro russian separatists" tanks are T-80´s
No. DNR/LNR have T-64 and T-72/90.
Wow the Donbas has T-90s what elese do they have flying saucers
Yeap, T-72B3 have been deployed there. Certainly not T-80s.
Acording to who exactly? The B3 has K5 ERA and Sosna-U so it should be quite recognizable.
Aslo if they have these tanks then what ammunition do they have Svinets Svinets 1 <(both DU penetrators) Svinets 2?
Afaik T-72B3s and T-90s were deployed by RU regulars during the most critical moments of the sieges of Donetsk and Lugansk. Someone gave a pretty good analysis of what was essentially complete evisceration of Ukie armor around the southern perimeter of Lugansk, either side of the T1310/M04 (somewhere there anyway, you can see the armor wrecks on Lost Armor) coinciding with some photos that emerged of T-90As sitting on the Russian side of the border. It happened over a 24 hour period, lead up to Debaltsevo.
But no, they don't operate T-90s. At least, not that I've seen. I think they may have a few B3s though.
runaway wrote:Many of the "pro russian separatists" tanks are T-80´s
No. DNR/LNR have T-64 and T-72/90.
Wow the Donbas has T-90s what elese do they have flying saucers
Yeap, T-72B3 have been deployed there. Certainly not T-80s.
Acording to who exactly? The B3 has K5 ERA and Sosna-U so it should be quite recognizable.
Aslo if they have these tanks then what ammunition do they have Svinets Svinets 1 <(both DU penetrators) Svinets 2?
Afaik T-72B3s and T-90s were deployed by RU regulars during the most critical moments of the sieges of Donetsk and Lugansk. Someone gave a pretty good analysis of what was essentially complete evisceration of Ukie armor around the southern perimeter of Lugansk, either side of the T1310/M04 (somewhere there anyway, you can see the armor wrecks on Lost Armor) coinciding with some photos that emerged of T-90As sitting on the Russian side of the border. It happened over a 24 hour period, lead up to Debaltsevo.
But no, they don't operate T-90s. At least, not that I've seen. I think they may have a few B3s though.
Yes that was me. Indeed the T90's, all two platoons of them, basically raped all that had gold & blue on the hull, including two Freshly captured T64's to the great dismay of the LNR guys who were attempting to camouflage them.
runaway wrote:Many of the "pro russian separatists" tanks are T-80´s
No. DNR/LNR have T-64 and T-72/90.
Wow the Donbas has T-90s what elese do they have flying saucers
Yeap, T-72B3 have been deployed there. Certainly not T-80s.
Acording to who exactly? The B3 has K5 ERA and Sosna-U so it should be quite recognizable.
Aslo if they have these tanks then what ammunition do they have Svinets Svinets 1 <(both DU penetrators) Svinets 2?
Afaik T-72B3s and T-90s were deployed by RU regulars during the most critical moments of the sieges of Donetsk and Lugansk. Someone gave a pretty good analysis of what was essentially complete evisceration of Ukie armor around the southern perimeter of Lugansk, either side of the T1310/M04 (somewhere there anyway, you can see the armor wrecks on Lost Armor) coinciding with some photos that emerged of T-90As sitting on the Russian side of the border. It happened over a 24 hour period, lead up to Debaltsevo.
But no, they don't operate T-90s. At least, not that I've seen. I think they may have a few B3s though.
Yes that was me. Indeed the T90's, all two platoons of them, basically raped all that had gold & blue on the hull, including two Freshly captured T64's to the great dismay of the LNR guys who were attempting to camouflage them.
Ah, cheers. I thought it was someone on this forum, I wasn't quite sure though.
Taken by Vacationer, Ukrainian claim it was a razvednik from their side, but you can see SVD on BMD-2.
Also google : Т-90А у села Лысое Украина two videos from staging point appear.
I also pointed out a report from "Ze Polite People" with over 50 destroyed UA vehicles in one of the UA threads. You will have to check for it. Chechen tanker, best tanker.
Infornapalm has whole whining section with "Ebil T90 raped our buys and didn't even offer reach around".
In Donetsk new weapons being developed/produced in the Donbass were on display including two new missile launcher types, sniper rifles, UAV, and pistols.
Tactical Missile forces establishment of Donetsk People's Republic (DNR)
As reported by the media of the Donetsk People's Republic (DNR), May 11, 2018 by the decree of the Head of the People's Democratic Republic of Belarus Alexander Zakharchenko, the Tactical Missile forces of the Democratic People's Republic of France were established.
Combat vehicles of the Snezhinka reactive systems (left) and the Cheburashka of the tactical missile forces of the DNR, May 2018 (c) shot from the video of the Ministry of Information of the Republic of Moldova
"- We have been developing our own samples of modern weapons necessary to defend our sovereignty since 2015. And since 2016 these samples - including MLRS and missile systems - have been tested in combat conditions," Zakharchenko himself stated at an exhibition of the military-industrial complex of the Dnieper.
Samples of the local defense industry, which had not been shown anywhere before, were shown in Donetsk on Victory Day. In the center of the city there was an exhibition of small arms - for example, sniper rifles "Separatist" and mortars. But the highlight of the program was the participants in the Victory Parade on the basis of KrAZ trucks: the Snezhinka missile system and the Cheburashka rocket fire system.
The cartoon name is an ironic "greetings" to the former speaker of the Ukrainian Defense Ministry, Andrei Lysenko. In 2015, on behalf of the National Security and Defense Council, he declared: the militia of Donbass allegedly "used a Russian heavy flamethrower called ... Cheburashka." The official, apparently, had in view of the Russian heavy flamethrower system "Buratino".
- Ukraine does not know with whom she contacted! - said the head of the DNP, Alexander Zakharchenko. - Donbass is an industrial region, talented people, workers' hands. Since 2015, our enterprises, together with the design bureaus, have begun developing weapons for the army of the Donetsk People's Republic. Of course, we still produce fewer weapons, but this is only a matter of time. The rifles represented here are all workers, our servicemen use them. All presented weapons were developed by our designers, assembled at the enterprises of the Republic by our masters. We have specially arranged this exhibition today, so that everyone understands that the Donbass is not only able to fight, but also to make weapons. The task of the Republican military-industrial complex is to protect the people of Donbass from the aggression of Bandera and neo-Nazis. We do not want to fight anyone, but we will not give a single inch of our land! "
The list of new weapons of Novorussia seems well adjusted to their needs, at least taking into account what I can see in the refered to the weapons of biggest caliber.
About the Surface-Surface MRLS systems, it seems that Russia is reluctant to help allies with weapons of this type, taking into account their more recent nature and lower historical production in relative terms. It happens in Syria, where the solution seems to be Iranian help, and also happens in Novorussia, where the solution seems to be local designs and launching of the own production.
About the man-portable mortars, again it seems that Russia has lower reserves in relative terms and prefer to keep them. Taking into account the ban of weapons of 100mm or higher caliber in the Minsk-2 agreements, the mortars of 82mm have been a very interesting weapon for Novorussia. Likely the help with them has been intense, and now this caliber can be in exhaustion in Russia. The production of mortars under 100mm makes sense for Novorussia, and likely will kill their production in Russia. At this point only the 2B24 and 2B25, that have not been used by the Russian Armed Forces are offered to export.
The end of the 82mm caliber can be very near in Russia if not done at this point. The 2B9 Vasilek seems out since a few years. The 2B14 is a weapon very interesting for Novorussia. At this point all can be exhausted in Russia. Russia has not the restrictions of Novorussia and can continue only with the more powerful but also man-portable mortars of 120mm.
I don't think they will drop the 82mm mortar calibre... it is a useful calibre, because it has a decent bomb weight and reasonable range in a weapon that is light enough to be portable and mobile for a small group of troops.
I rather suspect for their ultra light armour (Typhoon) that an 82mm mortar offers good fire power with light weight and good mobility and a decent ammo load...
They had a 50mm mortar during WWII but it was dropped because of its small bomb weight and lack of range for the cost of the weapon and ammo... today that has practically been replaced by RPG launchers and under barrel grenade launchers as something a soldier can use to hit point targets at small arms fire range...
New 40mm auto grenade launchers, and the potential for new rather powerful 57mm grenade launchers suggest that perhaps the 82mm mortar might actually be replaced by a rather more potent 57mm grenade launcher.
Despite to have new and modern designs, like the 2B24 and the 2B25, Russia ordered not them. Lack of orders of 82mm in the last 20 years (at least) is a very significant data bout the future of this caliber in Russia.
In favor of the 120mm mortars instead:
- Bigger firepower. - Bigger range, improved still with the use of Rocket Assisted Projectiles.. - Bigger safety in its use thanks to bigger range. - Higher effectivenes by use of guided ammunition combined with bigger firepower.
Today I understand orders of 120mm mortars instead of 82mm mortars for the Russian Armed Forces.
Smaller mortars make sense for less powerfull armies, like the case of Novorussia, and insurgent groups.
It is logical that the military industry of Novorussia can find a niche here.
In the case of Novorussia, the intensity of the conflict remains in significantly lower level than in Syria. There is not doubt that Novorussia would have all the necessary material in case of war of bigger intensity. At this point the war seems reduced to some Artillery, Surface-Surface and man-portable weapons duels. Taking it and the new local designs into account:
LAND ARMAMENT LIKELY NEEDS
Artillery High Caliber: D-30 by declining numbers of D-30
Surface-Surface Heavy rockets and missiles: New models of Novorussia by lack of weapons
Surface-Surface MRLS: New models of Novorussia by lack of weapons
In the case of the Surface-Surface weapons Russia seems to prefer to keep their BM-21 and other systems for the own defense, and new local designs are emerging to cover the own needs.
AIR ARMAMENT LIKELY NEEDS
Likely no new needs on air armament.
SEA ARMAMENT LIKELY NEEDS
Missile Boats: Project 1204 by lack of weapons
The weapons bolded in fuchsia of Russian origin, can leave the active service in Russia in 2-4 years.
Last edited by eehnie on Wed Jun 06, 2018 4:31 am; edited 2 times in total
eehnie wrote:Despite to have new and modern designs, like the 2B24 and the 2B25, Russia ordered not them. Lack of orders of 82mm in the last 20 years (at least) is a very significant data bout the future of this caliber in Russia.
In favor of the 120mm mortars instead:
- Bigger firepower. - Bigger range, improved still with the use of Rocket Assisted Projectiles.. - Bigger safety in its use thanks to bigger range. - Higher effectivenes by use of guided ammunition combined with bigger firepower.
Today I understand orders of 120mm mortars instead of 82mm mortars for the Russian Armed Forces.
Smaller mortars make sense for less powerfull armies, like the case of Novorussia, and insurgent groups.
It is logical that the military industry of Novorussia can find a niche here.
To start with... mortars have very little wear and tear, so those can serve for significantly longer time than rest of the bore artillery.
Bigger range... arguable. Majority of 82 and 120mm mortar shells have similar range. Most common 82mm shell have 6000-6400m range, most common 120mm shells have 6600-7200m range.
No safety difference between the two, sry.
Reason why lighter mortars exist, is its infantry mobility. 60 and 82mm mortars you can pick and carry, 1 man carries the tube, one plate and sights. With 120mm mortar no such thing can be done, you need vehicle. So its not infantry mobile on regular basis. Infantry platoon doesnt need guided shells, they need fire support, and 120mm mortars are on batallion lvl.
eehnie wrote:Despite to have new and modern designs, like the 2B24 and the 2B25, Russia ordered not them. Lack of orders of 82mm in the last 20 years (at least) is a very significant data bout the future of this caliber in Russia.
In favor of the 120mm mortars instead:
- Bigger firepower. - Bigger range, improved still with the use of Rocket Assisted Projectiles.. - Bigger safety in its use thanks to bigger range. - Higher effectivenes by use of guided ammunition combined with bigger firepower.
Today I understand orders of 120mm mortars instead of 82mm mortars for the Russian Armed Forces.
Smaller mortars make sense for less powerfull armies, like the case of Novorussia, and insurgent groups.
It is logical that the military industry of Novorussia can find a niche here.
To start with... mortars have very little wear and tear, so those can serve for significantly longer time than rest of the bore artillery.
Bigger range... arguable. Majority of 82 and 120mm mortar shells have similar range. Most common 82mm shell have 6000-6400m range, most common 120mm shells have 6600-7200m range.
No safety difference between the two, sry.
Reason why lighter mortars exist, is its infantry mobility. 60 and 82mm mortars you can pick and carry, 1 man carries the tube, one plate and sights. With 120mm mortar no such thing can be done, you need vehicle. So its not infantry mobile on regular basis. Infantry platoon doesnt need guided shells, they need fire support, and 120mm mortars are on batallion lvl.
Uncomparable things really.
The data of range that you comment are not right for the concrete models of 120mm man-portable mortars available for Russia.
The difference in safety for the 120mm mortar users over the 82mm mortar users is in the fact that the 82mm mortar users must be a lot closer to the target and are exposed to bigger number of weapons of the adversary (RPG, ATGM,...). The area of their presence to detect them is also far smaller.
The mobility of the 82mm mortars is easier, but the 120mm can be moved also by the same way.
Russia ordered not the 2B24 and 2B25 new models of 82mm mortars, but continued ordering 120mm mortars, the 2B23 and 2B11 (2S12). In the case of the 2B11 mortar despite to be more than 20 years older model.
Russia clearly seems to prefer 120mm mortars over 82mm mortars.
Instead, the Minsk-2 agreement limitations for high caliber weapons give additional utility to the 82mm mortars for Novorussia.
MLRS "Cheburashka" Missile troops of tactical design DPR in action
An interesting video of combat use for the positions of Ukrainian forces developed in the Donetsk People's Republic (DPR) 217-mm volley fire system "Cheburashka."
Recall that the combat vehicles of the "Cheburashka" MLRS with 64 rails for 217-mm missiles with the declared range of up to 9600 meters, made on the KrAZ truck chassis (6x6), were first demonstrated in Donetsk in early May 2018. The manufacturer of the system was the "State Innovation Company" DNR. On May 11, 2018, by the decree of the Head of the People's Democratic Republic of Belarus Alexander Zakharchenko, the Missile Forces of the tactical mission of the Democratic People's Republic of Germany were established for the combat use of this and other reactive systems of local production.
eehnie wrote:In the case of Novorussia, the intensity of the conflict remains in significantly lower level than in Syria. There is not doubt that Novorussia would have all the necessary material in case of war of bigger intensity. At this point the war seems reduced to some Artillery, Surface-Surface and man-portable weapons duels. Taking it and the new local designs into account:
LAND ARMAMENT LIKELY NEEDS
Artillery High Caliber: D-30 by declining numbers of D-30
Surface-Surface Heavy rockets and missiles: New models of Novorussia by lack of weapons
Surface-Surface MRLS: New models of Novorussia by lack of weapons
In the case of the Surface-Surface weapons Russia seems to prefer to keep their BM-21 and other systems for the own defense, and new local designs are emerging to cover the own needs.
AIR ARMAMENT LIKELY NEEDS
Likely no new needs on air armament.
SEA ARMAMENT LIKELY NEEDS
Missile Boats: Project 1204 by lack of weapons
The weapons bolded in fuchsia of Russian origin, can leave the active service in Russia in 2-4 years.
Edited to include ships of the Project 1204 (4 available).
The ships of the Project 1400 are not includided because would be low armed patrol auxiliary ships, and auxiliary material is not listed.
Taken by Vacationer, Ukrainian claim it was a razvednik from their side, but you can see SVD on BMD-2.
Also google : Т-90А у села Лысое Украина two videos from staging point appear.
I also pointed out a report from "Ze Polite People" with over 50 destroyed UA vehicles in one of the UA threads. You will have to check for it. Chechen tanker, best tanker.
Infornapalm has whole whining section with "Ebil T90 raped our buys and didn't even offer reach around".
eehnie wrote:Despite to have new and modern designs, like the 2B24 and the 2B25, Russia ordered not them. Lack of orders of 82mm in the last 20 years (at least) is a very significant data bout the future of this caliber in Russia.
In favor of the 120mm mortars instead:
- Bigger firepower. - Bigger range, improved still with the use of Rocket Assisted Projectiles.. - Bigger safety in its use thanks to bigger range. - Higher effectivenes by use of guided ammunition combined with bigger firepower.
Today I understand orders of 120mm mortars instead of 82mm mortars for the Russian Armed Forces.
Smaller mortars make sense for less powerfull armies, like the case of Novorussia, and insurgent groups.
It is logical that the military industry of Novorussia can find a niche here.
To start with... mortars have very little wear and tear, so those can serve for significantly longer time than rest of the bore artillery.
Bigger range... arguable. Majority of 82 and 120mm mortar shells have similar range. Most common 82mm shell have 6000-6400m range, most common 120mm shells have 6600-7200m range.
No safety difference between the two, sry.
Reason why lighter mortars exist, is its infantry mobility. 60 and 82mm mortars you can pick and carry, 1 man carries the tube, one plate and sights. With 120mm mortar no such thing can be done, you need vehicle. So its not infantry mobile on regular basis. Infantry platoon doesnt need guided shells, they need fire support, and 120mm mortars are on batallion lvl.
Uncomparable things really.
The data of range that you comment are not right for the concrete models of 120mm man-portable mortars available for Russia.
The difference in safety for the 120mm mortar users over the 82mm mortar users is in the fact that the 82mm mortar users must be a lot closer to the target and are exposed to bigger number of weapons of the adversary (RPG, ATGM,...). The area of their presence to detect them is also far smaller.
The mobility of the 82mm mortars is easier, but the 120mm can be moved also by the same way.
Russia ordered not the 2B24 and 2B25 new models of 82mm mortars, but continued ordering 120mm mortars, the 2B23 and 2B11 (2S12). In the case of the 2B11 mortar despite to be more than 20 years older model.
Russia clearly seems to prefer 120mm mortars over 82mm mortars.
Instead, the Minsk-2 agreement limitations for high caliber weapons give additional utility to the 82mm mortars for Novorussia.
I would have to agree with Militarov here and disagree with you eenhie based on experience.
Although on paper a 120mm mortar can be man portable in practice it isn't really. Small distance 1-3km yes but you would face problem of ammo. The 82mm mortar is here to stay and for the reasons of battalion support and mobility. 82mm mortar is still heavy piece of equipment for troops to carry along with ammo. 82mm mortars tend to be deployed behind some cover and corrections are done by observers and by radio from troops t the front so risk from ATGW is low. 50 & 60mm when I was in the army wasn't used much mainly for illumination round purposes but afghan conflict saw it become useful again Google the issue the UK had with its 51mm mortar and why it had to buy french 50mm mortars or if you want I can explain. But with AGS systems becoming more popular and with more training on indirect fire on them it has pushed aside the small hand held mortars.
If you think I am wrong on this then I'd ask you to go and try being part of a 81 or 82mm mortar team then do the same with a 120mm mortar. Even 82mm mortar teams tend to use small trucks so they can carrying a meaningful amount of ammo to ensure enough fire support for riflemen. I never operated mortars apart from 51mm but in my battalion they used 81mm mortars and close friends were in mortar platoon. They mostly used Renault Broughton trucks to transport 81mm mortars but did manpack it at times. I use ask them would they do it with a 120mm mortar to which they told me to fuck off and stop being stupid looool. The same goes for the. 50cal teams they very rarely manpack and always used 4x4 normally a land rover in fact 99% of the time they used 4x4. Also both systems used with vehicles also benefits of being able to pack up and bug out quickly. AGS the same the only time they weren't deployed on vehicles was if they were deployed at observation posts/towers and bases.
Home
Latest images
Register
Log in
