Russian Army/Ground Forces Discussion and Updates
- Thread starter Jack Johnson
- Start date
Some interesting shots of the new T-72B3 Modernized (sometimes referred to as the T-72B3M). Note it doesn't have the panoramic commanders sight that we saw on the "biathlon tanks" but it does include the new side-skirts identical to the T-90M. Allegedly it also comes with a new 1000 hp engine, in addition to the rest of the standard B3 package.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8-inDOfxpc&feature=youtu.be
EDIT: Some shots from UVZ of the work in progress.
http://altyn73.livejournal.com/1121316.html
Also a new arctic IFV is being prepared with a gas-turbine engine and an electric transmission (??). It's not clear whether this is truly a new and separate vehicle or just a variant of an existing vehicle with a new engine and transmission. Factory trials are set to start this fall.
http://gurkhan.blogspot.com/2017/03/blog-post_59.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8-inDOfxpc&feature=youtu.be
EDIT: Some shots from UVZ of the work in progress.
http://altyn73.livejournal.com/1121316.html
Also a new arctic IFV is being prepared with a gas-turbine engine and an electric transmission (??). It's not clear whether this is truly a new and separate vehicle or just a variant of an existing vehicle with a new engine and transmission. Factory trials are set to start this fall.
http://gurkhan.blogspot.com/2017/03/blog-post_59.html
Disappointing upgrade to be frank, protection remains far from optimal
The T-72B3 upgrade program is largely a function of the delays in the T-14 program. The further back they push the T-14, the more they need to invest in the existing T-72 fleet. If everything stays on schedule, they should be re-arming the first line units to the T-14 in 2019. So past that point we're unlikely to see significant improvements in the contents of the T-72 upgrade packages.
Well, the T-72B3M has integrated Relikt ERA so I assume it has better passive protection than the earlier T-72 models.
Or maybe you mean it lacks in active protection?
Apparently Relikt was not included, the turret tiles are still K-5. I'm not sure what the side-skirts are packaged with, but they're long overdue. The BMO-T has had a quality side-armor package for a while now. It's silly that it took this long to get it on front-line MBTs, especially when Russia is fighting regular wars.
They've settled on the BMD-4M platform. The associated APC is the BTR-MDM Rakushka. Deliveries began last year and are continuing this year.
ВДВ Ð*оÑÑии получили поÑледнюю партию бронетранÑпотеров БТÐ*-МДМ по трехлетнему контракту - bmpd
They're also working on air-droppable Tayfun 4X4 and Tigr 4X4 armored cars (the first an MRAP) with a 30mm autocannon module.
The Uran series UGVs are making progress in terms of integrating them organically into Motor-Rifle units at the platoon level. Leaving aside the asinine level of commentary to the video, it's interesting that the UGVs are programmed to recognized faces, and to identify what weapons enemy infantrymen are holding to prioritize targets. There's also some discussion, though not very informative, about the AI vs the human operator in terms of effectiveness. It also appears to have variable weapon mounts for ATGM, MANPADS, and other rocket and missile types including the rocket-propelled flamethrowers used by Russian RKhBZ platoons. The control rig for the entire thing is man-portable by a single operator. Meaning an infantry platoon could potentially integrate 1-4 of these machines by simply including operators into the TO either as platoon level assets, or one per infantry squad.
The concept is ripe for combat testing, and Syria would be an ideal battle ground. Assuming these vehicles do well in trials in Russia, I wouldn't be surprised to see a pair of them supporting the SAA.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QWVNNE_n07I.
Сборка Уран-9 - Andrei-bt
The concept is ripe for combat testing, and Syria would be an ideal battle ground. Assuming these vehicles do well in trials in Russia, I wouldn't be surprised to see a pair of them supporting the SAA.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QWVNNE_n07I.
Сборка Уран-9 - Andrei-bt
It's quite an interesting concept. Especially in a MOUT environment. I expect it to be sturdy enough to give the enemy some real headaches when one rounds a corner to put a RPG or Shmel into an enemy strongpoint. Apart from it not being impressed by suppression fire I also imagine it to be very hard to hit with an AT weapon before it engages it's target.
HMGs and AMRs might be the best answer to these little critters.
HMGs and AMRs might be the best answer to these little critters.
Haavarla
Active Member
My thoughts exactly Feanor!
I'm surprised that we haven't seen a light or mediocre VDV deployment over the Eastern oilfields of Syria already, if none other reasons to secure them and take some cruicial intersection area, that way they halt the SDF/US advancement southwards.
And as you say, it would test the VDV newly forces.
https://syria.liveuamap.com/
Last edited:
No. Nothing like that. I'm talking about a team of 4 operators, a squad of marines for escort, and a trailer with a pair of the Uran-9 UGVs to test them and them specifically in combat conditions.
As for deploying ground forces, Russia prefers to send military police units.
EDIT: Some interesting materials, photos of the interiors of the T-15 and T-14.
http://btvt.info/6photos/armata/armata01.html
http://btvt.info/6photos/armata_bmp/armata_bmp01.html
And a photo of a hypothetical Tornado-G MLRS mounted on the same DT-30 that the Arctic variants of the Tor and Pantsyr were. I'm not sure if the 80th and 200th currently have MLRS but if they do, it would certainly improve their cross-country mobility.
http://btvt.info/6photos/rszo/rszo01.html
Last edited:
I can't help but wonder about the protection level. HMGs would certainly destroy a lot of the exposed equipment on the outside. Even a medium machinegun could hit some of the exposed electro-optics and externally mounted missiles. This was one of the criticisms of the combat module on the BMPT, too exposed. Would these be used for dedicated MOUT ops? Right now Russia is playing with a concept of dedicated assault battalions for MOUT using heavy MRAPs, and having one of the 3 companies equipped with special heavy infantry armor. But there's no word on including UGVs in that force org. Meanwhile this testing is all about integrating them into a standard Motor-Rifle formation.
Blue Jay
Member
While it currently looks like much of the turret and systems are exposed, wouldn't a modular/scalable protection package be reasonable to expect? Something like additional plating to be wrapped around the turret so that things aren't just bare? The difference between the BMP-T and BMPT-72 turret protection comes into mind.
Also, most AFVs do have a minimum of protection against at least HMG/AMR caliber rounds like the .50 cal or 14.5mm, so wouldn't this UGV to be the same at least around the hull, even if the optics and such aren't?
Or perhaps, those things would defeat the point of using UGVs in place of manned AFVs, due to the added cost and weight?
Also, most AFVs do have a minimum of protection against at least HMG/AMR caliber rounds like the .50 cal or 14.5mm, so wouldn't this UGV to be the same at least around the hull, even if the optics and such aren't?
Or perhaps, those things would defeat the point of using UGVs in place of manned AFVs, due to the added cost and weight?
Haavarla
Active Member
Yes, cost, size and weight.
If you're required to give all mech-units the needed protection, then why not only build them on MBT chassis in the first place..
As it is, Mech-units in VDV's has to fit inside the Il-76. Thus such mech-units has limitions on weight and size. Of course they could mount up some Anti-TOW explosive plates, but agan, there is cost's involved.
APC, AFV, will always be easy pray for a modern RPG or TOW system.
His comment was about the Uran-9 UGV. Not about the VDV line of light armor.
I think that the Uran-9 needs to stand up to .50 cal. HMGs aren't that rare, and it would be a very expensive and vulnerable piece of equipment if it couldn't do that.
Armata looking like 2020 or beyond for IOC
Looks more and more like it won't be until at least 2020 until the T14 is deployed to its first filed unit
By 2020 the US Army will be co ducting final testing in the M1A2 SEP v4 which will is slated to include APS as well as other protection and lethality upgrades
Russia's ground forces have announced that the next-generation Uralvagonzavod T-14 Armata main battle tank (MBT) will enter into initial operational service with the 1st Guards Tank Regiment within the 2nd Guards Tamanskaya Motor Rifle Division, Izvestiya reported on 12 May. The report cautioned, however, that the new tanks would not enter service before 2020.
Russia announces delivery plan for first batch of Armata tanks | Jane's 360
Looks more and more like it won't be until at least 2020 until the T14 is deployed to its first filed unit
By 2020 the US Army will be co ducting final testing in the M1A2 SEP v4 which will is slated to include APS as well as other protection and lethality upgrades
Russia's ground forces have announced that the next-generation Uralvagonzavod T-14 Armata main battle tank (MBT) will enter into initial operational service with the 1st Guards Tank Regiment within the 2nd Guards Tamanskaya Motor Rifle Division, Izvestiya reported on 12 May. The report cautioned, however, that the new tanks would not enter service before 2020.
Russia announces delivery plan for first batch of Armata tanks | Jane's 360
Haavarla
Active Member
Well that figures.. Russia recently announced their defense budget for 2018-2015 period.
In reality they have pushed back a lot of different programs across the different defense branches.
A good deal fewer Helios unit, several new Navy projects is pushed back, PakDa is pushed back.
As for T-14, i guess its still on Trials. But one would think its a priority program for the Army.
https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/3299342
https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/3298425
In reality they have pushed back a lot of different programs across the different defense branches.
A good deal fewer Helios unit, several new Navy projects is pushed back, PakDa is pushed back.
As for T-14, i guess its still on Trials. But one would think its a priority program for the Army.
https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/3299342
https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/3298425
Combination of low crude and continued economic sanctions due to their Crimean operation may be taking a toll.
That's certainly part of it but another part is that the MoD was told back in ~2012 that they shouldn't expect to keep getting buckets of money indefinitely and that the GPV-2020 will be a massive wave of funding followed by lower funding post 2020. They're cutting the budget a tad early because of the reasons you mentioned but it was always in the works.
EDIT: On the T-14 specifically, I'd wait until we see what actually happens. There have been quite a few contradictory statements over the last few weeks.