Russian Ground Forces: News #2

miketheterrible wrote:You are aware the purpose of these right?  Recon and quick run and gun.  Such tactics have been used often and without proper equipment.  Add in the equipment and they will have no problem.

SeigSoloyvov wrote:Go in destroy shit and get out before a force can get in range and react. These tactics utterly trashed the Army and the marines themselves had a hard time dealing with it, mind you I was a marine for over eight years. So unless you have more than ten years combat experience than I do (doubt that) I can without a doubt say you have no idea what a REAL battlefield is like or what the situation is like on them.

Fun fact I have been to Syria with the kurds, I have been to Iraq. I've even had the Ruskies drop a couple of air strikes near my position (didn't know we was there).

This is useful only vs low armed adversaries, With the current weapon range, the use of these units in scenarios like the Donbass is far more difficult, if not impossible. In this kind of scenarios, it is run, gun and die, because after the attack the unit is fairly exposed to all the types of mid-long range weapons (man portable antitank weapons, artillery of all the types, MRLS,...).

Uh, no.

In Donbass, they are usually using light forces like standard ground troops with atgm's and heavier weapons like recoiless rifles and mortars to hit positions. Their heavier units - T-64's with BTR's and BMP-2's are used more on front line.

eehnie wrote:

miketheterrible wrote:You are aware the purpose of these right? Recon and quick run and gun. Such tactics have been used often and without proper equipment. Add in the equipment and they will have no problem.

SeigSoloyvov wrote:Go in destroy shit and get out before a force can get in range and react. These tactics utterly trashed the Army and the marines themselves had a hard time dealing with it, mind you I was a marine for over eight years. So unless you have more than ten years combat experience than I do (doubt that) I can without a doubt say you have no idea what a REAL battlefield is like or what the situation is like on them.

Fun fact I have been to Syria with the kurds, I have been to Iraq. I've even had the Ruskies drop a couple of air strikes near my position (didn't know we was there).

This is useful only vs low armed adversaries, With the current weapon range, the use of these units in scenarios like the Donbass is far more difficult, if not impossible. In this kind of scenarios, it is run, gun and die, because after the attack the unit is fairly exposed to all the types of mid-long range weapons (man portable antitank weapons, artillery of all the types, MRLS,...).

Not every area will have these you seem to think every single unit is afforded these things they REALLY aren't. Most units have minimal shit, only the units expected to push are given heaven weapons. This is a Fairy tale among civi's that everywhere you go on a battlefield you will find a tank or ATGM.

The type of things these guys would attack would be targeted with small arms. The US doesn't give every unit half the shit you spoke of only the frontline units get that stuff, rear line units don't.

SeigSoloyvov wrote:

eehnie wrote:

miketheterrible wrote:You are aware the purpose of these right?  Recon and quick run and gun.  Such tactics have been used often and without proper equipment.  Add in the equipment and they will have no problem.

SeigSoloyvov wrote:Go in destroy shit and get out before a force can get in range and react. These tactics utterly trashed the Army and the marines themselves had a hard time dealing with it, mind you I was a marine for over eight years. So unless you have more than ten years combat experience than I do (doubt that) I can without a doubt say you have no idea what a REAL battlefield is like or what the situation is like on them.

Fun fact I have been to Syria with the kurds, I have been to Iraq. I've even had the Ruskies drop a couple of air strikes near my position (didn't know we was there).

This is useful only vs low armed adversaries, With the current weapon range, the use of these units in scenarios like the Donbass is far more difficult, if not impossible. In this kind of scenarios, it is run, gun and die, because after the attack the unit is fairly exposed to all the types of mid-long range weapons (man portable antitank weapons, artillery of all the types, MRLS,...).

Not every area will have these you seem to think every single unit is afforded these things they REALLY aren't. Most units have minimal shit, only the units expected to push are given heaven weapons. This is a Fairy tale among civi's that everywhere you go on a battlefield you will find a tank or ATGM.

The type of things these guys would attack would be targeted with small arms. The US doesn't give every unit half the shit you spoke of only the frontline units get that stuff, rear line units don't.

With the range of the current MRLSs of the current heavy artillery pieces and of the current man-portable anti-tank, rockett and missile launchers, outside of scenarios with adversaries with very small density of these weapons like Syria or Iraq, it is almost impossible to find a unit totally uncovered, unless a big strategic mistake of the adversary.

These configurations for the UAZ-3163 Patriot as "combat" vehicle are in my view only valid vs adversaries with very low density of powerful weapons. In the case of Russia it would be right to be used by the Russia Security forces, because their adversaries are of this condition, or to export.

I doubt this new is accurate. Maybe only some plan of someone officer. It means modifications of the originally accepted UAZ-3163 that surely should face new tests to be accepted for the proposed purpose, that is also different of the original.

eehnie wrote:

SeigSoloyvov wrote:

eehnie wrote:

miketheterrible wrote:You are aware the purpose of these right? Recon and quick run and gun. Such tactics have been used often and without proper equipment. Add in the equipment and they will have no problem.

SeigSoloyvov wrote:Go in destroy shit and get out before a force can get in range and react. These tactics utterly trashed the Army and the marines themselves had a hard time dealing with it, mind you I was a marine for over eight years. So unless you have more than ten years combat experience than I do (doubt that) I can without a doubt say you have no idea what a REAL battlefield is like or what the situation is like on them.

Fun fact I have been to Syria with the kurds, I have been to Iraq. I've even had the Ruskies drop a couple of air strikes near my position (didn't know we was there).

This is useful only vs low armed adversaries, With the current weapon range, the use of these units in scenarios like the Donbass is far more difficult, if not impossible. In this kind of scenarios, it is run, gun and die, because after the attack the unit is fairly exposed to all the types of mid-long range weapons (man portable antitank weapons, artillery of all the types, MRLS,...).

Not every area will have these you seem to think every single unit is afforded these things they REALLY aren't. Most units have minimal shit, only the units expected to push are given heaven weapons. This is a Fairy tale among civi's that everywhere you go on a battlefield you will find a tank or ATGM.

The type of things these guys would attack would be targeted with small arms. The US doesn't give every unit half the shit you spoke of only the frontline units get that stuff, rear line units don't.

With the range of the current MRLSs of the current heavy artillery pieces and of the current man-portable anti-tank, rockett and missile launchers, outside of scenarios with adversaries with very small density of these weapons like Syria or Iraq, it is almost impossible to find a unit totally uncovered, unless a big strategic mistake of the adversary.

These configurations for the UAZ-3163 Patriot as "combat" vehicle are in my view only valid vs adversaries with very low density of powerful weapons. In the case of Russia it would be right to be used by the Russia Security forces, because their adversaries are of this condition, or to export.

I doubt this new is accurate. Maybe only some plan of someone officer. It means modifications of the originally accepted UAZ-3163 that surely should face new tests to be accepted for the proposed purpose, that is also different of the original.

Again no it was rare you could arty cover when I was in Iraq during operation Freedom and beyond. The artillery guns including self-propelled are hardly ever able to cover when needed. This is again another civi illusion that arty is always there and always ready guess what it's not, in fact, you learned not to depend on arty.

Again you are assuming EVERY single unit under the sun will have these weapons when in reality they do not. I have experience here, I know how the military works. I have done NATO, I have trained with Brits, Japanese and more. If you avoid the main lines and shock units very few have heavy weapons of that type and the arty won't be around to save your ass if you get attacked in rear lines like that either they never did for me when I was in the marine.

Fuck I had many cases where I was stuck in a goddam hole for days at a time with those bastards all around us.

Hell the CIA gave the rats thousands of AT weapons and consider their size (manpower) every man should have one by your logic guess what they don't either. So what you are saying isn't accurate at all in how stuff goes down on the BF again. There is a difference between how you think this stuff works and how it really goes down.

SeigSoloyvov wrote:

eehnie wrote:

SeigSoloyvov wrote:

eehnie wrote:

miketheterrible wrote:You are aware the purpose of these right?  Recon and quick run and gun.  Such tactics have been used often and without proper equipment.  Add in the equipment and they will have no problem.

SeigSoloyvov wrote:Go in destroy shit and get out before a force can get in range and react. These tactics utterly trashed the Army and the marines themselves had a hard time dealing with it, mind you I was a marine for over eight years. So unless you have more than ten years combat experience than I do (doubt that) I can without a doubt say you have no idea what a REAL battlefield is like or what the situation is like on them.

Fun fact I have been to Syria with the kurds, I have been to Iraq. I've even had the Ruskies drop a couple of air strikes near my position (didn't know we was there).

This is useful only vs low armed adversaries, With the current weapon range, the use of these units in scenarios like the Donbass is far more difficult, if not impossible. In this kind of scenarios, it is run, gun and die, because after the attack the unit is fairly exposed to all the types of mid-long range weapons (man portable antitank weapons, artillery of all the types, MRLS,...).

Not every area will have these you seem to think every single unit is afforded these things they REALLY aren't. Most units have minimal shit, only the units expected to push are given heaven weapons. This is a Fairy tale among civi's that everywhere you go on a battlefield you will find a tank or ATGM.

The type of things these guys would attack would be targeted with small arms. The US doesn't give every unit half the shit you spoke of only the frontline units get that stuff, rear line units don't.

With the range of the current MRLSs of the current heavy artillery pieces and of the current man-portable anti-tank, rockett and missile launchers, outside of scenarios with adversaries with very small density of these weapons like Syria or Iraq, it is almost impossible to find a unit totally uncovered, unless a big strategic mistake of the adversary.

These configurations for the UAZ-3163 Patriot as "combat" vehicle are in my view only valid vs adversaries with very low density of powerful weapons. In the case of Russia it would be right to be used by the Russia Security forces, because their adversaries are of this condition, or to export.

I doubt this new is accurate. Maybe only some plan of someone officer. It means modifications of the originally accepted UAZ-3163 that surely should face new tests to be accepted for the proposed purpose, that is also different of the original.

Again no it was rare you could arty cover when I was in Iraq during operation Freedom and beyond. The artillery guns including self-propelled are hardly ever able to cover when needed. This is again another civi illusion that arty is always there and always ready guess what it's not, in fact, you learned not to depend on arty.

Again you are assuming EVERY single unit under the sun will have these weapons when in reality they do not. I have experience here, I know how the military works. I have done NATO, I have trained with Brits, Japanese and more. If you avoid the main lines and shock units very few have heavy weapons of that type and the arty won't be around to save your ass if you get attacked in rear lines like that either they never did for me when I was in the marine.

Fuck I had many cases where I was stuck in a goddam hole for days at a time with those bastards all around us.

Hell the CIA gave the rats thousands of AT weapons and consider their size (manpower) every man should have one by your logic guess what they don't either. So what you are saying isn't accurate at all in how stuff goes down on the BF again. There is a difference between how you think this stuff works and how it really goes down.

No, Im not assuming that every single unit has these weapons. I'm saying that there are them in a distance shorter to the range of fire of the weapons. This in the refered to the heavy weapons. In the refered to the man-portable weapons, every unit of a decent army has something enough vs unarmoured trucks.

Also I said: It is almost impossible to find a unit totally uncovered, unless a big strategic mistake of the adversary. Now you can explain me all the strategic mistakes commited by your army or your adversaries.

eehnie wrote:

SeigSoloyvov wrote:

eehnie wrote:

SeigSoloyvov wrote:

eehnie wrote:

miketheterrible wrote:You are aware the purpose of these right?  Recon and quick run and gun.  Such tactics have been used often and without proper equipment.  Add in the equipment and they will have no problem.

SeigSoloyvov wrote:Go in destroy shit and get out before a force can get in range and react. These tactics utterly trashed the Army and the marines themselves had a hard time dealing with it, mind you I was a marine for over eight years. So unless you have more than ten years combat experience than I do (doubt that) I can without a doubt say you have no idea what a REAL battlefield is like or what the situation is like on them.

Fun fact I have been to Syria with the kurds, I have been to Iraq. I've even had the Ruskies drop a couple of air strikes near my position (didn't know we was there).

This is useful only vs low armed adversaries, With the current weapon range, the use of these units in scenarios like the Donbass is far more difficult, if not impossible. In this kind of scenarios, it is run, gun and die, because after the attack the unit is fairly exposed to all the types of mid-long range weapons (man portable antitank weapons, artillery of all the types, MRLS,...).

Not every area will have these you seem to think every single unit is afforded these things they REALLY aren't. Most units have minimal shit, only the units expected to push are given heaven weapons. This is a Fairy tale among civi's that everywhere you go on a battlefield you will find a tank or ATGM.

The type of things these guys would attack would be targeted with small arms. The US doesn't give every unit half the shit you spoke of only the frontline units get that stuff, rear line units don't.

With the range of the current MRLSs of the current heavy artillery pieces and of the current man-portable anti-tank, rockett and missile launchers, outside of scenarios with adversaries with very small density of these weapons like Syria or Iraq, it is almost impossible to find a unit totally uncovered, unless a big strategic mistake of the adversary.

These configurations for the UAZ-3163 Patriot as "combat" vehicle are in my view only valid vs adversaries with very low density of powerful weapons. In the case of Russia it would be right to be used by the Russia Security forces, because their adversaries are of this condition, or to export.

I doubt this new is accurate. Maybe only some plan of someone officer. It means modifications of the originally accepted UAZ-3163 that surely should face new tests to be accepted for the proposed purpose, that is also different of the original.

Again no it was rare you could arty cover when I was in Iraq during operation Freedom and beyond. The artillery guns including self-propelled are hardly ever able to cover when needed. This is again another civi illusion that arty is always there and always ready guess what it's not, in fact, you learned not to depend on arty.

Again you are assuming EVERY single unit under the sun will have these weapons when in reality they do not. I have experience here, I know how the military works. I have done NATO, I have trained with Brits, Japanese and more. If you avoid the main lines and shock units very few have heavy weapons of that type and the arty won't be around to save your ass if you get attacked in rear lines like that either they never did for me when I was in the marine.

Fuck I had many cases where I was stuck in a goddam hole for days at a time with those bastards all around us.

Hell the CIA gave the rats thousands of AT weapons and consider their size (manpower) every man should have one by your logic guess what they don't either. So what you are saying isn't accurate at all in how stuff goes down on the BF again. There is a difference between how you think this stuff works and how it really goes down.

No, Im not assuming that every single unit has these weapons. I'm saying that there are them in a distance shorter to the range of fire of the weapons. This in the refered to the heavy weapons. In the refered to the man-portable weapons, every unit of a decent army has something enough vs unarmoured trucks.

Also I said: It is almost impossible to find a unit totally uncovered, unless a big strategic mistake of the adversary. Now you can explain me all the strategic mistakes commited by your army or your adversaries.

Seig, now you know, all the real life problems on the frontline are strategic mistakes of your army/adversaries. Be thankful for this lesson

Okay look ten years of experience I can respect that, but the Russian way of battle is not the same as NATO's. If these brigades are made for unconventional roles I'd understand but that's a waste of manpower for no reason. UAZ Patriots look like f***** technicals. When I was in the VDV even with our arguably lighter armored IFVs we still relied on mobility and firepower as our main distinct function. We could still do all that stuff the MOD supposedly learned in Syria without the idiotic waste of manpower.

Seriously... Look at what the f*** they are talking about. In Crimea we had units deployed in GAZ Tigrs which was a quick intervention with light forces... I wonder with the Technicals are we planning on going Guerrilla mode? Maybe we took lessons from the FSA? The Russian army does not need these units, as we already have light mobile forces... We need build our conventional pool up. The Russian territories are huge, the more actual useful units we can have the better. Honestly the only thing these "super light" infantry brigades would be useful for is against low intensity insurgency.

The Russian military doctrine since the USSR relies on heavy firepower in our Operational-Strategic operations; these are a key distinct feature in our forces. If we're going to fight a war we need actual ground forces equipped with heavy IFVs to do what is needed. If these are made for counter-insurgency operations then that's also stupid because we have many other options to use without these brigades anyways. My final thoughts on this are: waste of manpower.

VladimirSahin wrote:Okay look ten years of experience I can respect that, but the Russian way of battle is not the same as NATO's. If these brigades are made for unconventional roles I'd understand but that's a waste of manpower for no reason. UAZ Patriots look like f***** technicals. When I was in the VDV even with our arguably lighter armored IFVs we still relied on mobility and firepower as our main distinct function. We could still do all that stuff the MOD supposedly learned in Syria without the idiotic waste of manpower.

Seriously... Look at what the f*** they are talking about. In Crimea we had units deployed in GAZ Tigrs which was a quick intervention with light forces... I wonder with the Technicals are we planning on going Guerrilla mode? Maybe we took lessons from the FSA? The Russian army does not need these units, as we already have light mobile forces... We need build our conventional pool up. The Russian territories are huge, the more actual useful units we can have the better. Honestly the only thing these "super light" infantry brigades would be useful for is against low intensity insurgency.

The Russian military doctrine since the USSR relies on heavy firepower in our Operational-Strategic operations; these are a key distinct feature in our forces. If we're going to fight a war we need actual ground forces equipped with heavy IFVs to do what is needed. If these are made for counter-insurgency operations then that's also stupid because we have many other options to use without these brigades anyways. My final thoughts on this are: waste of manpower.

This I agree with. If they just went with Tigrs and armored trucks, then it wouldn't be a big deal. But going with light trucks does give question to these units. Now I just wonder what exactly the plan is with them? Are the trucks lightly armored? I have seen standard vehicles used by mercenaries with basic upgrades in the door panels and windows using material for dampening or stopping shots from going through. Does this have it? Don't know. By looks of it, no.

cheesfactory wrote:

eehnie wrote:

SeigSoloyvov wrote:

eehnie wrote:

SeigSoloyvov wrote:

eehnie wrote:

miketheterrible wrote:You are aware the purpose of these right?  Recon and quick run and gun.  Such tactics have been used often and without proper equipment.  Add in the equipment and they will have no problem.

SeigSoloyvov wrote:Go in destroy shit and get out before a force can get in range and react. These tactics utterly trashed the Army and the marines themselves had a hard time dealing with it, mind you I was a marine for over eight years. So unless you have more than ten years combat experience than I do (doubt that) I can without a doubt say you have no idea what a REAL battlefield is like or what the situation is like on them.

Fun fact I have been to Syria with the kurds, I have been to Iraq. I've even had the Ruskies drop a couple of air strikes near my position (didn't know we was there).

This is useful only vs low armed adversaries, With the current weapon range, the use of these units in scenarios like the Donbass is far more difficult, if not impossible. In this kind of scenarios, it is run, gun and die, because after the attack the unit is fairly exposed to all the types of mid-long range weapons (man portable antitank weapons, artillery of all the types, MRLS,...).

Not every area will have these you seem to think every single unit is afforded these things they REALLY aren't. Most units have minimal shit, only the units expected to push are given heaven weapons. This is a Fairy tale among civi's that everywhere you go on a battlefield you will find a tank or ATGM.

The type of things these guys would attack would be targeted with small arms. The US doesn't give every unit half the shit you spoke of only the frontline units get that stuff, rear line units don't.

With the range of the current MRLSs of the current heavy artillery pieces and of the current man-portable anti-tank, rockett and missile launchers, outside of scenarios with adversaries with very small density of these weapons like Syria or Iraq, it is almost impossible to find a unit totally uncovered, unless a big strategic mistake of the adversary.

These configurations for the UAZ-3163 Patriot as "combat" vehicle are in my view only valid vs adversaries with very low density of powerful weapons. In the case of Russia it would be right to be used by the Russia Security forces, because their adversaries are of this condition, or to export.

I doubt this new is accurate. Maybe only some plan of someone officer. It means modifications of the originally accepted UAZ-3163 that surely should face new tests to be accepted for the proposed purpose, that is also different of the original.

Again no it was rare you could arty cover when I was in Iraq during operation Freedom and beyond. The artillery guns including self-propelled are hardly ever able to cover when needed. This is again another civi illusion that arty is always there and always ready guess what it's not, in fact, you learned not to depend on arty.

Again you are assuming EVERY single unit under the sun will have these weapons when in reality they do not. I have experience here, I know how the military works. I have done NATO, I have trained with Brits, Japanese and more. If you avoid the main lines and shock units very few have heavy weapons of that type and the arty won't be around to save your ass if you get attacked in rear lines like that either they never did for me when I was in the marine.

Fuck I had many cases where I was stuck in a goddam hole for days at a time with those bastards all around us.

Hell the CIA gave the rats thousands of AT weapons and consider their size (manpower) every man should have one by your logic guess what they don't either. So what you are saying isn't accurate at all in how stuff goes down on the BF again. There is a difference between how you think this stuff works and how it really goes down.

No, Im not assuming that every single unit has these weapons. I'm saying that there are them in a distance shorter to the range of fire of the weapons. This in the refered to the heavy weapons. In the refered to the man-portable weapons, every unit of a decent army has something enough vs unarmoured trucks.

Also I said: It is almost impossible to find a unit totally uncovered, unless a big strategic mistake of the adversary. Now you can explain me all the strategic mistakes commited by your army or your adversaries.

Seig, now you know, all the real life problems on the frontline are strategic mistakes of your army/adversaries. Be thankful for this lesson

I was rude first without reason. Sorry. Still the argument is valid. While to have a unit uncovered is a strategic mistake, other problems are possible, but are not sure enough to make an attack with these light Patriots vs a weak unit of a regular army like the Ukranian (not better). It is suicidal in my view. Run, gun and die.

In the case of the Russian Armed Forces:

In overall terms my position is critic with the light unarmoured or semiarmoured vehicles for roles in contested areas, because I think the soldiers are too exposed on them. I'm far from convinced about these vehicles. Neither the Tigr, the Iveco LMV, the Patriot, the Vodnik, the Skorpion, the BPM-97 4x4, the Typhoon 4x4 or the Falkatus convince me except for light utility vehicle role in uncontested areas, and here the value of including some armor on them is doubtful.

In overall terms Russia is doing better than other countries in this chapter. I see these vehicles having troubles to be accepted for roles in contested areas. Russia would have better standards than other countries on this.

In this case I would take the Typhoon 6x6 that are enough armoured and can reach 105 Km/h.

In the case of the Russian security forces:

For other security forces all can be fine. The solution would be to select the best of them.

@Eehnie

First off tactical mistake of my army? a battle changes faster than you can imagine one second everything is going according to plan the next just twenty men fucked everything up. There is no battle where a tactical mistake isn't made. The thing is how big is the mistake.

Now these vehicles, I highly doubt these will be the final production versions (That is a Syrian vehicle) if so that is a rather large mistake. I never committed on the vehicles themselves merely the formation of the unit does have it's place on a battlefield not the equipment they are given. I am not saying you are wrong but you are also under some misguided notions a battlefield is like how you think it is.

Now if the picture we seen is the final Russian production version then yes that is beyond foolish give me a grenade launcher and that truck is dead. Now I will use a Syrian example for you. The Rebels for example. I know their equipment general numbers of what they had at one point in time they had MORE than enough light AT to cover every single unit, yet int he spaces where operations against them took place only around 40 percent of the space had these weapons present. Only the places that had the heaviest fighting where the SAA had the most armor, or that was critical in terms of strategic land was given these weapons. The areas where no combat was expected at most had small arms like rifles, even the SAA supply lines had areas where just guys with machine guns defended it.

If a big enough force was detected they would send men from a reserve area to counter it. The rats used this against them really the SAA lost more supplies to this then will be admitted by them or the Russians. They got in fast hit hard and got out. Now you can argue "Well the SAA does have limited manpower..." sure but every army does this. Even Mother Russia.

Now you can take my experience for what you want. I personally do not care, I just sought to inform you.

@GarryB

Again no, these units would be Hyena's basically attacking targets of opportunity. It's quite easy to find an uncovered line granted this depends on how large the area is. If it's a good amount of volume, not everything will be covered period if it's a small amount of space a unit like this is quite useless.

These units will NOT be attacking Tank divisions and motorized divisions that would be suicide lol, when did I EVER say that's their MOS. You are putting words in my mouth and I don't care for that. Their targets are lightly defended rear lines. Guess what if they force the enemy to keep a sizeable formation to cover these lines they STILL did their job by averting manpower away from the front.

Hm but I guess you have experience in a war outside of a screen?. I am not trying to be rude here, even if in the past I have found your attitude poor. However again wars hardly go how you like and on a battlefield things never go how you want 100 percent of the time. Welcome to the Unknown factors of war, so you can preach and preach and preach to me all you want on how this works and that works understand all I am doing here is shaking my head. Since I know first hand it does not.

Consider I've been able to predict what the SAA will do considering they are Russian-trained and have been right 100 percent, I have a fairly good idea of how The Russian Army will react. I have studied them for years the battles in chech and such.

I am most impressed by their win over Georgia however. Nothing but 10k conscripts defeated a professional trained Georgian military?. I worked with some of the men who helped train them. They won despite the sorry shit of excuse their army was at that point vehicles breaking down, shooting down your own aircraft and using cellphones to communicate?. So do not assume I do not take Russia has a threat. I hold them in a high regard one must know their enemy after all. It was a war Russia should have lost but they won in so little time.

It was at that point Russia became a threat for me (nukes excluded). Granted I was an 18-year-old kid when I when they sent us for the first time into the wars. So sure I've made my fair share of blunders, I don't deny that but my experience and the fact I was in syria does allow me to speak. Then again, I don't remember talking how the unit will perform just that it does serve a tactical point and I then explained why. Then you once more proceed to say I was talking about how RUSSIAN units act or should act. When I wasn't I honestly SHOULDNT have replied to you. You stating things I never committed on, so please keep saying I made comments I never did.

@Sahin

You served in the the VDV? well, you guys are what I consider the biggest ground threat Russia has so hats off to you mate and I respect your service also.

Are you saying the VDV is meant for the kind of roles these units are far has I know you guys aren't? You are highly mobile, yes, but not meant for hit and run supply raids. Could you do this job? yes but still that takes away from your manpower.

These units are dedicated for this purpose not can do it to a lower degree if needed. The vehicles are shit, I agree I hope to see a final production version soon the one we are shown was Syrian after all. Crimea well Ukraine didn't want to start a conflict with you guys had they fought back things wouldn't have gone well for you guys. Sure you still would have taken it over but the losses would have quite noticeable. You guys did well taking it over with only one death that is QUITE impressive but the large factor is the Ukrainians didn't fight back and let your forces walk over them also but that was the correct choice they would have merely died in the end. Those light units you spoke of would have been forced back waiting for heavier forces had they fired back.

So do not use Crimea has an example with me since the Army did not to fend those light interventions forces off and they could have easily if they wanted your GAZ Tigrs wouldn't have helped had the fighting started. I do not say this to discredit what happened. Crimea was a very good operation, excellent planning and execution TOP NOTCH by all accounts. also the biggest factor was you had the support of the people if you guys didn't have the people behind you, you would have NEVER done it.

@Seig I think there was maybe a misunderstanding, that's exactly the point I was trying to get across the light units aren't what's needed. During the Crimean operations however there were BTR-80s used as well. But the thing is these light units don't serve a multi-role function at all, basically limited to what you've said.

As for hitting supply lines, or rear areas: Yes the VDV can be used for these roles as well, and operating in the rear lines of the enemy is a plausible mission scenario if possible.

SeigSoloyvov wrote:@Eehnie

First off tactical mistake of my army? a battle changes faster than you can imagine one second everything is going according to plan the next just twenty men fucked everything up. There is no battle where a tactical mistake isn't made. The thing is how big is the mistake.

Now these vehicles, I highly doubt these will be the final production versions (That is a Syrian vehicle) if so that is a rather large mistake. I never committed on the vehicles themselves merely the formation of the unit does have it's place on a battlefield not the equipment they are given. I am not saying you are wrong but you are also under some misguided notions a battlefield is like how you think it is.

Now if the picture we seen is the final Russian production version then yes that is beyond foolish give me a grenade launcher and that truck is dead. Now I will use a Syrian example for you. The Rebels for example. I know their equipment general numbers of what they had at one point in time they had MORE than enough light AT to cover every single unit, yet int he spaces where operations against them took place only around 40 percent of the space had these weapons present. Only the places that had the heaviest fighting where the SAA had the most armor, or that was critical in terms of strategic land was given these weapons. The areas where no combat was expected at most had small arms like rifles, even the SAA supply lines had areas where just guys with machine guns defended it.

If a big enough force was detected they would send men from a reserve area to counter it. The rats used this against them really the SAA lost more supplies to this then will be admitted by them or the Russians. They got in fast hit hard and got out. Now you can argue "Well the SAA does have limited manpower..." sure but every army does this. Even Mother Russia.

Now you can take my experience for what you want. I personally do not care, I just sought to inform you.

If my comment has been more focused in the vehicle is because the original new was focused in the vehicle.

There are two potential strategic mistakes that I would not bet to find in armies with minimal organization:
- To have units without man-portable equipment of all the types.
- To have units totally uncovered by heavy weapons.

The first is obviously a question strategic nature. It is a question of equipment. It can be enough to defeat an attack with Patriots armed like explained in the news. The second also helps to the unit attacked by the Patriots, but still the result of the initial fight can depend also of tactic questions. Even a best case situation of victory for the Patriot unit in the initial attack, only a miracle can save them after it, if the adversary meets well the second strategic point, and has the area covered by heavier and longer range weapons. Today the range of fire of the heavy artillery and of the MRLSs is obscene.

To use Typhoons 6x6 instead of Patriots with this combat configuration can make a difference in the initial attack, but after it something else is required too.

eehnie wrote:

SeigSoloyvov wrote:@Eehnie

First off tactical mistake of my army? a battle changes faster than you can imagine one second everything is going according to plan the next just twenty men fucked everything up. There is no battle where a tactical mistake isn't made. The thing is how big is the mistake.

Now these vehicles, I highly doubt these will be the final production versions (That is a Syrian vehicle) if so that is a rather large mistake. I never committed on the vehicles themselves merely the formation of the unit does have it's place on a battlefield not the equipment they are given. I am not saying you are wrong but you are also under some misguided notions a battlefield is like how you think it is.

Now if the picture we seen is the final Russian production version then yes that is beyond foolish give me a grenade launcher and that truck is dead. Now I will use a Syrian example for you. The Rebels for example. I know their equipment general numbers of what they had at one point in time they had MORE than enough light AT to cover every single unit, yet int he spaces where operations against them took place only around 40 percent of the space had these weapons present. Only the places that had the heaviest fighting where the SAA had the most armor, or that was critical in terms of strategic land was given these weapons. The areas where no combat was expected at most had small arms like rifles, even the SAA supply lines had areas where just guys with machine guns defended it.

If a big enough force was detected they would send men from a reserve area to counter it. The rats used this against them really the SAA lost more supplies to this then will be admitted by them or the Russians. They got in fast hit hard and got out. Now you can argue "Well the SAA does have limited manpower..." sure but every army does this. Even Mother Russia.

Now you can take my experience for what you want. I personally do not care, I just sought to inform you.

If my comment has been more focused in the vehicle is because the original new was focused in the vehicle.

There are two potential strategic mistakes that I would not bet to find in armies with minimal organization:
- To have units without man-portable equipment of all the types.
- To have units totally uncovered by heavy weapons.

The first is obviously a question strategic nature. It is a question of equipment. It can be enough to defeat an attack with Patriots armed like explained in the news. The second also helps to the unit attacked by the Patriots, but still the result of the initial fight can depend also of tactic questions. Even a best case situation of victory for the Patriot unit in the initial attack, only a miracle can save them after it, if the adversary meets well the second strategic point, and has the area covered by heavier and longer range weapons. Today the range of fire of the heavy artillery and of the MRLSs is obscene.

To use Typhoons 6x6 instead of Patriots with this combat configuration can make a difference in the initial attack, but after it something else is required too.

Then you would be wrong, I saw this from the SAA when I was alongside the Kurds, I seen this from ISIS, from the Rebels who had more than enough of both to do what you state. You are viewing things in a perfect world not how reality works. Again this is my personal experience in Syria which is only what 6 months old?. Typhoons would be the best choice for a unit like this, the success of the attack would depend on positioning and timing alone. Even if they spent just 10 minutes there, provided they did the attack correctly. That's all you need. I raided lines in this time frame with vehicles like this and caused enough damage. This also depends on what point of the enemies force are you seeking to attack these units will require independent recon forces to find the ample location for their attack. These units are mean't for prolonged fighting to the point they would require heavier stuff.

The main objective for a unit like this is three things.

1. Attack weak spots in supply lines, no supply line has a perfect defense most have many weak spots.

2. Divert manpower away from the Frontline force the enemy to keep more men than they would like.

3. Take advantage of a tactical error by the enemy and exploit it for the main's forces benefit.

Part of my job Sides fighting with the Kurds was teaching/training them. They used these examples to great benefit ISIS had more armor than them but they still won by using maneuver tactics to exploitISIs positioning which is what these kinds of units will be doing.

Now if they can do it right thats another story,

A bit more detailed article about the concept of the "superlight brigade".

---

Russian armed forces have created a new superlight infantry battalion equipped with UAZ Patriot

A superlight infantry battalion has been formed in the Samara Region. It is unique as far as the Russian Armed Forces are concerned. The unit shall operate UAZ Patriot wheeled vehicles mounting Kalashnikov machineguns, the press office of the Central Military District told journalists.


"Building on the lessons learnt from the fighting of recent years, a superlight infantry battalion has been stood up. It is the first unit of the kind ever in the Russian Armed Forces," the press office said.

The UAZ Patriots in the battalion’s inventory will be equipped with 7.62-mm Kalashnikov machineguns and other weapons as required. Around 90 Patriots are due to the brigade the battalion reports to before the end of the year.

The activation of the battalion will boost the brigade’s mobility by several times on military operations in urbanized terrain and enable it to raid the enemy’s flanks and unprotected positions with lightning speed. The unit’s personnel are receiving tactical training and conducting range practice at the Roshchinsky Training Area in the Samara Region while waiting for the arrival of their new materiel.

The newly infantry brigade of the Central Military District was formed in the Samara Region on November 30. It comprises infantry, field artillery, scout, combat engineer and other units. Its manning with enlisted personnel is under way.

Source: http://www.armyrecognition.com/december_2016_global_defense_security_news_industry/russian_armed_forces_has_created_a_new_superlight_infantry_battalion_equipped_with_uaz_patriot_tass_11412161.html

---

Well, those support units of the brigade (field artillery, combat engineer), would need heavier equipment no matter what. These UAZ Patriots are indeed looking like technicals (no armor, no heavy weapons (except ATGMs maybe), so I totally agree with VladimirSahin's statement. In my opinion, the only viable task for this type of units would be COIN (counter-insurgency), but only with a bit heavier vehicles like the Typhoon-series, since these UAZ Patriots do not offer adequate mine/IED and projectile protection.

"RUSSIA EXPANDS GROUND FORCES."



https://southfront.org/russia-expands-ground-forces/

Benya wrote:A bit more detailed article about the concept of the "superlight brigade".

---

Russian armed forces have created a new superlight infantry battalion equipped with UAZ Patriot

A superlight infantry battalion has been formed in the Samara Region. It is unique as far as the Russian Armed Forces are concerned. The unit shall operate UAZ Patriot wheeled vehicles mounting Kalashnikov machineguns, the press office of the Central Military District told journalists.

Russian-made UAZ-3163 Patriot 4x4 light tactical vehicle

"Building on the lessons learnt from the fighting of recent years, a superlight infantry battalion has been stood up. It is the first unit of the kind ever in the Russian Armed Forces," the press office said.

The UAZ Patriots in the battalion’s inventory will be equipped with 7.62-mm Kalashnikov machineguns and other weapons as required. Around 90 Patriots are due to the brigade the battalion reports to before the end of the year.

The activation of the battalion will boost the brigade’s mobility by several times on military operations in urbanized terrain and enable it to raid the enemy’s flanks and unprotected positions with lightning speed. The unit’s personnel are receiving tactical training and conducting range practice at the Roshchinsky Training Area in the Samara Region while waiting for the arrival of their new materiel.

The newly infantry brigade of the Central Military District was formed in the Samara Region on November 30. It comprises infantry, field artillery, scout, combat engineer and other units. Its manning with enlisted personnel is under way.

Source: http://www.armyrecognition.com/december_2016_global_defense_security_news_industry/russian_armed_forces_has_created_a_new_superlight_infantry_battalion_equipped_with_uaz_patriot_tass_11412161.html

---

Well, those support units of the brigade (field artillery, combat engineer), would need heavier equipment no matter what. These UAZ Patriots are indeed looking like technicals (no armor, no heavy weapons (except ATGMs maybe), so I totally agree with VladimirSahin's statement. In my opinion, the only viable task for this type of units would be COIN (counter-insurgency), but only with a bit heavier vehicles like the Typhoon-series, since these UAZ Patriots do not offer adequate mine/IED and projectile protection.

Its what we call light mobility vehicle for the army. Every army has some type of such vehicle. Here we atm use mix of Mercedes G class (Puch), Land Rover Defenders and Pinzgauers.

UK is using thousands of Land Rover Wolfs. French have Peugeot P4s and Land Rovers. This is kinda retaking spot UAZ 469 had basically.

Russian defense contractor puts new types of armament into production this year

The corporation has fully complied with the state defense order in 2016, supplying over 1,200 pieces of armament and military hardware to the Defense Ministry

YEKATERINBURG, December 21. /TASS/. The Urals-based civil and defense contractor Uralvagonzavod has put seven new armament types into production this year, the corporation’s press office reported on Wednesday.

"In 2016, the corporation has arranged the production of seven types of armament. First of all, this is the T-72B3 more profoundly upgraded tank with a more powerful engine and an improved fire control system," the press office said.

"The enterprise has also started for the first time to serially produce the BMR-3MA armored mine-clearing vehicle, the modernized IMR-3M engineering vehicle, the upgraded DT-10PM two-unit prime mover and the SPM special fire-fighting vehicle of unique design that has no rivals in the world. Uralvagonzavod has also assimilated the modernization of the TOS-1A heavy flamethrower system," the enterprise’s press office said.

According to Uralvagonzavod’s data, the corporation has fully complied with the state defense order in 2016, supplying over 1,200 pieces of armament and military hardware to the Defense Ministry.

As part of the state defense order for this year, Uralvagonzavod has fulfilled over 90 state contracts, 70% of which are long-term agreements.

The BMR-3M is a Russian armored mine-clearing vehicle designated to conduct reconnaissance, negotiate and clear minefields, ways of troop columns’ movement and create minefield lanes amid the enemy’s resistance by fire. The BMR-3M has been designed with the use of the chassis of the T-90 tank whose armor has been reinforced.

The TOC-1A heavy flamethrower "Solntsepyok" (Sunheat) is a multiple launch rocket system. The TOS-1A comprises a BM-1 combat vehicle, a T3M-T transporter-loader vehicle and an ammunition set of multiple launch rockets. The TOS-1A heavy flamethrower system is unique by its technical solutions, combat assignments and combat efficiency and has no rivals in the world.

Uralvagonzavod is a Russian R&D Corporation that develops and produces military hardware: T-72, T-90 tanks, BMR-3M mine-clearing combat vehicles, TOS-1A heavy flamethrower systems, Msta-S self-propelled howitzers and other weapons.

The Corporation integrates R&D institutes, design bureaus and production facilities. Uralvagonzavod is wholly owned by the state.


More:
http://tass.com/defense/921184

franco wrote:Making the best out of a bad situation, living out of tents;

http://bmpd.livejournal.com/2378892.html

Τhis is Russian Army. The best in winter conditions!

80th separate motorized rifle brigade Arctic













http://bmpd.livejournal.com/2394940.html

I think it best to have one size barrel for new tanks . Say 125 mm . But use this size to make different rounds . Many different types . We all know : sabot round , HE round , guided missile . But how about launching a laser guided round in high trajectory like howitzer round . Infantry or uav can illuminate target tank . Range can be 15 km . But need to design tank barrel to be capable of high elevation . Design problem . Also like howitzer . Shells can be stored in towed armored trailer behind tank . And fed into tank by small reciprocating conveyor . Many round can be carried . This trailor discarded when tank closes with enemy . I like the coaxial cannon on Armata . It can possibly fire new RF controlled timed air burst against ground or low flying target .

nomadski wrote:I think it best to have one size barrel for new tanks . Say 125 mm . But use this size to make different rounds . Many different types . We all know : sabot round , HE round , guided missile . But how about launching a laser guided round in high trajectory like howitzer round . Infantry or uav can illuminate target tank . Range can be 15 km . But need to design tank barrel to be capable of high elevation . Design problem . Also like howitzer . Shells can be stored in towed armored trailer behind tank . And fed into tank by small reciprocating conveyor . Many round can be carried . This trailor discarded when tank closes with enemy . I like the coaxial cannon on Armata . It can possibly fire new RF controlled timed air burst against ground or low flying target .

I also think it is better. And the time is running in favor of the 152mm caliber for the new armata platform tanks.

For the 125mm caliber, that will continue being useful long time, I'm expecting some rocket assisted projectile, to make these tanks able to operate again also from outside of the range of the portable/man-portable weapons.