"Don't ride inside of Russian armored personnel carriers"

[geetrue]

Don't ride inside Russian armored personnel carriers (http://www.reuters.com/article/reutersEdge/idUSLK23804020080820)


MOSCOW (Reuters) -
Russian soldiers rode into battle against Georgia perched on top of their armored personnel carriers, not out of bravado but because a flaw in their amour can make it more dangerous to travel inside.


The conflict -- Russia's biggest combat operation outside its borders since the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan -- showed its armed forces have emerged from years of neglect as a formidable fighting force, but revealed important deficiencies.

[August]

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think it's the case of most so called "armoured" troop carriers ?
I know we didn't rely on our french VABs one bit regarding protection, and I believe it's the same or even worse for the M-113. I'd say at least the BMP has a lower profile, IMO in comparison it's better than the others. Now is it really safer outside than inside is another question :)

All APCs were intended to do is protect the troops from shrapnel caused by nearby artillery bursts. They were never intended to protect them from mines or direct fire weapons.

[geetrue]

I think your right Mikhayl. I remember one nasty encounter of a US armored carrier in Iraq shown on ABC news that killed or maimed everyone inside from a roadside bomb.

However I thought it was ironic to actually know why the soliders were all riding around on the outside of their carriers in Georgia, which you don't see else where in Iraq.

I thought they were just celibrating victory instead of riding safe ... :yep:

[SUBMAN1]

Hmm. That is very revealing - Russia plans to 'up' its military spending to $23 Billion/yr. That is a far cry from even China's expenditures. What the hell can $23 Billion buy you to compete with any western nation?

In case anyone cares, the US spends about $411 Billion last I checked per year on its military.

Russia spends less than 5% of the US on its military.

-S

[SUBMAN1]

...As for military expenditures, if money was the deciding factor to win (modern) wars we would know it already.

Always has been. The only other way is a well placed bullet - such as a one with a leaders name on it.

-S

PS. I'm real tempted to move some place remote and buy a BMP! I want one!

[sergbuto]

Hmm. That is very revealing - Russia plans to 'up' its military spending to $23 Billion/yr. That is a far cry from even China's expenditures. What the hell can $23 Billion buy you to compete with any western nation?

In case anyone cares, the US spends about $411 Billion last I checked per year on its military.

Russia spends less than 5% of the US on its military.

-S
You need to take into account that the selfcost of Russian military equipment production is much lower/cheaper.

[AntEater]

In east germany, there's some place where you can ride in and drive BMPs, BRDMs and T-55s, I think.
Actually, owning a BMP shouldn't be so much of a problem. They're around in huge numbers, they are diesel powered and easy to repair. Any former east block nation should have dozens of them surplus. Shipping might be a bit expensive, though...
:)

Re military spending, the russians have the advantage that their military procurement is a bit simpler than that of the US, especially since they went back to the soviet style "design bureau" system a few years ago.
On the other hand, they've produced a handy collection of prototypes and export models sofar, while their many of their forces still have the cold war equipment.
But building prototypes wasn't as dumb as it sounds. Aside from the bragging rights, it brought export revenue, extensive trial experience and it kept the knowledge and technology alive.
On the other hand, the main equipment of the US ground forces hasn't changed much either. All US vehicles in use today date back to the cold war era, except for the LAV and the Stryker, which are based on a foreign (Swiss) design.
The really ambitious replacement programs for the army have all been cut back or canceled, like Crusader, OICW, XM8, RAH-66, etc etc.
But it is the same in all western countries: No western nation has fielded a new MBT for 20 years now.
In fact, the only nations who did were the Chinese and the South Koreans.
There are a few modern APCs and IFVs, but most of the APCs tend to be tailor-made for the needs of peacekeeping.
Even most IFVs build today are designed with peacekeeping ops in mind, like the german Puma.

That said, ground war (as all war) is about tactics and training. The 1991 US military would've trashed the Iraquis even if they had been riding T-72s and BMPs and the other side Abrams.
All ground equipment around in large numbers anywhere in the world (with the possible exception of the current german army :D) is basically sound and well proven, it depends on who's using it.

[SUBMAN1]

You need to take into account that the selfcost of Russian military equipment production is much lower/cheaper.It is, but also it is far less capable. 4x M1's crested a ridge in Iraq's first gulf war and took our almost 50 T-72's without a single loss.

Cheap really doesn't work.

-S

[geetrue]

Hmm. That is very revealing - Russia plans to 'up' its military spending to $23 Billion/yr. That is a far cry from even China's expenditures. What the hell can $23 Billion buy you to compete with any western nation?

In case anyone cares, the US spends about $411 Billion last I checked per year on its military.

Russia spends less than 5% of the US on its military.

-S

You need to take into account that the selfcost of Russian military equipment production is much lower/cheaper.

I wonder what Russians consider priorty projects? Could they be into lazer weapons already or just cross the border stuff?

[Bruno Lotse]

Partly bravado
but mostly hard earned experience from Afganistan.
If unit is inside of a vehicle then one well-place RPG shot would mean the whole unit is wiped out.

In Afganistan BMP troop carrier was nicked Bratskaja Mogila Pekhoty - (a grave for a band of brothers).
A single RPG shot and you have a burning grave.

If guys are traveling atop of a vehicle they are less vulnerable to this kinda attack though are exposed to sniper fire and shells.
They are developing a new kind of vehicle with partly open roof and easier exists.

[kurtz]

Thanks August, I forgot that and was almost led to wonder why we use them at all :D
I remember I was told that anything equal or above 0.50 cal would go through a VAB. About the BMPs, IIRC they have fuel tanks in the 2 rear doors, I guess it's even less reassuring for the troops inside. But still it's indeed odd to travel outside where even the smallest 5.45 bullet can take you out, so in the end maybe they're actually just bragging :)

As for military expenditures, if money was the deciding factor to win (modern) wars we would know it already.

Yes re the fuel tanks in the doors, this was done toincrease the range, and apparently they are unarmoured (relatively) how dangerous diesel is from tracer would be a moot point, however it's hardly an ideal fire exit...

[SUBMAN1]

Yes re the fuel tanks in the doors, this was done toincrease the range, and apparently they are unarmoured (relatively) how dangerous diesel is from tracer would be a moot point, however it's hardly an ideal fire exit...I thought the point for this was that the back doors were designed to keep the fire away from the inside of the vehicle if they were to explode.

-S

[sergbuto]

You need to take into account that the selfcost of Russian military equipment production is much lower/cheaper.It is, but also it is far less capable. 4x M1's crested a ridge in Iraq's first gulf war and took our almost 50 T-72's without a single loss.

Cheap really doesn't work.

-S
I meant even a high quality product which would be better in terms of characteristics than American would still be much cheaper.

[Happy Times]

They are developing a new kind of vehicle with partly open roof and easier exists.

http://www.cars-directory.net/pics/zil/157/1977/zil_157_3304212.jpg

http://www.cars-directory.net/pics/zil/157/1977/zil_157_3304212_2.jpg

[nikimcbee]

Don't ride inside Russian armored personnel carriers (http://www.reuters.com/article/reutersEdge/idUSLK23804020080820)


MOSCOW (Reuters) -
Russian soldiers rode into battle against Georgia perched on top of their armored personnel carriers, not out of bravado but because a flaw in their amour can make it more dangerous to travel inside.


The conflict -- Russia's biggest combat operation outside its borders since the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan -- showed its armed forces have emerged from years of neglect as a formidable fighting force, but revealed important deficiencies.


I don't see what's wrong with them?:rotfl:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=em3Lv8vZKv8

Actual McBee combat footage!:up:

[SUBMAN1]

I meant even a high quality product which would be better in terms of characteristics than American would still be much cheaper.

That would be a neat trick. Where is this thing?

-S

[Platapus]

I remember when the military put armoured bodies on the M-880 (which was a POS anyway). Because they were so top heavy, GIs used to tuck the shoulder harness under their arm when driving. The M-880 had the integrated lap and shoulder seatbelt arrangement found on personal autos.

The reason we tucked the seatbelt was when it flipped over (not a matter of "IF" I am afraid) the top armoured body would separate from the Dodge Pickup truck chassis.

The lower half of the seatbelt (the lap band) would stay with the chassis and the upper half (shoulder) would stay with the armoured body. When they separated, so did the head/upper torso of the driver/passenger.

Makes you wonder who is doing the systems engineering on these products. :nope:

So glad they ditched the M-880 what a POS :down:

[SUBMAN1]

I remember when the military put armoured bodies on the M-880 (which was a POS anyway). Because they were so top heavy, GIs used to tuck the shoulder harness under their arm when driving. The M-880 had the integrated lap and shoulder seatbelt arrangement found on personal autos.

The reason we tucked the seatbelt was when it flipped over (not a matter of "IF" I am afraid) the top armoured body would separate from the Dodge Pickup truck chassis.

The lower half of the seatbelt (the lap band) would stay with the chassis and the upper half (shoulder) would stay with the armoured body. When they separated, so did the head/upper torso of the driver/passenger.

Makes you wonder who is doing the systems engineering on these products. :nope:

So glad they ditched the M-880 what a POS :down:What is that thing anyway?

-S

PS. Never mind - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_Utility_Cargo_Vehicle

[Bruno Lotse]

They are developing a new kind of vehicle with partly open roof and easier exists.
http://www.cars-directory.net/pics/zil/157/1977/zil_157_3304212.jpg

http://www.cars-directory.net/pics/zil/157/1977/zil_157_3304212_2.jpg
Nope, like this one with fancy Georgian characters. It's Nato-made, Nato-delivered
http://content.foto.mail.ru/list/t34ssmirnoff/illustrations/i-1644.jpg

On the right of the picture Muslim fighters - Chechen battalion East 'Vostok'
They distroyed Georgian vehicle in Tshinval (Ossetia) and captured Georgians BMPs.
One of them with 'Chechnya' markings is right in the picture.

As you may see these Muslim fighters are also travelling atop of a captured vehicle.

[SUBMAN1]

Crud! Why have an armored vehicle then??? Be cheaper just to buy a truck!

-S

[Platapus]

Dodge pickup truck. It was part of the Chrysler bailout where the Government designed that the military needed to accept Chrysler products no matter how poorly they were constructed or designed. :x

But hey, it was for the greater good (Chrysler stockholders and employees) So a few American's got beheaded. No big loss, chances are they were just Enlisted Guys anyway. :damn:

We saved Chrysler :shifty:


Am I doing a good job of concealing my bitterness and anger about this?

[Bruno Lotse]

Well, they can get it from Georgia
or from US via Georgia.

[SUBMAN1]

...Am I doing a good job of concealing my bitterness and anger about this?No! :D

-S

[Bruno Lotse]

Funny, but these Chechen guys evidently prefer BMP over Chrysler...
Don't you think.

[AntEater]

All pissing contests aside, it seems that those mine protected patrol APCs (or glorified humvees) like the Ottokar Cobra seen here or the german Dingo used in Afghanistan have no place in real combat.
The have a siluette like a dump truck, you cannot dismount quickly, they're lightly armed (one MG or Grenade launcher) and not exactly fast or terrain capable.
They're perfect for keeping the boy's safe from IEDs and mines and suicide bombers in places like Afghanistan, but when the real fighting starts you better leave them at home.
Even though I often ask myself how you can patrol or recon an area while being safely tucked up inside one of those vehicles.

[Happy Times]

Crud! Why have an armored vehicle then??? Be cheaper just to buy a truck!

-S

That was my point, nothing wrong with trucks, or you could buy something that can handle RPGs and IEDs.
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/patria/images/patria1.jpg

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/patria/

[Platapus]

...Am I doing a good job of concealing my bitterness and anger about this?No! :D

-S


yeah I need to work on that I guess. :)

Just hate when the military gets stuck with crapola for political reasons. :down:

Anyone here ever drive the M-706 APC? That was one pigglet that could hardly get out of its own way.

[Happy Times]

Besides those "dump trucks" might be fine against casual IEDs but from the look of it I suppose they're still useless against any shaped charge, be it launched or disposed like a mine ?

"The Patria AMV is fitted with modular ballistic protection. Maximum protection level is against 30-mm armor-piercing rounds. Vehicle also has a top-class mine protection. It can withstand up to 10 kg TNT blast. Two uparmored Polish Army vehicles were hit in Afghanistan by RPG-7 rockets, however armor was not penetrated and vehicles managed to return to base."

http://www.military-today.com/apc/patria_amv.htm

You have to draw the line somewhere with APC/IFV though.

[Platapus]

it is pretty easy to design an APC that can withstand pretty much any anti-armour weapons as well as protect against all IEDs. Unfortunately it would be so big and heavy that it could not move. Sorta like an Armoured Personnel Pillbox (APP).

When it comes to vehicles you have to make a choice.

Speed, maneuverability, and armour. You can have any two you like. :smug:

Since it is easier and cheaper to build a munition that can defeat any armour, I think that speed and maneuverability are what keeps troops alive.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

It is again amusing to see how the West almost instinctively finds ways to criticize Russians. Below I pick 3 examples in this article:

Analysts said Russian APCs are not well protected against strikes by large-caliber weapons or land mines, which is one reason why troops often prefer to travel on top.

True, but to a great extent, it is an intentional design choice. The priority of the average Russian BMP/BTR, beyond relatively minimal protection, is mobility. Such as being able to cross rivers before a new bridge is laid.

"It was remarkable that they shot down a number of Russian fighters, which Russia probably did not expect," said Lieutenant-Colonel Dr. Marcel de Haas, Russia and security expert at the Netherlands Institute of International Relations Clingendael.

Can this man justify his opinion? I'm sure Russia never quite had any illusions that war is free or even cheap. I'm sure the Russians want to work on their reconnaissance, but did the possibility that the fighters were lost because the Georgians were somewhat effective in placing and using antiaircraft complexes even occur to the man?

"Missiles and rockets would negate the need for large-scale troop deployments in the way they had to carry them out," said Colonel Christopher Langton, Senior Fellow at the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies.

Langton really says a lot more for his own beliefs about warfare than Russian strengths or deficiencies. He apparently believes in the attritional model of warfare.

Every time I see NATO or the US fight a recent war, and again here, I can't help but remember the supposed differences between Soviet and NATO artillery doctrine (as described by the US). The Soviets supposedly believe in Fire Destruction; the West believes in Fire Support. The whole distinction is a bit iffy to me but the gist seems to be that the Soviets believe in the primacy of Fire, and Maneuver only exploits after Fire destroys everything, while in the West, Fire supports ground Maneuver, and Manuever is dominant. I suppose I don't have to say this, but this is usually presented in such a way that the Soviets look dumb and Attritionalist and the West looks smart and Maneuverish, without a whole lot of visible justification.

Then I see Desert Storm, which was basically about 100 days of air offensive (Fire Destruction) and about 100 hours of ground maneuver. And then I see Kosovo, which is an attempt to win using only Air Offensives (that is, only Fire Destruction). So who really believes in Support and who really believes in Destruction.

Had Russia gathered its PGMs and attacked Georgia the way Langton suggests, even granting them NATO efficiency, based on Kosovo, at least 4 things will probably happen:
1) They will probably still be somewhere in the Bomb Georgia phase, with no objectives achieved.
2) Georgia and S-whatver-vili will have many more pictures of Russian bombs blowing up their homes (because PGMs have a nasty tendency to fail and fly wild).
3) They waste a lot more money because such bombs are expensive.
4) The West screams even louder thanks to 2. Further, the pity factor of 2, and the possibility of stopping Russia just by sending some planes, may be just the thing that causes the West to militarily intervene. Not too likely, granted, but a lot more likely than if they had to actually sent ground boots to stop the Russians.

Gee, great tactics, Langton.

[Bruno Lotse]

I'm sure you know that joke about two Russkies tankmen in Paris and air-war.

[Kapitan]

You need to take into account that the selfcost of Russian military equipment production is much lower/cheaper.It is, but also it is far less capable. 4x M1's crested a ridge in Iraq's first gulf war and took our almost 50 T-72's without a single loss.

Cheap really doesn't work.

-S


Thats after the british chieftain's pulled them out of the sand bogs :P (had to get that one in a friend of mine who served in both gulf wars in the RE remembers very well pulling M1A1 tanks out of trouble)

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

I'm sure you know that joke about two Russkies tankmen in Paris and air-war.

Yeah...

Hmm. That is very revealing - Russia plans to 'up' its military spending to $23 Billion/yr. That is a far cry from even China's expenditures. What the hell can $23 Billion buy you to compete with any western nation?

In case anyone cares, the US spends about $411 Billion last I checked per year on its military.

Russia spends less than 5% of the US on its military.

To be fair, according to the article it is $23 billion/year on new hardware - that is, this is only the procurement budget, not counting the personnel budget or the training budget which takes up a huge chunk of most militaries fees.

Of course, we don't know how much of this $23 billion has to be invested onto things like rebuilding the production lines, or whether it is all meant just for buying and the money for the production lines is in another budget.

Even if only $23 billion actually makes it to real equipment, that's still a lot. That's like 6 or so carriers, or over 100 fighters as expensive as a F-22...

[sergbuto]

Even if only $23 billion actually makes it to real equipment, that's still a lot. That's like 6 or so carriers, or over 100 fighters as expensive as a F-22...
That is in American prices, they will be significantly cheaper for Russians.

[SUBMAN1]

...Even if only $23 billion actually makes it to real equipment, that's still a lot. That's like 6 or so carriers, or over 100 fighters as expensive as a F-22...As I said - not much.

-S

[SUBMAN1]

That is in American prices, they will be significantly cheaper for Russians.It still costs the same for the same capability. If it takes 100 T-72's to knock out 4 M1's, then what are you buying?

-S

[Happy Times]

Do you really think that the Iraqi and Russian army are alike ? :lol:
There's really not much to compare, be it men, training, and more importantly terrain.

Compared to West the difference isnt that great.

[SUBMAN1]

Do you really think that the Iraqi and Russian army are alike ? :lol:
There's really not much to compare, be it men, training, and more importantly terrain.
Hahaha! Go look at Georgia! There is no organization there! An organized Army could wipe them out with lesser equipment!

And the 50 T-72's were Iraq's best - Rebuplican Guard or whatever they called it. Probably better than a majority of Russia's soldiers. They had organization.

-S

PS. To watch the Russians in Georgia reminded me of Iran and throwing bodies to the front. Maybe that is where Iran got the tactics from?

[SUBMAN1]

I guess you're right, anyway it's not like if under estimating opponents was an habit for western countries :DOh really? Where?

[Happy Times]

I guess you're right, anyway it's not like if under estimating opponents was an habit for western countries :D

The strenghts and weaknesses of Russian army are well analysed, the things you mentioned just werent their strenghts.

[SUBMAN1]

lol, I didn't mention anything actually, just the obvious. I understand Subman but you HT as a serving man I would think you know better than that.
If you think Iraq = Russia just because they use the same material, good for you.Blinders.

-S

[Happy Times]

lol, I didn't mention anything actually, just the obvious. I understand Subman but you HT as a serving man I would think you know better than that.
If you think Iraq = Russia just because they use the same material, good for you.

Their training, tactics, logistics, methods are moderate, weak or rigid, hence they are very readable.

Their equipment goes from excellent to substandart, i wouldnt go to war with anything bigger that Georgia.

Their troops morale goes from excellent to substandart, depending on scenario, for motherland im sure they will give a fight.

So no direct comparison, but if they had invaded Kuwait they would have suffered the same fate.

[Bruno Lotse]

Hey guys, forget about Abrams!
You wanna stop Russkiy tanks?
Do like this:
http://content.foto.mail.ru/list/t34ssmirnoff/illustrations/i-1470.jpg
Muhhhhhh! and they stopped.

[Happy Times]

Hey guys, forget about Abrams!
You wanna stop Russkiy tanks?
Do like this:
http://content.foto.mail.ru/list/t34ssmirnoff/illustrations/i-1470.jpg
Muhhhhhh! and they stopped.

Oh, they took the cattle withem from the base.:up:

"Fresh milk boys, come and take a squoze!"

[Bruno Lotse]

Yep, fresh milk, fresh air.
It's very healthy:rock:

[Bruno Lotse]

You can also use coweapon to stop dead Russkies BMPs:yep:

http://content.foto.mail.ru/list/t34ssmirnoff/illustrations/i-1426.jpg

[Happy Times]

So no direct comparison, but if they had invaded Kuwait they would have suffered the same fate.

Of course they would have, that's exactly my point : Russia is not Kuweit nor Irak. Doesn't take rocket science to figure that out, does it ? Btw as a Fin you should be aware that inferior material doesn't necessary mean that you're screwed. I thought the most important lesson in any army was "the terrain decides, either you adapt or you're done no matter what".

Yes, you have to know how you can use your materiel to the max effect.
Im apprehensive to say everything i would like on this subject.
But their tactics dont suit here for exsample, we use some Russian eguipment but in totally different manner.

[SUBMAN1]

Hey guys, forget about Abrams!
You wanna stop Russkiy tanks?
Do like this:

Muhhhhhh! and they stopped.
Oh, they took the cattle withem from the base.:up:

"Fresh milk boys, come and take a squoze!"It's their way home when they survive their tank exploding. Chances are that they won't need it though because they are driving a coffin. Notice I didn't say if their tank explodes - that's a given.

[Platapus]

http://content.foto.mail.ru/list/t34ssmirnoff/illustrations/i-1426.jpg

Other than the military equipment, that is some pretty scenery. :up:

[Bruno Lotse]

Yeah, you're right. coffin it is.
Coweapon is deadly.
Horns, hooves, Muhhhhs Brrrrrrrrrrrrr:doh:

[SUBMAN1]

Yeah, you're right. coffin it is.
Coweapon is deadly.
Horns, hooves, Muhhhhs Brrrrrrrrrrrrr:doh:

http://img244.imageshack.us/img244/8382/8b6818081e65ri5.jpg

http://img413.imageshack.us/img413/1082/1f97789859d5sb4.jpg

http://img.lenta.ru/photo/2008/08/08/ossetia2/11.jpg

http://s44.radikal.ru/i105/0808/f8/9f8ef061aeaf.jpg

http://s55.radikal.ru/i149/0808/b1/a131d727ef36.jpg

[Bruno Lotse]

Yep, you're right again.
It's Georgian mil stuff. Now it's a scrap metal.

But coweapon still there!!!

[Happy Times]

Yes, you have to know how you can use your materiel to the max effect.
Im apprehensive to say everything i would like on this subject.
But their tactics dont suit here for exsample, we use some Russian eguipment but in totally different manner.

Finally we can find a common ground :D
Tactics and knowledge of the environment are far more decisive than the paper specs of the material used IMO -- of course only until a certain point.

Also the invading country would not only have to face an army but also asymetrical warfare from the population or even trained militias, so comparing the thickness of armor of 2 tanks is really a nerd thing but surely not the real deal (not saying that for you particularly though).

At any rate it's good to keep the head cool, being proud and overconfident is good for the people watching war on TV, but in the real situation it's not really healthy so to speak :D

Even i can keep my head cool talking about this, mine and others lifes can depend on it.:rotfl:
And i said before in some thread that im pissed the Finnish T-72 were scrabbed, they would have had some good use in some situations.

[SUBMAN1]

Yep, you're right again.
It's Georgian mil stuff. Now it's a scrap metal.

But coweapon still there!!!Captions said it was Russian.

Regardless which side - same equipment. Same coffin. No protection. Designed for numbers, not for quality.

-S

[Bruno Lotse]

Ah, those subfolks.

Check out which type of busted tank is that? Hint for mariners(T-72)
Check out which place is that where the hulk is? Hint for mariners(Tshinval)
:rotfl:

[Bruno Lotse]

Other than the military equipment, that is some pretty scenery. :up:
Yeah, I wish it were only cows.

[Happy Times]

We have to remeber that both sides had the same tanks more or less. I know Russians got hit harder than they give out. Im waiting on reliable reports on what happened on the Georgian side. Im suspecting their intel, doctrine, command was totally off, needs a total overhaul. These should be their strengths, they create the moral.
To my knowledge their individual skills should be good.

[SUBMAN1]

Ah, those subfolks.

Check out which type of busted tank is that? Hint for mariners(T-72)
Check out which place is that where the hulk is? Hint for mariners(Tshinval)
:rotfl:
Look at the bright side. Georgia will now become a member of NATO, and we can finially equip them with good stuff to kick this Ruskkie weenies back to where they belong - Their holes.

-S

[Bruno Lotse]

URGENTLY!!!
NOW!!!
IMMEDIATELY!!!

while Russians are here.

[SUBMAN1]

URGENTLY!!!
NOW!!!
IMMEDIATELY!!!

while Russians are here.Absolutely! :rotfl:

Besides, with all that crappy Soviet equipment around, they would be reluctant to buy real weapons systems. Now there is nothing stopping them.

-S

[Bruno Lotse]

You know, you're a Navy right?
Japanese were building unsinkable Jamato.:arrgh!:

Should I tell the end of this story...

[SUBMAN1]

You know, you're a Navy right?
Japanese were buildind unsinkable Jamato.:arrgh!:

Should I tell the end of this story...Yeah - they built just one. Good example man! Smart... Not!

And you and your non-surrendering soldiers - Japanese tried that in WWII. Kamikaze comes to mind. And you wonder why Japan ran out of soldiers to fight with?

-S

[Bruno Lotse]

You know, you're a Navy right?
Japanese were buildind unsinkable Jamato.:arrgh!:

Should I tell the end of this story...Yeah - they built just one. Good example man! Smart... Not!


-S
No, you are not Navy.
You're just playing Navy.
Musashi, Musashi, Musashi:rotfl:

[SUBMAN1]

Look - finially these guys are waking up! They are starting to use decent equipment!

http://pics.livejournal.com/drugoi/pic/00gtwapd.jpg

[SUBMAN1]

Here is what's left of a Russian TU-22:

http://i33.tinypic.com/xljwp4.jpg

http://i33.tinypic.com/2usidle.jpg

[Bruno Lotse]

Musashi, Musashi, Musashi:rotfl:

[Happy Times]

Here is what's left of a Russian TU-22:





Any info on the version it was? I read recon somewhere but personally suspect EW/ELINT and targeting the air defences.

[SUBMAN1]

Here is what's left of a Russian TU-22:




Any info on the version it was? I read recon somewhere but personally suspect EW/ELINT and targeting the air defences.Dunno, but Russia admitted to losing a TU-22 and an SU-25 this day, but they didn't say which types.

Learning the differences in the T-72's too. Those pictured burning are Russian. Here is what i know so far. Russians have the old style (Their tanks are of the older variety) mess protector that is made out of metal. Georgians use a kauchuk mess protector. I will post more as I understand it, but I am making progress.

-S

[SUBMAN1]

Do you mean that during a war planes get shot down and tanks get destroyed ?
How is that possible ? Looks like the world has a new mystery to solve :hmm:Wow! you so smart!

-S

[Happy Times]

Here is what's left of a Russian TU-22:




Any info on the version it was? I read recon somewhere but personally suspect EW/ELINT and targeting the air defences.Dunno, but Russia admitted to losing a TU-22 and an SU-25 this day, but they didn't say which types.

Learning the differences in the T-72's too. Those pictured burning are Russian. Here is what i know so far. Russians have the old style (Their tanks are of the older variety) mess protector that is made out of metal. Georgians use a kauchuk mess protector. I will post more as I understand it, but I am making progress.

-S

Take in to consideration the Ossetians also, they can have anything from t-64 to t-52 at their disposal.

[SUBMAN1]

Take in to consideration the Ossetians also, they can have anything from t-64 to t-52 at their disposal.I don't know crap about them yet, or even exactly what they have in their arsenal.

-S

[Happy Times]

Take in to consideration the Ossetians also, they can have anything from t-64 to t-52 at their disposal.I don't know crap about them yet, or even exactly what they have in their arsenal.

-S

LOL, if you find out i want to know, i doubt even the intelligence services know everything.

[Bruno Lotse]

Look - finially these guys are waking up! They are starting to use decent equipment!

Russian paras
http://content.foto.mail.ru/list/t34ssmirnoff/illustrations/i-1536.jpg
Hey babe!
How about five o'clock?


http://content.foto.mail.ru/list/t34ssmirnoff/illustrations/i-1531.jpg
Nah! I really donna wanna do it...

[SUBMAN1]

Look - finially these guys are waking up! They are starting to use decent equipment!
Russian paras

Hey babe!
How about five o'clock?


http://content.foto.mail.ru/list/t34ssmirnoff/illustrations/i-1531.jpg
Nah! I really donna wanna do it...

She is so ugly, you can have her! :D :rotfl:

-S

[Bruno Lotse]

For five o'clock one doesn't need lights on:yep:
Otherwise one can wrap her face up with kinda cotton.:rock:

So, now you know why there's no reports on rapings, right?

[UnderseaLcpl]

Of course we all know that U.S. APC's and IFV's are better enough than BMP-3's to justify their cost right?
There are plenty of pictures of damaged/destroyed and otherwise mangled pics of AAV7's, LAV's and Bradleys, right? And we weren't fighting opponents with American equipment.

IMHO, this is the U.S. military's best APC right now

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medium_Tactical_Vehicle_Replacement


Tough as nails even without armor. The one's that have large, sloped sides are MAS-armor outfitted. 30 tons and almost impervious to IED's, RPG's, small arms fire and some mines.
Their all-terrain capability is amazing for a wheeled vehicle, partly due to a computerized tire-pressure control system called CTIS and a powerful CAT Diesel.
They are versatile enough that they can be fitted with 8 firing ports all-around for small arms, and can even mount TOW ATGMs on the over-cab turret mount.

Of course, even these have their problems. The magnesium composited in their armor to save weight makes them burn like a matchstick if they are set alight.
In addition, their high profile makes for an easier target.

But for the cost-to-effectiveness ratio they can't be beat, and they are a damn sight better than some of the other junk we've been using as "armored" personnel carriers.

For a tracked or heavy IFV I'd like to see a direct copy of the BMP-3 with a little American flavor, like ceramic composite spaced armor, advanced targetting systems, and a 25mm M242 Bushmaster cannon. Perhaps a Javelin system as well, or a remote multiple-barrel TOW launcher above the turret.

Hell, while I'm at it, let's give it bolt mounting for extra armor if needed and a set of removeable sandbag nets. Add a winch on the front with a guiderail and pulley underneath the vehicle so it can be towed from either end.

And as a finishing touch, cellular fuel and ammunition storage to vent the force of an explosion in either reserve outwards or upwards.

Just a pipe dream.:D

[SUBMAN1]

For five o'clock one doesn't need lights on:yep:
Otherwise one can wrap her face up with kinda cotton.:rock:

So, now you know why there's no reports on rapings, right?I'd suspect that any rapings over there would be hush hush by state controlled media.

[Platapus]

It don't matter how good your tanks are IFVs are, if you don't have good logistical vehicles like the MTVR, not much will be happening for very much longer. :up:

What I like the bestest about the MTVR is that it is a versatile design. It was designed for many missions and is capable of missions it was not designed for.

I don't know how a good design like the MTVR got through our procurement bureaucracy without being F-ed up, but it is a good thing it did.

[Bruno Lotse]

Have a look at Germany. It's peaceful, tolerant, cooperative nation.
She is setting example for everybody.

[Platapus]

http://content.foto.mail.ru/list/t34ssmirnoff/illustrations/i-1531.jpg


Gee I don't think she looks bad. Who looks good in battle gear?

You guys are harsh.

[Happy Times]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAqw5-6h-1Q

[SUBMAN1]

Gee I don't think she looks bad. Who looks good in battle gear?

You guys are harsh.I think its the nose that is as big as a mountain.

Maybe I am being harsh. Then again, how many beers have you had? :rotfl::rotfl:

-S

[SUBMAN1]

Uhmm... So this is how it ended?

according to lithuanian press, Russia is facing countless casualties and their Gori attack is stoped atm.

Followed by this?

14.35. Lithuanian sources says, that Russia are stuck in place and they are asking cease-fire.

So Gerogia managed to stop the mighty Russian Army?

-S

[Bruno Lotse]

Gee I don't think she looks bad. Who looks good in battle gear?

You guys are harsh. Looks like Russian paras would agree with you :yep:
Plus all this US stuff on her. It should really turn them on.

[Platapus]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAqw5-6h-1Q

That looks like a pretty cool weapon system.

[UnderseaLcpl]

http://content.foto.mail.ru/list/t34ssmirnoff/illustrations/i-1531.jpg


Gee I don't think she looks bad. .
Every day that goes by, she'll look better.



Who looks good in battle gear?



1) Hot chicks.
2) Not-so hot chicks after a few weeks
3) Really, not-hot chicks after a few months
4) Guys, if you're in the Army:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

[Happy Times]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAqw5-6h-1Q

That looks like a pretty cool weapon system.

The Swedish got it right.:yep:

Finns can recommend these also.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YnSlzwlj8BE&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJiLHhCqt7I&feature=related

[SUBMAN1]

Looks like they used Hinds too:

http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/7873/340xgi7.jpg

[SUBMAN1]

Geogian soldiers sit on top too. Here are some pics of Georgian tanks:

http://img145.imageshack.us/img145/3720/610xzc3.jpg

http://img171.imageshack.us/img171/4434/610xlg9.jpg

http://img171.imageshack.us/img171/4531/610xsb8.jpg

http://img171.imageshack.us/img171/9205/610xsq2.jpg

http://img145.imageshack.us/img145/7979/610xpl2.jpg

http://img145.imageshack.us/img145/2838/610xxr9.jpg

http://img389.imageshack.us/img389/7362/610xow0.jpg

[SUBMAN1]

Russian convoy:

http://img180.imageshack.us/img180/4714/610xqp1.jpg

[SUBMAN1]

Some more Georgian tanks:

http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/1298/610xwy8.jpg

http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/3378/610xpn8.jpg

http://img180.imageshack.us/img180/60/610xlu0.jpg

http://img180.imageshack.us/img180/9864/610xrj5.jpg

[Happy Times]

Russian convoy:

http://img180.imageshack.us/img180/4714/610xqp1.jpg

Thats what we would call a sweet target.

[SUBMAN1]

Why does this remind me of Armed Assault (ArmA)?

http://i38.tinypic.com/wikmcm.jpg

http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/7088/610xmt9.jpg

[SUBMAN1]

Russians:

http://i34.tinypic.com/6qic8z.jpg

Russian version of the MLRS?:

http://i35.tinypic.com/28b8qds.jpg

http://i37.tinypic.com/21lih74.jpg

[SUBMAN1]

This one was hit hard!!!

http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,1268065,00.jpg

http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,1267587,00.jpg

http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,1267660,00.jpg

http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,1267666,00.jpg

http://pics.livejournal.com/sirjones/pic/00178zgs/s640x480

http://pics.livejournal.com/sirjones/pic/0017760b/s640x480

[Bruno Lotse]

This one was hit hard!!!

http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,1268065,00.jpg



Incidentally, this hard hit is a Georgian T-72 on a square in the city of Tshinval (South Osetia).
There's the second Georgian T-72 destroyed. You can see its tracks on the left.

[Bruno Lotse]

Some equipment used in the conflict:
http://content.foto.mail.ru/list/t34ssmirnoff/illustrations/i-1534.jpg
Russian servicemen head to the town of Gal, 80 km (50 miles) from the regional centre Sukhumi in Abkhazia, a separatist region on Georgia's Black Sea coast, August 11, 2008.
http://content.foto.mail.ru/list/t34ssmirnoff/illustrations/i-1550.jpg
Russian mobile artillery unit fires a 152mm shell towards a Georgion position outside the Georgian village of Zemo Nikozi some 20 km (12 miles) outside South Ossetian capital of Tslhinvali, August 11, 2008.
The COW is the boss here!!!
http://content.foto.mail.ru/list/t34ssmirnoff/illustrations/i-1564.jpg
A Russian self-propelled howitzer enters the village of Dzhava near Tskhinvali, the capital of Georgia's breakaway republic of South Ossetia, August 11, 2008.
http://content.foto.mail.ru/list/t34ssmirnoff/illustrations/i-1565.jpg
Russian soldiers aboard APCs (armoured personnel carrier) roll past destroyed a Georgian tank in the South Ossetian capital of Tskhinvali, August 11, 2008.
http://content.foto.mail.ru/list/t34ssmirnoff/illustrations/i-1551.jpgRussian soldiers prepare to attack the Georgian village of Zemo Nikozi some 20 km (12 miles) outside the South Ossetian capital of Tshinvali, August 11, 2008.
http://content.foto.mail.ru/list/t34ssmirnoff/illustrations/i-1514.jpg
Russian troops ride atop armored vehicles and trucks near the village of Khurcha in Georgia's breakaway province of Abkhazia. August 12, 2008
http://content.foto.mail.ru/list/t34ssmirnoff/illustrations/i-1429.jpg
Cows are competing with armour. Coweapon!!!
http://content.foto.mail.ru/list/t34ssmirnoff/illustrations/i-1438.jpg
Uragan systems (Tempest) in Condor Gourge
http://content.foto.mail.ru/list/t34ssmirnoff/illustrations/i-1430.jpg
One at a time. Fire!
http://content.foto.mail.ru/list/t34ssmirnoff/illustrations/i-1458.jpg

Who was asking about Hind?
http://content.foto.mail.ru/list/t34ssmirnoff/illustrations/i-1460.jpg
And here

[Bruno Lotse]

Russian paras coming in
http://content.foto.mail.ru/list/t34ssmirnoff/illustrations/i-1463.jpg
Why the hell jump?!!!
http://content.foto.mail.ru/list/t34ssmirnoff/illustrations/i-1464.jpg

http://content.foto.mail.ru/list/t34ssmirnoff/illustrations/i-1465.jpg
Raz, dva, tri! KAZACHOK!
Raz, dva, tri! KAZACHOK!

[SUBMAN1]

Georgian navy going up in smoke:

http://regionalreporters.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/43.jpg

http://regionalreporters.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/113.jpg

http://img352.imageshack.us/img352/2594/12186417251217343415ut4.jpg

http://img233.imageshack.us/img233/6235/12186421371218163121bf8.jpg

http://img187.imageshack.us/img187/1141/12186421551217606676hp8.jpg

[SUBMAN1]

Hmm. I'll give them $10K cash for the truck + contents:

http://img225.imageshack.us/img225/2073/1430871gf2.jpg

[Jimbuna]

I'm asking myself if the Russian bullying have been so ptolonged and widespread if US forces had still been on Georgian soil after joint military exercises :hmm:

[Digital_Trucker]

I'm asking myself if the Russian bullying have been so ptolonged and widespread if US forces had still been on Georgian soil after joint military exercises :hmm:

Methinks not, but you never know.

[Bruno Lotse]

I'm asking myself if the Russian bullying have been so ptolonged and widespread if US forces had still been on Georgian soil after joint military exercises :hmm: Russian trofies would be even more richer :hmm:

Just imagine a truckload of M16s or what's the newest?:hmm:

[Jimbuna]

I'm asking myself if the Russian bullying have been so ptolonged and widespread if US forces had still been on Georgian soil after joint military exercises :hmm: Russian trofies would be even more richer :hmm:

Just imagine a truckload of M16s or what's the newest?:hmm:

You'd probably need a video camera to catch the Strike Eagles levelling off after paying their respects me thinks.

The scene would probably be reminiscent of that road leading out of Kuwait :yep:

[SUBMAN1]

Here are the boats going up in smoke:

http://www.youtube.com/swf/l.swf?video_id=6qHrqVEQSIc&rel=1&eurl=&iurl=http%3A//i3.ytimg.com/vi/6qHrqVEQSIc/default.jpg&t=OEgsToPDskJ71PRZBbaKrsl5EjBQ89CT&use_get_video_info=1&load_modules=1

-S

[Bruno Lotse]

Ok.
You guys just keep on talking.:lol:
Russian guys just keep on doing.:arrgh!:

[SUBMAN1]

Ok.
You guys just keep on talking.:lol:
Russian guys just keep on doing.:arrgh!:I take it you have forgotten about what else is happening in the world?

The USA to Russia, is like Russia to Georgia. We would be doing the doing in any war.

-S

[Zero Niner]

http://img171.imageshack.us/img171/9205/610xsq2.jpg
Not a good idea to ride on ERA-equipped tanks.
You're literally sitting on explosives... :o

[darius359au]

http://img171.imageshack.us/img171/9205/610xsq2.jpg
Not a good idea to ride on ERA-equipped tanks.
You're literally sitting on explosives... :o

Gets better for Rambo on the front there , if you look closely he's got 2 magazines taped together ala Hollywood , I really wouldn't like his chances of getting that second magazine to feed - I got taught that it looks good BUT you've got a very good chance of filling the feed with dirt at a minimum and bending the feed rails as well.

[AntEater]

It seems the missile Boat Tbilisi's missile containers were empty. If they had been loaded, there would've been nothing left of the near vicinity. 500 kg or so of warhead, rocket fuel, booster rocket.... Termit ASMs are huge. But apparently that missile boat was not in seaworthy condition anyway. The second missile boat Dioskuria, a french build Combattante, was towed away and scuttled in deep water, apparently. Maybe it had Exocets on board Even though a whopping two missile boats of two different types with two different missiles are hardly an effective force anyway. I wonder who's going to deliver replacements? AFAIK the greeks scrapped all their older Combattantes, our Type 148 are either gone to Tunisia, Chile or Egypt and no other NATO member has older missile boats. Maybe they will get new ones bought by US funding?

[Jimbuna]

I should imagine that when this madness ends, the replacement equipment will be better than what it is replacing.

[Happy Times]

I should imagine that when this madness ends, the replacement equipment will be better than what it is replacing.

Oh yes, NATO has allready an evaluation team in Georgia to see what they need, better for the Georgians the more Russians destroy.:up:

[Wreford-Brown]

I should imagine that when this madness ends, the replacement equipment will be better than what it is replacing.

Oh yes, NATO has allready an evaluation team in Georgia to see what they need, better for the Georgians the more Russians destroy.:up:

The Afghan National Army is already being equipped with NATO weapons: M16 and SAW are being phased in so far.

I guess the US arms industry has found another niche in the market and is probably rubbing its hands waiting to supply the Georgian Army.

[Happy Times]

Good for Finland, they have to focus on their southern border also.:up:

[Bruno Lotse]

It seems the missile Boat Tbilisi's missile containers were empty. If they had been loaded, there would've been nothing left of the near vicinity. 500 kg or so of warhead, rocket fuel, booster rocket.... Termit ASMs are huge. But apparently that missile boat was not in seaworthy condition anyway. The second missile boat Dioskuria, a french build Combattante, was towed away and scuttled in deep water, apparently. Maybe it had Exocets on board Even though a whopping two missile boats of two different types with two different missiles are hardly an effective force anyway. I wonder who's going to deliver replacements? AFAIK the greeks scrapped all their older Combattantes, our Type 148 are either gone to Tunisia, Chile or Egypt and no other NATO member has older missile boats. Maybe they will get new ones bought by US funding?
Why? Before blowing up Russkies would strip anyting to beef up their stockpiles:arrgh!:

Some stuff from most recent "findings" in Georgia
http://talks.guns.ru/forums/icons/forum_pictures/001445/thm/1445793.jpg

http://talks.guns.ru/forums/icons/forum_pictures/001445/thm/1445795.jpg

http://talks.guns.ru/forums/icons/forum_pictures/001445/thm/1445797.jpg

http://talks.guns.ru/forums/icons/forum_pictures/001445/thm/1445799.jpg

http://talks.guns.ru/forums/icons/forum_pictures/001445/thm/1445803.jpg

http://talks.guns.ru/forums/icons/forum_pictures/001445/thm/1445801.jpg

A close-up
http://talks.guns.ru/forums/icons/forum_pictures/001445/thm/1445999.jpg

http://talks.guns.ru/forums/icons/forum_pictures/001447/thm/1447310.jpg
Nice looking former Georgian armour.
Finally it's in the hands of people who can fight not just talk.

Hey, Russkies don't waste time there ;)

[Jimbuna]

http://talks.guns.ru/forums/icons/forum_pictures/001447/1447286.jpg

"At last, some decent equipment to use". :p

[AntEater]

Hmm, opinions by non US soldiers about US made rifles vary from "crap" to "usable but nothing spectacular"

The weirdest sight of the whole conflict were those BMPs with "Vostok" and "Chechnya" written all over them.
As these are ex georgian, it seems the Chechens invented a new kind of infantry:
the "self-mechanizing infantry"
:rotfl:

The only real trouble will be to seperate the Chechens from all their new toys when they pull out.
I've read somewhat further and it seems the "Vostok" and "Zapad" battalions are mostly formed from families who are opposed to ruling President Ramzan Kadyrov but are still loyal to Russia.
There were apparently some shooting incidents between Vostok and Kadyrov's forces. Since both Kadyrov's security forces and the two GRU battalions are technically russian army, the russian army was fighting itself.
Better to keep those guys out of Chechnya and occupied with plundering somebody else instead of them trying to topple Kadyrov.

Just a reminder that any kind of war in the caucasus is bound to spiral into tribal warfare.

[Bruno Lotse]

The boss of the self-mechanizing Chechen Vostok troops
http://pics.utro.ru/utro_photos/2008/08/22/751big.jpg

Colonel Sulim Jamadaev
Former Soviet para in Afghan where he earned the Golden Star
later Jihad Fighter in Chechnija against Russians (he does namaz and everything)
now commanding officer of the Vostok troops.

These guys are asking Russians to let them stay in Georgia as mobile peacekeepers ;)

Just let them stay and that's it - all the rest - supplies, ammo, transport, women
- self-sufficiency. Hey, Georgia is right here.
VERY efficient force ;)

Well, why not?
It could be a way to keep these guys happy and busy.
Very very busy.