Russian Ground Forces: News #2

Military in Kuril Islands to Receive Latest Laser Rangefinders



Military in the Kuril Islands in 2015 will receive the latest laser rangefinders needed to determine the coordinates of ground targets and effectuate visual reconnaissance, the head of the press service of the Eastern Military District Alexander Gordeev told reporters on Monday.

“Military units of the Eastern Military District in the Kuril Islands this year will receive more than 20 latest laser rangefinders LPR-3. The new rangefinder will replace the previous version of the device (LPR-1 and LPR-2). Equipping military units with these devices will significantly expand the combat capabilities of motorized and artillery units,” Gordeev said.

He clarified that LPR-3 is designed to determine the coordinates of ground targets, explode shells, measure distances to targets, and conduct visual reconnaissance.

Army is buying some BMP-3s. What a mess.

TR1 wrote:Army is buying some BMP-3s. What a mess.

Handout to Kurganmashzavod?

Vympel wrote:

TR1 wrote:Army is buying some BMP-3s. What a mess.

Handout to Kurganmashzavod?

But why now? They are going to be loaded with hundreds (hell by the end of it thousand+) of BMD-4 and Rakushka orders as that has finally taken off, and just got the Kurganets contract signed.
With all this around the corner, why BMP-3s?

And why buy them in the late 2000s, then stop to only buy more in 2015?

TR1 wrote:

But why now? They are going to be loaded with hundreds (hell by the end of it thousand+) of BMD-4 and Rakushka orders as that has finally taken off, and just got the Kurganets contract signed.
With all this around the corner, why BMP-3s?

And why buy them in the late 2000s, then stop to only buy more in 2015?

Yeah, it doesn't make much sense at all. Surely they have enough work.

Why not?

New BMP-3Ms with Bakhcha turrets are actually quite capable machines with excellent fire power.

They likely had a few in low rate production or left over from previous orders and would be ready rather quicker than any of the new vehicles.

Major Artillery Drills Begin in Russian Far East – Defense Ministry

Some people are saying this is Koalition-SV:

This begs the question, if this is in fact Koalition we seem to only see 6 track wheels so does this mean that their still on the modified T-90 chassis?

magnumcromagnon wrote:This begs the question, if this is in fact Koalition we seem to only see 6 track wheels so does this mean that their still on the modified T-90 chassis?

Yes, that was mentioned before that they are for now on T-90A chassis and probably low priority untill armata,kurganetz and boomerang were procured, well the chassis for artillery is less important and the higher costs is not justified when you need to procure AFV's first with new plattforms.

Coalition is not a vehicle... it is a turret that can be mounted on a range of vehicles probably including small ships and coastal and riverine vessels.

they might test the turret on a T-90 or a T-80 or T-72 chassis but for operational deployment they would not be able to use any of those vehicles... there are no crew positions inside the turret so if you put the turret on a T-90 chassis there is room for the driver and no one else inside the vehicle.

It could be that they might have an evolved version that is fully automated and the driver just drives from place to place, the gun is automatically loaded and the vehicle can be commanded from a command vehicle with the guns fired automatically.

BTW there was some criticism regarding the 70km range shells with Glonass guidance packages (ie nose mounted electronic fuse with guidance fins) with a CEP of 10m... I have recently come across a British guided 155mm shell specification that required a 15m CEP over 60kmfor a projectile called 'Pole Axe'... which gives you an idea of what sort of performance this new vehicle will offer.

The US equivalent is called Excaliber... here is the info:

Raytheon has also teamed with Primex Technologies to compete with Alliant Techsystems for the GPS/IMU-guided XM982 Excalibur 155 mm round. Raytheon refers to an accuracy of 20 metres at 50 kilometres range, and a choice of three payload options: either two Sadarm (Sense and Destroy Armor) submunitions, multiple DPICMs (Dual-Purpose Improved Conventional Munitions), or a unitary penetrator.

Note the Russian system attaches to the nose of a standard round as a standard fuse, so it can be fitted to any round in their current arsenal and newly developed longer ranged rounds too...

magnumcromagnon wrote:This begs the question, if this is in fact Koalition we seem to only see 6 track wheels so does this mean that their still on the modified T-90 chassis?

I don't think so.

As can be seen the spacing between the road wheels is larger than those of the T-90 family. Assuming that the road wheels are of the same type/size as those of the T-90 family, it follows that the hull is larger/longer than the T-90 family. Of course, this makes sense, as an SP artillery piece has a much lower average mass density than a tank.

In other words, 2 X 6 road wheels of this type is perfectly sufficient for ~50+ tonnes, but, of course, the hull should be larger/longer to meet the requirements of this kind of artillery piece.

Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:
I don't think so.

As can be seen the spacing between the road wheels is larger than those of the T-90 family. Assuming that the road wheels are of the same type/size as those of the T-90 family, it follows that the hull is larger/longer than the T-90 family. Of course, this makes sense, as an SP artillery piece has a much lower average mass density than a tank.

In other words, 2 X 6 road wheels of this type is perfectly sufficient for ~50+ tonnes, but, of course, the hull should be larger/longer to meet the requirements of this kind of artillery piece.

but a rear-engined armata chassis is supposed to have a very heavy and dense frontal hull from all the armor there(plus armored crew capsule). shouldnt it be that the spacing should be more even to support the added weight at the front?

collegeboy16 wrote:

Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:
I don't think so.

As can be seen the spacing between the road wheels is larger than those of the T-90 family. Assuming that the road wheels are of the same type/size as those of the T-90 family, it follows that the hull is larger/longer than the T-90 family. Of course, this makes sense, as an SP artillery piece has a much lower average mass density than a tank.

In other words, 2 X 6 road wheels of this type is perfectly sufficient for ~50+ tonnes, but, of course, the hull should be larger/longer to meet the requirements of this kind of artillery piece.

but a rear-engined armata chassis is supposed to have a very heavy and dense frontal hull from all the armor there(plus armored crew capsule). shouldnt it be that the spacing should be more even to support the added weight at the front?

The "Armata" chassis used for support vehicles, e.g., artillery or missile TELs, will, of course, have thin armor; support vehicles wouldn't need anything but "bulletproof" armor. The situation is like the deployed version of Msta-S using a massively down-armored version of the chassis used by T-80 family (also re-engined).

The road wheels support the weight, not their spacings.

The "Armata" chassis used for support vehicles, e.g., artillery or missile TELs, will, of course, have thin armor; support vehicles wouldn't need anything but "bulletproof" armor. The situation is like the deployed version of Msta-S using a massively down-armored version of the chassis used by T-80 family (also re-engined).

No way.

The whole purpose of having the Armata chassis is to allow a heavy brigade to operate somewhere where lighter vehicles are too vulnerable. There wont be any 25 ton Armata APCs or command vehicles.

they are called heavy brigade because they all have a similar level of protection and a similar level of mobility... in the latter case largely because the heavier models will have slightly uprated engines.

^^damn, im so fickle with waht i want to believe. on one hand less armor for arty doesnt sound too bad, employed well the enemy will never see it anyway plus its a bit lighter. but then again its armata, emphasis is on urban combat where with its heavy armor and heavy firepower it could take on the role of heavy assault gun like the su-152.

GarryB wrote:
No way.

The whole purpose of having the Armata chassis is to allow a heavy brigade to operate somewhere where lighter vehicles are too vulnerable. There wont be any 25 ton Armata APCs or command vehicles.

they are called heavy brigade because they all have a similar level of protection and a similar level of mobility... in the latter case largely because the heavier models will have slightly uprated engines.

What you are suggesting is neither tactically required/desirable (collegeboy gave some of the reasons for this) nor technologically desirable/practicable.

I'll elaborate in a future post.

For the time being I should just note that a Koalitsiya turret on a down-armored chassis with a 1.5 cm steel armor (which is all that's required) will pretty much weight as much as the tank with the full armor.

The following picture of 2S19/T-80 pair is full of clues. Please pay attention to the road wheel spacings and road wheel numbers.

Garry, that assumes a heavy brigade will actually be unified to that degree. I am betting it will not.

They have already said they are making two armata chassis... one with the engine in front and one with the engine to the rear... there are no other versions of it AFAIK.

What you are suggesting is neither tactically required/desirable (collegeboy gave some of the reasons for this) nor technologically desirable/practicable.

The root of the whole heavy vehicle family concept came from experience in Grozny where all the lighter vehicles including IFVs and other vehicles were picked off because of their lighter armour leaving tanks which did not have the main gun elevation capability to defend themselves when their 300 rounds of 12.7mm ammo was used up.

If the non-MBTs are not going to have the same level of armour as the MBT versions they they can't operate together as a unit so why have four different vehicle families?

Just have an armata MBT, a Kurganets IFV, a Boomerang APC and a Typhoon BRDM scout car...

For the time being I should just note that a Koalitsiya turret on a down-armored chassis with a 1.5 cm steel armor (which is all that's required) will pretty much weight as much as the tank with the full armor.

In an early article when they were describing the armata family they talked about vehicles weighing from 50 tons to 65 tons, where the MBT was about 55 tons (though the new lighter stronger steel they developed might have reduced the weight further). I would suggest that that leaves 50 tons for the APC vehicle with perhaps a HMG in an external mount and perhaps the command vehicle right up to the 152mm artillery vehicle at 65 tons.... why would you want less armour on any of them?

With extra engine power the artillery vehicle should have comparable mobility to the other vehicles... what advantage do you see to having a SPG that can be penetrated using light shoulder fired rockets or light cannon fire or SLAP rounds from a 50 cal rifle?

BTW pointing at the MSTA and saying that has reduced frontal armour therefore coalition will have the same is not sound logic. I could point to the T-55 and the ZSU-57-2 as well, where the latter has reduced frontal armour but the ZSU-57-2 is not intended to operate together with the T-55.

They are supposed to be using modular armour so it is certainly possible that the non MBT might have reduced armour, but I seriously doubt it... the purpose of the modular armour is to make future upgrades easier... not to make some vehicles in the unit easy targets.

I say again... the purpose of the different wheeled and tracked vehicle families is to ensure that there are no weak vehicles that can be picked off or have to be left behind because they can't ford a stream or climb a slope... the vehicles in a unit will have similar mobility and protection.

GarryB wrote:They have already said they are making two armata chassis... one with the engine in front and one with the engine to the rear... there are no other versions of it AFAIK.

Rear engined types for the tanks.

Front engined types for the TBMP/TBTR vehicles.

Koalitsiya is not an "Armata".

What you are suggesting is neither tactically required/desirable (collegeboy gave some of the reasons for this) nor technologically desirable/practicable.

The root of the whole heavy vehicle family concept came from experience in Grozny where all the lighter vehicles including IFVs and other vehicles were picked off because of their lighter armour leaving tanks which did not have the main gun elevation capability to defend themselves when their 300 rounds of 12.7mm ammo was used up.

If the non-MBTs are not going to have the same level of armour as the MBT versions they they can't operate together as a unit so why have four different vehicle families?

Just have an armata MBT, a Kurganets IFV, a Boomerang APC and a Typhoon BRDM scout car...

We are not talking about "non-MBTs"; we are talking about a very long-ranged SPG. Koalitsiya would be deployed way to the back with respect to the tanks and the IFVs.

And let's not bring the fiction and forum-talk related to an internal antiterrorist action into a logical discussion about an SPG for use as part of mechanized groupings.

For the time being I should just note that a Koalitsiya turret on a down-armored chassis with a 1.5 cm steel armor (which is all that's required) will pretty much weight as much as the tank with the full armor.

In an early article when they were describing the armata family they talked about vehicles weighing from 50 tons to 65 tons, where the MBT was about 55 tons (though the new lighter stronger steel they developed might have reduced the weight further). I would suggest that that leaves 50 tons for the APC vehicle with perhaps a HMG in an external mount and perhaps the command vehicle right up to the 152mm artillery vehicle at 65 tons.... why would you want less armour on any of them?

65 tonnes would not be nearly enough. Do the calculations.

With extra engine power the artillery vehicle should have comparable mobility to the other vehicles...

This is a very inaccurate statement. With the level of technology the Russians would make public with this generation of vehicles, to give the SPG tank-like passive armor, would take the SP out of the SPG.

what advantage do you see to having a SPG that can be penetrated using light shoulder fired rockets or light cannon fire or SLAP rounds from a 50 cal rifle?

The advantage is that the SPG can stay self-propelled.

But most importantly, there would "never" be a Koalitsiya within the range of an enemy 0.50'' rifle. Koalitsiya wouldn't intermingle with tanks and IFVs. Koalitsiya would have a range of over 100 km, and its range performance is superior to a 2S5, which was an army-level SPG.

What you are asking is like asking why MiG-31 wouldn't have the passive armor protection of a T-90.

Actually, the biggest question in all of this, since they first showed the first picture of Koalitsiya, has been if Koalitsiya is a brigade-level asset or one organic to the operational command, but the Russians are continually increasing the range and the fire volume of their groupings, which explains this.

BTW pointing at the MSTA and saying that has reduced frontal armour therefore coalition will have the same is not sound logic. I could point to the T-55 and the ZSU-57-2 as well, where the latter has reduced frontal armour but the ZSU-57-2 is not intended to operate together with the T-55.

Actually when I was writing my last post I wanted to give a number of examples. One of them was exactly the T-55 and ZSU-57-2 comparison. I didn't do that, because I didn't have the time, and I thought you would correctly connect the dots.

Exactly, Koalitsiya will have similar armor protection to that of ZSU-57-2; that's all they need; they are both vehicles to provide support. An SPG's armor protection requirement is less than that of BRDM-2. The armor is there to stop shrapnels (after all it has to deal with shrapnels, not with 50 cal bullets) and to provide a monocoque structure for the vehicle.

just to throw this out- the german artillery gun module (basically unmanned pzh 2000 turret version) weighs 12.5 tons. koalition is indeed a lot bigger(like volume wise) but it would be mostly due to larger amount of rounds (vs 30 for agm) that it carries.

I aggree that making heavy brigade with heavily armored Armata chassis for IFV/APC and Tanks is a good idea and we will probably see it, but making armata chassis for supportive vehicles like SPG Coalitzya-SV or SHORAD system does not make much of sense, the reason is rather simple, they are not suppossed to be anywhere near frontline with tanks and it would be stupid to give supportive vehicles like Coalitzya-SV a highly armored chassis but to have this huge unarmored Turret that represents 90% of the target filled with HE shells and propellants for anything that is suppossed to take out such things, same for SHORAD systems unarmored turret/TEL's with HE missiles, it wouldn't make sense at all.

Rear engined types for the tanks.

Front engined types for the TBMP/TBTR vehicles.

Koalitsiya is not an "Armata".

It has already been stated that the photos of Coalition currently show it in a T-90/72/80 or whatever chassis as a test bed and that the final vehicle will be based on the armata chassis. there is also a truck based version and I would ask the obvious... if Coalition is going to operate 70km behind the armata division it is supporting then WTF does it need to be based on armata chassis for? There is lots of evidence of the truck based version which should be much cheaper to buy and to operate and should offer the same artillery performance... why bother lightening the armata chassis when they already have a lighter and much cheaper truck chassis version?

We are not talking about "non-MBTs"; we are talking about a very long-ranged SPG. Koalitsiya would be deployed way to the back with respect to the tanks and the IFVs.

Coalition would be part of the division that includes all the vehicles from MBT, IFV, rocket and tube artillery, missile and missile/gun air defence, recon, command, anti tank missile, ambulance, engineer, bridge laying, mortar carrier, and possibly BMPT too. All those vehicles will be armata based, with two types of armata chassis... front engined and rear engined.

All are with the same level of armour and similar engines for similar levels of mobility.

And let's not bring the fiction and forum-talk related to an internal antiterrorist action into a logical discussion about an SPG for use as part of mechanized groupings.

They have already stated there will be two SPG variants of Coalition.. armata based and truck based.

I rather suspect there will be engine and transmission unification between that truck based version and the Boomerang wheeled medium vehicle family and probably the Kurganets family because apart from the difference of tracked vs wheeled they will be the same weight and both amphibious and unified crew stations and weapons...

65 tonnes would not be nearly enough. Do the calculations.

MSTA at 42 tons is slightly lighter than the T-80 tank it is based upon... I rather doubt the T-72 engine it is fitted with changed the weight that much.

Assuming the armata mbt is 52 tons, that means the turret could be 13 tons heavier than the turret fitted to the MSTA and the final weight would still be 65 tons... sounds reasonable to me.

I have never read anywhere that the MSTA has reduced hull armour.

This is a very inaccurate statement. With the level of technology the Russians would make public with this generation of vehicles, to give the SPG tank-like passive armor, would take the SP out of the SPG.

If the Coalition at 65 tons can't move with a feeble 1,400hp engine how the hell does the Abrams move... it is 5 tons heavier and only has an extra 100hp?

Some idiots even claim the Abrams can move around quite rapidly... silly them I guess.

But most importantly, there would "never" be a Koalitsiya within the range of an enemy 0.50'' rifle. Koalitsiya wouldn't intermingle with tanks and IFVs. Koalitsiya would have a range of over 100 km, and its range performance is superior to a 2S5, which was an army-level SPG.

There may not be any discernible front line and likely range is more likely to be closer to 70km max... which is plenty with GLONASS guided shells, it certainly will try not to mingle with enemy tanks and IFVs, but enemy anti tank units dropped behind enemy lines or ambush attacks can occur almost anywhere on a modern battlefield... helicopter or jeep mounted troops with TOWs or similar will try to surprise your forces from all sorts of directions.

What you are asking is like asking why MiG-31 wouldn't have the passive armor protection of a T-90.

No. More like asking why the MiG-31 has a self defence suite and chaff and flares is most of the time it will be shooting down B-52s and cruise missiles. the self defence avionics and flares and Chaff and capacity to use jammer pods means it can be used for other things like wild weasel roles and anti AWACS and and JSTARs purposes.

Exactly, Koalitsiya will have similar armor protection to that of ZSU-57-2; that's all they need; they are both vehicles to provide support. An SPG's armor protection requirement is less than that of BRDM-2. The armor is there to stop shrapnels (after all it has to deal with shrapnels, not with 50 cal bullets) and to provide a monocoque structure for the vehicle.

The purpose of unified vehicle families is to shorten the logistics tail by having one vehicle type with one transmission type, one type of track, one type of wheel, one type of engine with the same parts.

If paper thin armour was all that was needed then why bother with an armata based version?

A truck based model would be much cheaper... use the same engine and transmission as the armata family and just base it on a truck. With a 70km range you could just drive down nice hard roads, or make it a 10 wheel truck with excellent cross country mobility... it would still be cheaper to buy and cheaper to run than any track layer.

The reason for the armata based SPG is to have a vehicle that can operate on the front line if needed. Doesn't mean it will spend all or even any of its time there, but having the same mobility and protection as all the other vehicles in the unit is important.

The fact that the turret could be penetrated... or that the turret of the MBT or the turret of the 120mm mortar carrier or the turret of the air defence vehicles or the rocket artillery vehicles is not important... the purpose is not to create super armoured invincible super vehicles... the point is to make as sure as possible that if any of the vehicles are hit and taken out that the crew has the best chance of walking away and that goes for all vehicles in all weight classes.

just to throw this out- the german artillery gun module (basically unmanned pzh 2000 turret version) weighs 12.5 tons. koalition is indeed a lot bigger(like volume wise) but it would be mostly due to larger amount of rounds (vs 30 for agm) that it carries.

The turret on the BMP-3 weighs 6 tons, so lets say the turret for a modern MBT (T-90/armata MBT) weighs about double or about the 12.5 tons that the german artillery model weighs... T-90 has its heaviest (thickest) in the turret front and the MSTA which should be similar to the german artillery gun weighs 42 tons which is about the same as the T-80B... the T-80U is 46 tons, so lets say a modern turret is between 12 and 14 tons.

Assuming the armata MBT turret is a similar weight... say 14 tons, that means the 52 ton armata MBT is about 38 tons for the chassis, so 65 tons would mean the coalition turret is about 27 tons...

That sounds about right to me... give or take a few tons.

GarryB wrote:

Assuming the armata MBT turret is a similar weight... say 14 tons, that means the 52 ton armata MBT is about 38 tons for the chassis, so 65 tons would mean the coalition turret is about 27 tons...

That sounds about right to me... give or take a few tons.

14 tons for unmanned turret is too much, that number is more apt for T-90A turret i think. maybe its only 8 tons for the MBT turret. if this is the case the chassis should weigh give or take 44 tons- leclerc chassis weighs 38 tons and the armata's should be beefier than it so this makes some sense. then 27 -6 = 21 tons for the koalition turret.