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

[geetrue]

Don't ride inside Russian armored personnel carriers


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.

[nikimcbee]

Originally Posted by geetrue

Don't ride inside Russian armored personnel carriers


MOSCOW (Reuters) -

I don't see what's wrong with them?:rotfl:


Actual McBee combat footage!

[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:

Originally Posted by 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.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Originally Posted by Bruno Lotse

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

Yeah...

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Kazuaki Shimazaki II

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]

Originally Posted by sergbuto

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

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Kazuaki Shimazaki II

...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

[August]

Originally Posted by Mikhayl

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 ...

[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

[sergbuto]

Originally Posted by 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

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 ) is basically sound and well proven, it depends on who's using it.

[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.

[Happy Times]

Originally Posted by Bruno Lotse

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