Heavy calibre ammo (Artillliery-IFV-AA-Helos-Naval guns)

GarryB wrote:

I'd imagine that the system could be activated and deactivated. and most military equipment is designed with conventional warfare in mind and what's the most serious threat. If you are fielding tanks in a certain environment then they will be equipped for that situation that would include climate and type of warfare.

I actually like the idea of the system but not for the reasons suggested.

If I am in a tank and an RPG is rapidly approaching my position I want Afghanist to intercept and neutralise the incoming threat so it doesn't even scratch the paint, but I would like the system that detected the incoming round to turn my rifle calibre machine gun turret and commanders sight to where the RPG rocket came from because if I see a guy holding an RPG launcher I am going to shoot him... but just firing willy nilly in directions where enemy fire comes from is not practical or sensible in my view... imagine the enemy is the KLA who don't give a shit about the local population and in fact want you to kill some civies so they can film it and send play it to westerners who will be shocked and horrified to see people dying in war (their weapons don't kill anyone but nazis, then communists, and now terrorists) and they must act to stop this brutal oppression of the freedom to what the fuck ever...

Guy with RPG disposable launch tube steps between a bus full of children and takes a potshot at an Armata vehicle and then ducks down while the return fire hits the bus with kids or priests or an ambulance or something.

You know the story... 50 round burst from the armata... rpg rocket shot down, but three schools, two churches and one childrens hospital destroyed...

GarryB wrote:An armata division will have Pantsir and TOR vehicles operating with it and it will be operating under BUK and S-400V4 systems.

There will be armata based IFVs with 57mm guns with airburst and guided rounds to deal with small air threats like drones, and also like dedicated armata gun platforms with the air defence platoon armed with 57mm guns dedicated to air defence.

In normal current motor rifle and tank divisions one of the BMP-2 units is often got a gripstock for MANPADS and 3-4 missiles in the vehicle for air defence duties too so I would expect a few armata IFVs with Verba gripstocks and missiles inside too.

Unlike western armies the Russian Army does not expect to operate with air control.

I would expect the Afghanit APS system will be modular and seem to consist of a combination of box type systems with what looks like 20-30 mini launch tubes, plus the larger tubes of a DROZD type system. I suspect the small boxes of munitions would likely be replaced to reload and new munitions loaded into the larger DROZD like tubes.... they might even carry reloads with them if they are going to be sitting somewhere for a long period.

I would disagree that they would face large numbers of attacks just based on the fact that anybody pokes their heads up to fire at them will likely get shot so after a while fewer and fewer people will risk doing that.

They can also position their vehicles to restrict the angles and distances they can be fired upon from.

Sitting in fixed locations would allow chain barriers and sandbags to be used to improve protection as well... with just the turret sticking up... remember the turret is unmanned... so they can hit that all day long if they like...

GarryB wrote:

I get the air defence element you mentioned I suppose the only time a tank would want a manpads system if it were to be used in a recce role like the 2T stalker.

To be honest if a Russian tank spots an air threat it is more likely than not to load up a guided main calibre round and shoot with that... or if the target is a helicopter then an Aniet round would do the job quite nicely.

Having a gripstock for a MANPADS as well as a few missiles in a tank would be cumbersome... first of all who would use it?

The commander should be looking for ground threats to the vehicle, while the driver will be driving the vehicle to behind cover or concealment from the detected threat, and do you really want your gunner to be opening his hatch and pulling out the gripstock and missile tube and attaching them together and then aiming and firing at an air threat?

If they can't deal with the air target using a guided tank round it makes more sense to mark it in their digital mapping system and alert the other vehicles nearby... a vehicle with a 57mm gun would be in a much better position to deal with such a threat...

Of course if it is a drone then an ANIET round would actually be ideal.

I suppose in terms bmp-2/bmp-3 instead of a gripstock type configuration they could have a bmp-2/3 armed with a dedicated strelets systems no body is exposed then.

BMP-2 and 3 both have 30mm cannons... eventually with air burst ammo, which would be ideal against light aircraft and drones, while the 100mm guided missile on the 3 would be perfect for heavier air targets...

I would still expect a regiment to carry the MANPADS to defend themselves when they are deployed.

As for the point where you disagree with multiple rpg firing all over the place then it's clear that you haven't spoken to guys in Afghanistan or iraq. friends of mine in MRAP vehicles in afghan with caged armour were ambushed and had over 50 rpgs fired at the small convoy with enemy popping up all over the place nobody fires an rpg and stands there waiting to fire again they fire it and run and change position that's a basic military tactic.

Yeah, well it was the CIA and the US and UK forces that trained them in the 1980s to do that to the Soviets... of course they were freedom fighters then...

That is why the Soviets invented APS systems like ARENA and DROZD.

I don't think blazing away with coaxial machine gun ammo is a good way to deal with RPG attack.

Those sound systems detecting where enemy fire is coming from, plus drones that follow the convoy and give a gods eye view of the terrain they are driving through as well as APS systems to stop anything they actually fire would be the best solutions.

GarryB wrote:

I find it odd you mentioned who would want to use gripstocks of manpads on a tank yet suggest that it's ok for bmp-2/3. I wouldn't recommend either.

The crew of the BMP-2 or BMP-3 don't operate the gripstock of the MANPADs, it is the troops that deploy it... along with rifles and machine guns and their own anti armour weapons etc etc.

If there is an air threat... and these days even in COIN situations that would be mainly drones and UAVs etc, then the gripstock might be deployed... if there is none or it is unlikely the gripstock might stay in the BMP and the soldier will just use a rifle.

I think the 2T stalker is was all done remote inside the tank. but as I mentioned a strelets type system gunner wouldn't be as exposed or more likely option SOSNA would be better.

I think the fundamental question here is... do you start making vehicles multi function...

On the older vehicles that means adding new missile types and also new sensors and equipment for those missiels (esp for SOSNA).

I agree SOSNA is a much better missile than any MANPADS, and with a 10km range can outrange most light aircraft launched anti armour weapons.

However I think there is also an opportunity because the new SPAAG system uses the same 57mm gun as the new IFV, so a sensor and optics sharing, and also improved communications that comes with the new vehicles suggests that most IFVs with their 57mm guns will already have organic powerful anti air capability anyway.

The air burst ammo so useful for use against aircraft... especially fragile little UAVs, would also be very useful against a range of ground targets, like troops in a trench with front cover but little to no top cover. Equally the ability to fire a round into the room of a building and have the round explode 2-3 metres into the room after coming through the window would be devastating...

rocket screens as they call them in uk (caged armour) was the solution as it was cheap effective

I remember a photo of a T-34 rolling into Berlin in 1945 that had an innersprung mattress with all the fabric gone and just the wire being used as protection from Panzer fausts... During conflicts they already fit their BMPs and BTRs with cage armour and extra armour kits, but you are talking about MRAPs and I am talking about armoured vehicles.

When the US entered Afghanistan they had little to no MRAP type vehicles... and then they squandered billions of dollars and bought about 10-15 different types of vehicles and tried to upgrade existing types to various levels of success. Now the focus is on big boy enemies like China and Russia they are dumping the vast majority of their MRAPS and going back to normal armour...

For real armoured vehicles, NERA or ERA, plus cage armour, plus APS should be enough... adding the ability of remote weapon systems to operate like CIWS is a bit redundant to try to stop an RPG attack in my opinion... as you mention no warning, short range very short flight time... I doubt most of the time the RWS would have time to turn to the threat.

Especially when the locals realise the RWS is attached to the commanders sight so it shows them where the commander of the vehicle is looking right now... when it points in the opposite direction is the time to attack...

Of course with more than one vehicle and perhaps UAV support they might have seen you and are looking in the opposite direction knowing the APS system will stop your rocket attack but the vehicle up the road in the distance is looking right at you waiting for you to step out...

The issue is situational awareness... in an urban area there are so many factors it would be hard... a high level of communication and cooperation is what is needed.

GarryB wrote:If they did go for a gunship type arrangement they have quite a few options in terms of weapon outfits.

Ideally they want stand off range and projectile payload, so their 23mm gatling or twin barrel cannon would be useful with a heavy for the calibre projectile weight... the guns could be angled upwards to extend range with their relatively low muzzle velocity, but they could easily use 30x165mm calibre twin or 6 barrel weapons for the job... the longer models have rather high relative muzzle velocities in the order of 960m/s for full calibre rounds.

These 57mm guns would add punch and power and range, while the heavy calibre gun options could include the 100mm gun of the BMP-3 as a compact low recoil weapon with a good HE payload, or even a 120mm gun/mortar or 122mm gun, but perhaps the new towed gun with the 152mm calibre gun mounted on the D30 360 degree rotating towed mount would add serious HE shell weight.

An Il-76 would probably be too big for the gunship role... perhaps a light gunship on the Il-112 or Il-114 platforms, or something similar in size to US spookies in the Il-276... traditionally the US gunships have been turboprops rather than jets presumably to keep the speed down.

Whatever they do it will need a serious self defence capacity... and with their Gefest and T blind bombing/navigation system they could add a bomb bay to the aircraft for serious targets that just need a big boom... say individual 1,000kg bombs, along with a range of smaller weapons for different targets...

Russia’s top brass considers switching armor to 57mm caliber firepower