Osprey's "Combat Vehicles of Russia's Special Forces" book. Interesting read but...

[Gavin-Phillips]

I have to say I was really looking forward to reading this one.  I have never heard or read much about the use of quad bikes (4x4 ATV's seems to be a more common name these days) within the Russian armed forces nor those strange dune buggy-like Fast Attack Vehicles for that matter.  

 

Reading through the book though, it made me wonder about the following things and I thought it worth asking to see if anyone else could clarify.

1: According to the book, the BMD-1 airborne fighting vehicle has a 2-man crew and carries 5 infantry.  I'd always read that it was a crew of 3 with four infantry.  Does the vehicle commander dismount with the troops when they go on foot?

2: The book mentions a vehicle known as the BTR-DG; which as I understand it from reading the article, seems to be a cargo-hauling version of the BTR-D airborne transporter vehicle.  Pictures of this variant of the BTR-D seem to be lacking but it is not a designation I have heard of before.  Is this an official Russian one?

3: Finally; the coverage of the 2S25 Sprut-SD "tank destroyer" isn't full of praise for the vehicle to be fair.  More like highly critical of its light armour, its temperamental (design, engine?) and the fact that the gun is simply too large for the vehicle.  Perhaps this is why there is a modernisation called the 2S25-SDM1 (based on the BMD-4 chassis)?  Interestingly enough, there is also a mention of a modernised version of a favourite of mine, the Nona-S.  The designation being noted as 2S9-1M Nona-SM which can use a guided munition called Kitolov-2, plus the 2S9's replacement is another vehicle called the 2S42 Lotos.  

Yes an interesting book and who knows what the future will hold I guess.  

[bojan]

14 minutes ago, Gavin-Phillips said:

1: According to the book, the BMD-1 airborne fighting vehicle has a 2-man crew and carries 5 infantry.  I'd always read that it was a crew of 3 with four infantry.  Does the vehicle commander dismount with the troops when they go on foot?

Yes and no. In the Russian terminology vehicle commander is also a dismount commander, but usually does not dismount. Hence Russian sources give it as 3-men crew + 4 dismounts. 2+5 would be "western way" of counting crew.

Quote

2: The book mentions a vehicle known as the BTR-DG; which as I understand it from reading the article, seems to be a cargo-hauling version of the BTR-D airborne transporter vehicle.  Pictures of this variant of the BTR-D seem to be lacking but it is not a designation I have heard of before.  Is this an official Russian one?

 

Russian sources do not mention this one. There was an experimental cargo hauler on the BTR-D chassis, but it was never produced and did not have a designation.

 

Quote

3: Finally; the coverage of the 2S25 Sprut-SD "tank destroyer" isn't full of praise for the vehicle to be fair.  More like highly critical of its light armour, its temperamental (design, engine?) and the fact that the gun is simply too large for the vehicle.  Perhaps this is why there is a modernisation called the 2S25-SDM1 (based on the BMD-4 chassis)?

2S25 is very specific vehicle, it is quite expensive due the use of exotic alloys in order to reduce mass. Armor is comparable to BMD-3/4 series, which is light, but vehicle is capable of being parachuted, so... Modernization is addressing FCS issues, since original vehicle had quite primitive FCS.

[Gavin-Phillips]

Much appreciated, thank you Bojan.

The crew count Eastern/Western style is very interesting and goes a long way to explain the disparity.  Even Janes has it listed as 3+4 for the BMD-1 and BMD-2.

Still getting used to the new site format, it took me a while to realise where the "bleep" noise came from and what it was.  Reminds me of the good ol' days of MSN Messenger...

Yes overall a decent book really, a good read.  I do wonder if Russia will go anywhere with their testing and trials of those dune buggy-type fast attack vehicles (in trials they were armed with a GPMG and an AGS-30).  I suppose time will tell on that one.

I've been reading up a little on the 2S42 Lotos as well.  Looks a bit like a stripped-down 2S31 Vena to me...

[Stuart Galbraith]

Ive a book on the TOE of the Russian Airborne Forces circa 2012, that I remember said the Russians had developed a variant of BTR-D for use as a Drone Carrier. Without seeing the illustration, perhaps this is it?

Both the American's and British special forces trialled dune buggy's, but I dont think the infatuation lasted long.

There is a Galeotti book from Osprey on the Spetsnaz units which seems fairly interesting. The Soviet Spetsnaz unit in what is now Belarus (which now forms the Belarus Spetsnaz Brigade) was trialling operational insertion via paraglider. They were hopping mad to lose that unit on the dissolution of the union because they were apparently proving fairly successful. I often wonder if the Belarusians kept going with it.

[bojan]

3 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Ive a book on the TOE of the Russian Airborne Forces circa 2012, that I remember said the Russians had developed a variant of BTR-D for use as a Drone Carrier. Without seeing the illustration, perhaps this is it?

No, that one is designated Stroy-P ( Строй-П ) and IIRC it was also not serial.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Thanks for that.

[Gavin-Phillips]

6 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Ive a book on the TOE of the Russian Airborne Forces circa 2012, that I remember said the Russians had developed a variant of BTR-D for use as a Drone Carrier. Without seeing the illustration, perhaps this is it?

The book has a picture of a drone carrier/launch vehicle called the Stroy-P but also mentions another vehicle simply referred to as the NDPU Sterkh (translation "Crane").  While there is a colour plate picture of the former, there are no images available of the latter.  I wonder if Yefim Gordon's older book covering Soviet/Russian Unmanned Aerial Vehicles - part of the Red Star series - might shed some more light on this?  With so many variants, I wonder if the BTR-MDM will ever replace the BTR-D...

[alejandro_]

Quote

2S25 is very specific vehicle, it is quite expensive due the use of exotic alloys in order to reduce mass. Armor is comparable to BMD-3/4 series, which is light, but vehicle is capable of being parachuted, so... Modernization is addressing FCS issues, since original vehicle had quite primitive FCS.

I thought Sprut was based on a stretched BMD chassis. As you say, latest version incorporates a modern FCS, but no orders yet.

[Simon Tan]

VDV is not special forces. 

[bojan]

14 hours ago, alejandro_ said:

I thought Sprut was based on a stretched BMD chassis....

Yes but chassis is heavily modified. Lots of titanium used for interior fittings in order to save maximum mass.

[Stuart Galbraith]

15 hours ago, alejandro_ said:

I thought Sprut was based on a stretched BMD chassis. As you say, latest version incorporates a modern FCS, but no orders yet.

The Naval Infantry were supposedly looking at it to replace their tanks I gathered from one source. Though it doesnt really seem to take up markedly less room than a T72, and the saving in weight probably matters little to a Ropucha.

 

Its a nice vehicle and probably what they ought to be buying. But they have already got a battalion of T72's in each airborne division, and as long as you arent airdropping, thats probably adequate enough.

[Gavin-Phillips]

3 hours ago, bojan said:

Yes but chassis is heavily modified. Lots of titanium used for interior fittings in order to save maximum mass.

Wow I had no idea about that.  I figured the chassis would have been modified somewhat at least if only to handle the recoil of the main gun which no doubt has just a bit more kick than the 2A70 on BMD-3M/4/4M but that's the first I heard about Titanium being used.  

At this rate, its a full-time job keeping up with developments in the Soviet armed forces!

[Gavin-Phillips]

14 hours ago, Simon Tan said:

VDV is not special forces. 

Hi Simon

I'm not sure if that comment was directed towards me or not but the book covers a few different arms of the Soviet military machine.  While special forces is something it covers, the VDV is another too (as well as Naval infantry, the use of drones etc).

Speaking/typing of the VDV though, Osprey also have another recently introduced book covering the Soviet Airborne Forces 1930-91.  That might be worth a look.

Thanks. 

[bojan]

57 minutes ago, Gavin-Phillips said:

...I figured the chassis would have been modified somewhat at least if only to handle the recoil of the main gun which no doubt has just a bit more kick than the 2A70 on BMD-3M/4/4M but that's the first I heard about Titanium being used....

Chassis is same aluminium alloy as BMD-3/4 and BMP-3, but some internal fittings are made of titanium where combination of light weight and compactness was required. IIRC some of the autoloader parts at least.

[Gavin-Phillips]

On 9/15/2020 at 5:13 PM, Gavin-Phillips said:

Speaking/typing of the VDV though, Osprey also have another recently introduced book covering the Soviet Airborne Forces 1930-91.  That might be worth a look. 

It seems odd to quote myself but as a bit of an update, I finally received a copy of Osprey's book on Soviet Airborne Forces 1930-91 and its genuinely an interesting read.  Although I knew that there was a fair bit of history with the Russian armed forces and airborne operations; what I didn't know is just how far back it actually went.  Perhaps others can point out any inaccuracies in the book (if indeed there are any) but yes a great read I thought.  The book doesn't really cover things like vehicles and weapons, but is more a timeline of organisations, re-organisations and major operations up to and including Afghanistan 1979-89.

I did put a request in for them to do a book on at least the earlier BMD's (BMD-1 and BMD-2; I think BMD-3 and later vehicles are worth a book in their own right).  You never know I guess.  They have a book already on WW2 glider assault tactics so anything is possible.

Great stuff. 🙂