A military observation of fighting vehicles

[HawkEye]

...

Many journalists reporting on the present situation in Georgia use standard phrases expressing Russian "power" and "might" etc. But if the photographs show the present state of the Russian army, then it is not in a good state at all. For first-class Russian frontline units, there is strange mixture of obsolete and semi-obsolete armoured vehicles, with tanks in particular ranging from truly ancient T-54s to mid-life T-70s smothered in reactive armour. The use of this appliqui armour alone shows somewhat primitive tank thinking as compare to up-to-date Western models. Reactive armour is a cheap and cheerful form interim anti-tank protection pending the arrival of new tank models, and never used on Western tanks. Ceramic Cobham armour is used on Challenger 2 and Abrahams tanks, and the Russians appear not to have developed this. Also, it is surprising for a first-class tank unit to have some of its vehicles show appliqui armour whilst others show no such things. Also there appears to have been no attempt by lackadaisical tank crews to camouflage their vehicles and break up profiles.

The Russian transport, mainly, 1960s-design Ural trucks, is equally as ancient, and their thinly-armoured BTR armoured personnel carriers are of a model which hardly compares as with such advanced vehicles as the British Warrior, the US Bradley, or the US state-of-the-art Stryker vehicles, all of which which sprout multi-tasking aerials all over the place. On the Russian BTRs, here is no sign of anti-RPG bar armour, and absolutely no sign of mine-protected vehicles which have proved so necessary in Iraq. The Russians columns appear not to be alert as concerns mines or possible ambushes. The single aerials installed on all vehicles show that the internal VHF communications suites are almost of 1960s standard.

The state of the Russian infantry as observed is even more worrying. Their uniforms are not standard, their vehicle discipline looks casual, and the foot deployment of infantry is sloppy, with rifle and kit not properly adjusted, with Kalshnikovs pointing all over the place. Frankly, it is enough to make a British Sergeant-Major go apeshit. Also, the infantry have no body armour (or even steel helmets), and lacking man pack aerials, appear to have no good communications kit at all.

The age range of some of the Russian infantry must also be worrying to Russian trainers and instructors. I have seen men of well over thirty in infantry sections, and any number of over-plump tummies on display. There is also a racial mix which must present problems to any basic training programme as concerns language difficulties. Infantry appear in particular are drawn from every conceivable area in Russia, which must make for training and co-ordination difficulties.

Frankly, on detailed technical observation, this display the Russian army shows it appearing to have sunk to a third-world standard which only succeeded in this case by confronting a numerically inferior force. If the Russians had any alert propaganda sense at all, on this spotlight occasion, they would have fielded a modern elite force instead of the dog's breakfast as observed. On this evidence, goodness only knows what their second line units are like.

Colin Bennett

Author, London

The New Fortean Times

www.combat-diaries.co.uk

[Tacbat]

Where to start picking this article apart? Feel free to add anything I miss.

For first-class Russian frontline units, there is strange mixture of obsolete and semi-obsolete armoured vehicles, with tanks in particular ranging from truly ancient T-54s to mid-life T-70s smothered in reactive armour.

Who says they're "first-class" units? Looks like an assumption to me. Who says their armoured vehicles are obsoloete? Against M1A1, Leo 2's, sure, but compared to what Georgia is fielding, I wouldn't call them obsoloete. They seem to be working pretty good for the Russians so far.

Reactive armour is a cheap and cheerful form interim anti-tank protection pending the arrival of new tank models, and never used on Western tanks.

Anyone else remember seeing Challenger 1's decked out with additional armour as far back as Gulf War 1?

Ceramic Cobham armour is used on Challenger 2 and Abrahams tanks, and the Russians appear not to have developed this.

WTF is an Abrahams tank?

Also there appears to have been no attempt by lackadaisical tank crews to camouflage their vehicles and break up profiles.

Why, who do they need to hide from.

Their uniforms are not standard, their vehicle discipline looks casual, and the foot deployment of infantry is sloppy, with rifle and kit not properly adjusted, with Kalshnikovs pointing all over the place.

Geez, I guess that never happens in combat, and what does this guy know about the "proper adjustment" of kit and the "deployment of infantry"?

The age range of some of the Russian infantry must also be worrying to Russian trainers and instructors. I have seen men of well over thirty in infantry sections...

Yeah, they're called Senior NCO's.

Infantry appear in particular are drawn from every conceivable area in Russia, which must make for training and co-ordination difficulties.

Sure, just like in other large countries like the USA and Canada.

If the Russians had any alert propaganda sense at all, on this spotlight occasion, they would have fielded a modern elite force instead of the dog's breakfast as observed.

Sorry to hear that you didn't get any pictures of a T-90. Look through our forum, I'm sure there's a couple in there.

On this evidence, goodness only knows what their second line units are like.

Who says these aren't their 2nd/3rd/4th line units? Got an org chart?

Great reporting. Putz.

[12Alfa]

...

Many journalists reporting on the present situation in Georgia use standard phrases

Journalists do not report, they recycle words to sell papers. If they wanted to report facts they could see the difference between 1st line units and second.

truly ancient T-54s to mid-life T-70s

Haven't seen any T-54's, yet, I don't think they are in service, now the T-55 is and we are seeing them, again wrong facts (recycle words)

And what is the T-70, I have never seen or read of one?

Ceramic Cobham armour is used on Challenger 2 and Abrahams tanks, and the Russians appear not to have developed this.

Wrong, they call it a different name but is based on the same principle of multi-layer materials

The single aerials installed on all vehicles show that the internal VHF communications suites are almost of 1960s standard.

I have a single antenna, and it is a state of the art radio (crypto, freq hopping, text, etc) in my veh, does this mean its a 1960's radio?

And internal comms don't need a anntena

with Kalshnikovs pointing all over the place.

Its called all round defence the last time I looked

and lacking man pack aerials, appear to have no good communications kit at all.

So a man pack aerials means good comms equipment, guess cell phones are out then, but hey! wait, dont cell phones have greater range,and have more features than a manpack....huuummm:cul:

Frankly, on detailed technical observation,

This is the best statement coming form a journalist:biggrin:

they would have fielded a modern elite force instead of the dog's breakfast as observed.

Stright from the battlfield of course

On this evidence, :confused:

I must have missed it....

Colin Bennett

Author, London

The New Fortean Times

www.combat-diaries.co.uk

Pure rubbish....again

[Kingtiger]

In my POW the 58th army isnt the highest prioritized unit on getting new equiptment, thats why we saw some "older" tanks in action.

[sabot_ready]

In GW1 , we fielded M60's.

We must also be second rate at times.

[GaryOwen]

Back in the days of the cold war, when there was a Soviet Union, its land forces were organized by geographical military districts. These districts received priority on staffing and equipment based on how close they were to NATO forces. The formations in the more remote districts were staffed with lower category skeleton units baby-sitting mothballed equipment until they were rounded out with local reserves. These would have been the units that comprised the final follow-up echelons in the case that there ever was a Warpac/NATO shooting war.

Just as the 40th Army, the main formation of the Limited Contingent of Soviet Forces that invaded Afghanistan, was comprised of forces assembled from the Turkestan Military District; most likely, what we're seeing now are mobilised units of a local district that are a bit lower on the food chain than the higher category or parade units that are performing praetorian duties about Moscow.

[Hedgehog]

and lacking man pack aerials, appear to have no good communications kit at all.

So a man pack aerials means good comms equipment, guess cell phones are out then, but hey! wait, dont cell phones have greater range,and have more features than a manpack....huuummm:cul:

I can see where this is going....

'Insert small arms here'

"Shit! geddown!"

Dials number.....rings for about a minute.

"I'm sorry you are number 9 in the queue, please hold"

Sometimes all that extra weight IS worth it.

[Floydii]

Watching the news tonight I saw a T54/55 (only a brief look, certainly wasn't a 64/72/80/90) with what appeared to be some kind of bar armour on the flanks and turret sides. So not totally un-prepared.

I'm thinking that if Russia rolled into Georgia with T80's, BMP3's and T90's it would send a much more serious and hence unwanted message to NATO. Much better for them that they look half-arsed (but still outnumber the Georgians heavily). Kinda shows they aren't THAT serious.

Hoping it isn't the beginning of a country expanding trend.

[DemolitionMan]

It was a come-as-you-are war, and Russia send in what was stationed there with the equipment they had. No time to send shiny parade formations with the latest of the latest. The tank with the bar armor was a T-62 btw, many photos of them appeared on the net.

Personally I like the array of equipment shown. From T-55 to T-72, BMP-1/2, BMD-1/2...like a flashback into the "good old times". I was certain never to see a T-62 in conflict apart from Africa or Korea again...and certainly not a Russian. Talk about "the age of the tank has ended/we don´t need heavy forces etc"...

[ShotMagnet]

...the main formation of the Limited Contingent of Soviet Forces that invaded Afghanistan, was comprised of forces assembled from the Turkestan Military District; most likely, what we're seeing now are mobilised units of a local district that are a bit lower on the food chain...

Interesting. A friend and I were discussing this yesterday. He mentioned that this time out infantry and armor were performing at or above expectations. He mentioned also that the air-attack regiments were apparently 'having some issues'.

The Russians admit to having lost four aircraft (to include, apparently a Backfire outfitted as a recon bird), the Georgians claim 19. We took an average, and weighted it a bit in favor of the 500-pound gorilla, and still came up with an aircraft loss-rate of about 1.5 per day. This would seem excessive given the combatants involved, and the 500-pound gorilla.

Even if the Russian claims are spot-on and those of the Georgian a combination of tetrahydrocannabinol and wishful thinking, four aircraft casualties against a nation smaller than my ego would seem at least distressing.

I was under the impression (thanks again by the way for the relevant FMs) that the VVO units were assigned based on Category as are infantry and armor and so forth. If that's the case, though, the VVO shouldn't have bled as much as it did.

Maybe I'm reading too much into this, but then again...

Shot

[JamesT73J]

I expect it was down to there being little or no SEAD capability from the VVS (or Georgia for that matter). I suspect the mud-movers (SU-25A) were operating in a highly dangerous environment, well within the engagement envelope of most ground threats, relying on short-range munitions and coming within range of MANPADS and mobile short-range defence systems such as the ZSU-23 and SA15 / 'Tor'. The TU-22 was possibly knocked down by the Ukraine-supplied SA-11.

Edited August 17, 2008 by JamesT73J

[HawkEye]

Heres a SU-25 in action http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b0e_1218493030

[tarball]

Gee, I'm surprised at the "let's revive old flames" bluster in response the the Georgia debacle. Fighting the "soviets" is so tired and is best within the visage of steel beasts rather than the real world (IMO). Plus, be careful what you ask for... the "new soviets" are far drunker on oil and their hubris than the "old soviets."

[GH_Lieste]

1) What the Ossetian and Abkazhian militias bring to a conflict isn't very representative of the Russian units employed even in the Caucasian theatre.

2) There's a certain amount of bluster due to 'our' having 'won' two (ongoing) wars on terror...

Quite where the fresh combat power required to face down the Russians is supposed to come from is not too clear, but once we've 'won' against them and the Iranians, perhaps we can pick a fight with China as well?

[Sergei]

It was a come-as-you-are war, and Russia send in what was stationed there with the equipment they had. No time to send shiny parade formations with the latest of the latest. The tank with the bar armor was a T-62 btw, many photos of them appeared on the net.

Personally I like the array of equipment shown. From T-55 to T-72, BMP-1/2, BMD-1/2...like a flashback into the "good old times". I was certain never to see a T-62 in conflict apart from Africa or Korea again...and certainly not a Russian. Talk about "the age of the tank has ended/we don´t need heavy forces etc"...

T-55 and T-62 are from South Osetian's forces and from Chechen's battalion "East".

Russian forces are with T-72.

And I must to say that modernized by Izrael and Ukraine T-72 of Gruzia are better then Russian T-72.

But not the weapon wins the war - spirit of soldiers wins the war.

And all world was watching how super-puper teached by USA and NATO army of Gruzia was running away from obsolete techniks of RF and South Osetia.

[Kepler]

And what is the T-70, I have never seen or read of one?

Oh it's a real tank allright. A Soviet WW2 light tank, to be precise. :biggrin:

[NEpi]

Gee, I'm surprised at the "let's revive old flames" bluster in response the the Georgia debacle.

isn't this forum supposed NOT to be political?

all participants, please change your tone, and rephrase, or this thread is locked.

It would be a shame.

[Mogwa]

[HawkEye]

Dont lock me Out !!! lol

[congo]

WTF is an Abrahams tank?

Tac,

The Abraham was a tank that was developed by the Terach Corporation in the land of Babylonia,specifically the City of UR. The CEO of Terach Corp convinced them to stop building useless idols and to start building MBT,s that they could be used in the battles of Canaan.BTW the successor to the dreaded Abraham MBT was the Isaac commonly refered to as the Yitzchak.

Edited August 23, 2008 by congo

[Ssnake]

It seems that we are in need of a general cease and desist, cool-down period for all the recent threads that have gone political. I understand that about any war tends to excite people and that some force you to take sides even if you don't want to, but we don't like that here. This is the last warning to everybody. You know who you are, and let me just say two words:

Temporary suspension.

[Tacbat]

The Abraham was a tank that was developed by the Terach Corporation in the land of Babylonia,specifically the City of UR. The CEO of Terach Corp convinced them to stop building useless idols and to start building MBT,s that they could be used in the battles of Canaan.BTW the successor to the dreaded Abraham MBT was the Isaac commonly refered to as the Yitzchak.

LOL!

Sounds like a great Unencyclopedia entry C.

[19K30]

Also there appears to have been no attempt by lackadaisical tank crews to camouflage their vehicles and break up profiles.

Interesting, I have been crewing tanks for over 13 years, in all terrains, and I have never in my life used anything to break up the profile of my tank. Especially not in the offense. All that crap would just fall off on the move, and just get in the way in general. I guess maybe in the defense in a wooded area this MIGHT give you some advantage until contact is made, but again it is just going to fly off when the gun starts firing, or when you move to your secondary fighting position.

I wouldn't call that lackadaisical at all, just not wasting valuable time you could be doing Troop Leading Procedures and preparing for combat operations.

[Kingtiger]

Eh?

camoflauging the tank (removing the siluett) is one of the more important things you do in preparation of combat...

well done and it wont fall of that easy and its not obscuring anything.

Here in sweden we have spruce branches on our vehicles so they dont ewen resemble anything close to a tank/CV90 and adding dirt and mud after driving around for a while and its fucking impossible to see what it supposed to be when it standing still.

You must be out in the desert or somewhere for your opinion to work?

Edit:

Kinda says it all?

/KT

Edited August 25, 2008 by Kingtiger
linking youtube

[19K30]

Eh?

camoflauging the tank (removing the siluett) is one of the more important things you do in preparation of combat...

well done and it wont fall of that easy and its not obscuring anything.

Here in sweden we have spruce branches on our vehicles so they dont ewen resemble anything close to a tank/CV90 and adding dirt and mud after driving around for a while and its fucking impossible to see what it supposed to be when it standing still.

You must be out in the desert or somewhere for your opinion to work?

/KT

I will admit that most of my fighting has been done in desert/urban environments where putting tree branches on your tank would be useless. You really aren't going to blend in anywhere in a city or a desert with some trees attached to your tank.

However, in wooded areas I have operated in (Fort Stewart, GA, Fort Lewis, WA, Fort Polk, LA, CMTC in Germany) we never did this, and never suffered because of it either. I've never been on one of your vehicles so I definetly can't speak for it, and I'm sure it works for what you do, but I am not sure if you have been around an M1 Series tank and gotten to crawl around on one, but there is not really anywhere you can put things like tree branches etc. that won't interfere with the operation of the tank.

You can stick branches in the rails on the side of the turret sponsen boxes that usually have cammo nets and poles (in cases) along with some duffel bags hanging on the side, but it is not really going to break up the profile of the tank all that well. Maybe on the rails at the back of the bussell rack but all you are going to end up with is something that looks like a M1 Abrams with some bushes on the side of it. The M1 wasn't really built for camouflaging.

Another thing that comes into play is optics. In 1999 I was at JRTC in Fort Polk and some German Paratroopers were there with their Weasel vehicles. Very small and were completely camouflaged while we were conducting a rearward passage of lines to move to another area of operations. I was a gunner at the time and despite the fact they were in a heavily wooded area with every kind of vegetation you could think of concealing them, I was able to pick them up immediately in the TIS. You can't hide heat.