Jump to content

History of Soviet tanks


Harkonnen

Recommended Posts

If you can use a tank you use a tank. If you want a proper airborne force it arguably needs organic firepower. On this note, note the continued development of airmobile SPA (2S42 Lotos), and of course the predecessor 2S9 was built in large numbers.

I accept of course that there is some argument for a different mix of light vehicles, though it cannot be based on the disadvantages of a light vehicle in general. 

New_Russian_airborne_120mm_mortar_carrie

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 7.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Don't forget that airborne also had SP-ATGM, BTR-RD, with Konkurs and Fagot missiles, and upgraded version was presented with Kornet, but was not procured due the desire to replace BTR-D chassis with the new one.

1519308827_s-ptrk-kornet.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, KV7 said:

If you can use a tank you use a tank. If you want a proper airborne force it arguably needs organic firepower. On this note, note the continued development of airmobile SPA (2S42 Lotos), and of course the predecessor 2S9 was built in large numbers.

I accept of course that there is some argument for a different mix of light vehicles, though it cannot be based on the disadvantages of a light vehicle in general. 

New_Russian_airborne_120mm_mortar_carrie

 

If there was a requirement, as with ASU 57, for fire support for the Airborne Forces, it would make sense. But there is not much point procuring a new light AFV they can drop out of a transport aircraft, if they dont have enough to do an airborne division in a single lift. And airborne divisions, unlike in Soviet years, only have 2 Regiments. We only have to look at how multi day drops for airborne divisions worked at Arnhem.

I worked out once, or read somewhere, they have the ability to drop about 90 BMD4's.  Just adding more light airdroppable vehicles to the TOE is a bit pointless, unless they plan to just do ground advances. And if they are, why not use a T72B3, as they are?

There is a case for saying that they probably didnt ought to be procuring BMD4, but its just about airportable using a Halo I think. And they clearly DO have the ambition to add to their strategic airlift capablity. They were going to buy a new run of Antonov 174's before relations with Ukraine took a nose dive. They would do well to put all the funds into fixing that before developing let more light equipment they dont yet have a logical use for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

 

If there was a requirement, as with ASU 57, for fire support for the Airborne Forces, it would make sense. But there is not much point procuring a new light AFV they can drop out of a transport aircraft, if they dont have enough to do an airborne division in a single lift. And airborne divisions, unlike in Soviet years, only have 2 Regiments. We only have to look at how multi day drops for airborne divisions worked at Arnhem.

I worked out once, or read somewhere, they have the ability to drop about 90 BMD4's.  Just adding more light airdroppable vehicles to the TOE is a bit pointless, unless they plan to just do ground advances. And if they are, why not use a T72B3, as they are?.

There's a simple case for light AFV, even if paradropping them is difficult: paratroopers seize something that can be converted into an improvised air strip and then tactical airlifters, which have both better STOL capabilities than strategic airlifters and, even more importantly, are much more expendable (and therefore "risk-able") than strategic airlifters, bring in vehicles and supplies.

If you look at WWII glider operations, gliders were used to land not just engineers but also small bulldozers to improve landing areas.   In large scale glider landings against the Germans, the mission was often clearing anti-glider obstacles and improving landing areas for follow on glider landings, usually supply missions flown after the initial airhead was secure.  Against the Japanese, however, it was typically to enable conventional cargo planes to land.

As for the T72, which I agree are much preferable to a SPRUT, the Soviets recognized in A-stan that the vehicles you land with don't have to be the vehicles you fight with long term.  The Soviets switched out BMP for BMD for the long haul.

When main forces (or even just supply lines) link up with the airborne you have two choices: pull the airborne out of the line or bulk them up with heavy vehicles so they can stay in the fight.  Especially in modern times, an airborne division is too much combat power, and, for the Soviets, too much of their high grade combat power, to take off the field.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/21/2020 at 2:51 PM, CaptLuke said:

There's a simple case for light AFV, even if paradropping them is difficult: paratroopers seize something that can be converted into an improvised air strip and then tactical airlifters, which have both better STOL capabilities than strategic airlifters and, even more importantly, are much more expendable (and therefore "risk-able") than strategic airlifters, bring in vehicles and supplies.

If you look at WWII glider operations, gliders were used to land not just engineers but also small bulldozers to improve landing areas.   In large scale glider landings against the Germans, the mission was often clearing anti-glider obstacles and improving landing areas for follow on glider landings, usually supply missions flown after the initial airhead was secure.  Against the Japanese, however, it was typically to enable conventional cargo planes to land.

As for the T72, which I agree are much preferable to a SPRUT, the Soviets recognized in A-stan that the vehicles you land with don't have to be the vehicles you fight with long term.  The Soviets switched out BMP for BMD for the long haul.

When main forces (or even just supply lines) link up with the airborne you have two choices: pull the airborne out of the line or bulk them up with heavy vehicles so they can stay in the fight.  Especially in modern times, an airborne division is too much combat power, and, for the Soviets, too much of their high grade combat power, to take off the field.

Well its a basic choice between dropping an SP antitank gun, or an IFV that can carry paratroops and has an anitank capability. If its a basic choice in airlift capacity, I would suggest they most likely go for the latter.

Besides, its not clear that a Sprut CAN be airdropped. Ive yet to see footage of it doing so. Its certainly airportable. But if you can airland equipment, why not put a couple of T72's on board a An124 and airland those?

main-qimg-d92d6cbabc91a6c65063ea88af11d6

Edited by Stuart Galbraith
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Besides, its not clear that a Sprut CAN be airdropped...

There would be no D in a designation if it could not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, KV7 said:

Can 2A45 use the newer longer 125mm ammunition ? I cannot see why not as it loaded by hand.

There is no 2A45 in the Russian army service. IIRC few were produced are in the reserve.

Edited by bojan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2S25 is in service since 2006. IIRC 36 are in the service.

You should really either check your sources or just... ask instead of making BS statements.

Edited by bojan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

. But if you can airland equipment, why not put a couple of T72's on board a An124 and airland those?

My point was that paradropped, or helicopter landed for that matter, troops could take a field/highway and improve it to the point that STOL aircraft could take off and land.

The airfield requirements for a C-130 equivalent (or smaller) bringing in a 15 tonne vehicle are completely different from the airfield requirements for landing a heavily loaded AN-124/C-5/C-17, especially when you're talking about a rough field built in hours/days by a small number of troops, even with a couple paradropped/helicopter-carried bulldozers.

There's also the cost/risk factor: risking a few C-130 size aircraft, and the tactical lift they provide, is completely different from risking strategic airlift assets.

Finally, any cargo aircraft operating from an improvised field is not going to reach the full range/payload specs for that aircraft.  For instance, the C-130J is capable of taking off and landing at weights over 160,000 pounds (72,600kg) but LockMart doesn't recommend operating it at over 110,000 pounds (49,900kg) on "marginal strength" surfaces or more than 135,000lbs (61,000kg) on dirt or grass airfields.  One plane, landing one time can exceed these limits, but if you are planning on running 100 sorties from your improvised strip, the weight limits are a real concern with even C-130 sized aircraft.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, KV7 said:

Can 2A45 use the newer longer 125mm ammunition ? I cannot see why not as it loaded by hand.

The gun for SPRUT-SD is the 2A75. With same chamber as 2A46. Manuell loading? Probably yes. 

Edited by Stefan Kotsch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, bojan said:

2S25 is in service since 2006. IIRC 36 are in the service.

You should really either check your sources or just... ask instead of making BS statements.

I was researching a wargame scenario I was working on 2 years ago and I could find no evidence it was in service with anyone. Yes, I did order a book from 2012 that does not show it in an airborne divisions oob either, and it even listed the BTR D drone carriers . Wiki suggest 25 vehicles in service, although the source of that is TASS, and again, gives no units.

If you have viable sources that suggest otherwise, please share. The only vehicles I found evidence of was trials vehicles, at least some with a prototype suspension. I'm thinking the only service they have seen is parades.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whatever Stuart, it is once again your petty BS and circular logic.

The Military Balance from 2016. says 36 reported to be in service, if you don't want to believe because "no unit is stated" - your problem.

Edited by bojan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, bojan said:

But Stuart says it is not in service and can not be airdropped... :D

No comment on that really. 

But the report said it was the second time the vehicle had been air dropped.  I wonder when it was first done then?  Obviously that was the original vehicle and not the modernised one.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe the samples acquired years ago have been put in storage. According to Russian sources, the type has not been bought since 2015, even if there is a modernised variant Sprut-SDM1 which started trials this August.

On the mean time, one has been converted to monument in Ryazan...

EVBrmH8WoAQLtqs.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, bojan said:

But Stuart says it is not in service and can not be airdropped... :D

I said no such thing. I said I had not seen it's airdrop capability demonstrated, and I wasn't sure it could. And if you can tell me what unit the 25 serve in, I'm happy to add it to the Russian OOB I've put together. Until then, I remain unconvinced.

Don't you find it strange that in 14 years of service, they have by the Russians own admission, only 25 in service, less than a battalion, and they have demonstrated it airdropped twice, in singleton? 

 

The military balance even includes gate guardians. It's useful as hell, but it's not the final word on the subject.

6 minutes ago, alejandro_ said:

Maybe the samples acquired years ago have been put in storage. According to Russian sources, the type has not been bought since 2015, even if there is a modernised variant Sprut-SDM1 which started trials this August.

On the mean time, one has been converted to monument in Ryazan...

EVBrmH8WoAQLtqs.jpg

Yes, I thInk that was one of the early versions of which the suspension apparently didn't work out. Which perhaps accounts for the disparity of 11 vehicles.

Thanks for that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, alejandro_ said:

On the mean time, one has been converted to monument in Ryazan...

EVBrmH8WoAQLtqs.jpg

That is a pre-production model.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...