Tuesday, December 09, 2014
Russian Marines on exercise...
English Russia has another photo spread on Russian Marines conducting an amphibious assault exercise. Definitely worth a look-see. I've been beating the drum and the Russians seem to embrace it much more than we do. WTF am I talking about? Joint amphibious-airborne operations! Historically its not something that we've done very much but I still believe that outside of tiny islands in the Pacific, its a natural partnership that can amplify the hitting power of expeditionary/rapid reaction (I despise the new buzzword, crisis response, with every ounce of my soul) forces.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments
(
Atom
)
to Solomon
ReplyDeletehttp://www.mpeh.ru/media/photo/index.php?PAGE_NAME=section&SECTION_ID=118
it is Russian marines journal - it belongs to a commercial company (a huge one), founded by retired marines. I was in their office - marines images on each wall. Impressive///
that's getting shared! good one bro!
DeleteBy the way
ReplyDeleteBMD-4 BAHCHA finished its service trial. It can swim and jump (@amphibious-airborne@ up to you).
The vehicle with ad armour kit.
http://sdelanounas.ru/i/y/3/m/Y3M0MDkyMTgudmsubWUvdjQwOTIxODgxOC80MWQwL2ROb29wbVBsR0I0LmpwZz9fX2lkPTU1OTI3.jpg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fiZ2qw56t20
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YobM_8zUs64
The BMD-4 airborne combat vehicle has been developed by the Volgograd Tractor Plant and the Tula KBP Instrument Design Bureau, as a follow-on to the earlier BMD-3 airborne combat vehicle used by the Russian air assault divisions.
The BMD-4 is also referred to as the Bakhcha-U. The first order was placed in 2004 for five units, which were delivered late in 2005.
The first complete company equipped with 13 of the BMD-4 airborne combat vehicles was operational in the first half of 2005.
It is understood that all BMD-4 airborne combat vehicles are brand new vehicles and not a conversion of the older BMD-3 airborne combat vehicle.
One drawback is that the Il-76 transport aircraft can only carry two of the larger and heavier BMD-4 airborne assault vehicles compared with three of the older BMD-3. Combat weight of the BMD-4 is 13,500/13,600 kg, slightly heavier than the BMD-3.
http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product2620.html
you do know i got your e-mail and was going to post this tomorrow right? oh well. its out there now.
DeleteI just can’t stay calm, sir!)) It is an amazing vehicles and too close to the “amphibious-airborne operations” issue with two guns!
DeleteAnd it was a great battle (according to rumors) between our “Chief-paratrooper” Shamanof and red-tape mafia from our DefMin: to be or not to be BMD-4. Shamanof von, thanks to God.
BMD-4 finished it's trials long time go.
DeleteWhat you are talking about is BMD-4M which is quite a different machine that comes with more powerful engine and added armor from factory and other small differences. Still can be para-dropped and still be amphibious.
Here is it swimming.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxfA2VmTZUg
With it's standard applique armor. BMD-4M CAN Withstands 12,7 mm caliber rounds and this is one is me guessing .. probably 14,5 mm from 500 meter range.
It's a damn great upgrade.
@BMD-4 finished it's trials long time go. @
DeleteMay fault, sir, I’ve lost “M” and took an article about BMD-4 (wthout “M”) – this vehicles are similar at about 80% but BMD-4M is made in "Kurganmashzavod” not Volgograd.
And it was a long story with this vehicle – previous Min of Def had a bug about three-platform unification. But paratroopers (and marines of course) needed a new vehicle (BMD-3 was taken as too old, BMD-4 had a loot of bugs). Then was corruption scandal with old Min of Defense – Serdukof – then he was fried and new Min of Defense appeared – Shoygu, who has another mind about the vehicle and conception of our army modernization as well.
“In April 2010, First Deputy Defense Minister V.A.Popovkin said that the BMD-4M, except for tests in the party did not receive the VDV and the Ministry of Defense refuses to their future purchases. Later, in the autumn of 2012 after the change of leadership of the Ministry dropped plans were announced revenues in 2013 10 pieces in the Airborne for service trials. And 8 December 2012, the press published a statement the commander of the 31st Guards Paratroops Brigade Airborne Colonel Gennady Anashkin, that the BMD-4M put into service. The contract for the delivery of the first 10 of BMD-4 in the amount of 608 million rubles concluded with "Kurganmashzavod" stipulated delivery at November 2013, but the 04/23/2013, in the media it was reported that the number of BMD-4M will be reduced to 7 items due to the rising cost of each machine is almost 20 million rubles because of transfer of chassis’ production to the "Kurganmashzavod”.
Article in Russian
http://topwar.ru/24860-boevye-mashiny-na-baze-bmd-3-chast-1-bmd-4.html
@With it's standard applique armor. BMD-4M CAN Withstands 12,7 mm caliber rounds and this is one is me guessing .. probably 14,5 mm from 500 meter range.@
DeleteOnly practice will show how this is correct.
Well BMD's are lightly armored to be... well... airborne. Wonder if a 12.7×108 with B-32 AP round would be enough to put an hole in it like in Swiss cheese.
Deletebtw: info' how do you like the Eye of Sauron over the Moscow? :D
@Wonder if a 12.7×108 with B-32 AP round would be enough to put an hole in it like in Swiss cheese@
DeleteMay be. Anyway armour is not a tidbit of the vehicle, IMHO, but Firemighty and mobility. To get more protection they can use spades)))
@btw: info' how do you like the Eye of Sauron over the Moscow? :D@
I WANT TO SEE IT IN REALTY!!! Bggggg
http://ic.pics.livejournal.com/russkiy_malchik/23683470/248300/248300_original.jpg
~Well BMD's are lightly armored to be... well... airborne. Wonder if a 12.7×108 with B-32 AP round would be enough to put an hole in it like in Swiss cheese. ~
DeleteDoubt it ! Take a look...
http://defencerussia.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/d0b0d180d0bcd0b8d18f-210.jpg
That's 45 mm extra protection and assuming even if the first layer is hallow. From the looks of it in my opinion the BMP-4M is meant to withstand most like at a distance 14.5 caliber rounds vs it's hull.
This is a uparmored version Robert, most of them probably don't have that modification. Or at least on most pic's they don't. A shoot in side, yeah... if the range is not too big and angle is good, probably we would have a good hole in it. In front, I have serious doubts...but in side or back, I think B-32 would be enough to penetrate it.
DeleteWe are talking about BMD-4M here. It comes standard with that applique armor. The previous BMD-4M didn't ...but that version was rejected. On the bases of the old BMD-4M this version came to be.
DeleteAt 500 meters 14.5 caliber would not penetrate that because like I said there is about 45~ mm extra protection even if the first metal plate is hallow that still leaves about ~ 30 mm extra armour. Anything closer by ... say 250 or so meters a 14.5 caliber would as you say definitely make a big hole. And a 12.7 mm B-32 API round is supposed to be able to penetration about 20mm at 100 meters. Perhaps a 12.7 mm B-32 API might penetrate the sides but at close blank range.
But anyway I think you would agree pretty good protection for an airborne machine and still being able to retain it's amphibious capability.
See.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxfA2VmTZUg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kuAlryU4eF4#t=102
Deleteon the vid (0:56-1:27) we can see how cacasus of the vehicle is built - at my layman's take the carcasus is solid and frame and the aremour is not too thin - it shows relative enough protection. I found no vids of trials with shooting or explosion.
@Robert
DeleteAs I said, not all new BMD-4M have that applique armor, it's probably an optional only.
http://immortaltoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/BMD-4M-vehicles-01.jpg
And you are wrong. That picture is from 2010. See here
Deletehttp://vitalykuzmin.net/?q=node/308
and of the old BMD-4M that got rejected as I mentioned above.
The BMD-4M's that will go into service this year all come equipped standard from the factory with applique armor.
Interesting stuff ... vertical 'Air Assault' has been traditionnally a concept used more commonly in Soviet Forces, so there is nothing really new here.
ReplyDeleteThe premises under which the Russians want to operate these join amphibious-airborne operations go back to late 1980s (see Reznichenko), when Soviets aimed at adding another dimension to the ground component of their offensive forces. The idea was to add greater depth to the battle field by making use of the vertical dimension (thus air assault). It was based also on soviet experience in Afghanistan, but globally a sort of soviet equivalent to 'air land battle" of NATO, with airborne units instead of air force.
I see this as a continuation a previous tactical thinking within Soviet/Russian military. But just so we dont' forget, I would like to note that the biggest amphibious/airborne operation that ever took place was an allied one (joint US-UK effort mostly) ... it's called D-Day ... just taking the piss ;-)
done rarely since then. D-Day, Grenada a few other examples here and there but never truly embraced, even in exercise form. that's my heartburn. when could we have used it to great effect? how about the assaults on Iraq? how about the initial assault on Afghanistan. i don't know what the problem is but we've missed opportunities to really put the enemy in a hurt locker but didn't either because of caution on the part of commanders or a lack of creative thinking.
DeleteNot sure how often we can practice it, even in training, there are casualties almost every time, and some injuries are permanent, never mind the fatalities once in a while. I had a CSM who had a medical because he landed wrong in bad ground and busted his legs. He was no slouch too, he was one of the foreign grads from your SEAL course. And we lost his service because of this.
DeleteRussia simply doesn't care enough to worry about casualties from day to day training.
You're certainly right about caution being one of the reasons for US reluctance to embrace this idea. Casualty figures on large conventional engagement could be very high.
DeleteAnother reason is that strategic thinking in US armed forces always relies on assumption of (total) air superiority, which enabled the US to hit hard and deep in ennemy territory, without putting boots on the ground. That this superiority might vanish or fade away in future, as recent war games suggest, could be used as an opportunity to experiment with the Russian tactic.
Personally i think there's another reason the US have refrained from employing it, and still do, and that is because of logistics involved. In the case of the US armed forces, logistics have always been 'heavier" and thus is might be difficult, under current conditions, to entertain idea of large scale airborne assault operation behind ennemy lines, when you got to deal with regular with the logistics nightmare such an operation might involve. Israeli, British and French airborne troops travel more lightly, might be worth having a look how they operate, given that Russians is too different and operational standards too far apart.
One way of doing it the american style, would be to revisit the concept of airmobile infantry (Air' Cav') operating in conjunction and under protection of gunships. Projection distance would be diminished but autonomy of operation would increase, if you're able to establish a safe enough ground base to operate from.
by the way, last time amphibious-airborne and ground assault was done successfully on a large scale Suez in 1956 ... worked militarily but total fuck-up politically ...
DeleteSoviets used Airborne attack to kick doors in both in Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan.
DeleteThe Marines have announced plans for a new amphibious vehicle:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.duffelblog.com/2014/11/marine-corps-amphibious-vehicle/
Patrick, you know that is a joke article right? Or at least I hope you do. This should have been a clue:
Delete“The current plans say the ACV is will resist gunfire instead of bursting into flames,” Dunford said. “Also, it doesn’t direct the engine exhaust directly into the troop compartment. It doesn’t even have a switch that will flood the troop compartment, sink the vehicle, and drown everyone in seconds. A vehicle this good is unacceptable.”
Hadn't read that one from duffelBLOG ! But I agree such a vehicle should not be allowed !
DeleteBursting in flames while sustaining gunfire ... Suspect it's a direct reference to the first M113s nickname aka "zippo" !
Er, the Zippo M113 is the flamethrower M113 IIRC. More likely the old "Ronson" Shermans. "Lights first time, everytime!"
DeleteThought the flamethrower variant was M-132 ... Don't know the one you mention. Vietnam was before my time but story in IDF goes that M-113 also got this nickname because of tendency to go up in flames pretty easily ... Maybe an urban legend in Israel ... If any Vietnam vet out there who knows, i'll be happy to relay correct info back home !
DeleteNothing will raise your pucker factor faster than aluminum armor and 95 gallons of pre-ethanol era gasoline.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteYeah that's how I would see it ... Also called it a BBQ on wheels or rather on tracks and that was drawn from our own experience with it
Delete