gatnerd

Military Guns and Ammunition

Hosted by gatnerd

This is intended for people interested in the subject of military guns and their ammunition, with emphasis on automatic weapons.

  • 3339
    MEMBERS
  • 189800
    MESSAGES
  • 3
    POSTS TODAY

Discussions

Ukraine weapons thread   General Military Discussion

Started 24-Feb by gatnerd; 141731 views.
Mr. T (MrT4)

From: Mr. T (MrT4)

1-Jul

On this part we can somewhat agree  . Designs used a different philosophy in the 60-70's when T64 and then T72 were designed, not that they did not care for protection, rather they considered ammo stowed in the hull floor carousel as safely tucked under armor 

Like you mentioned before its not the carousel but the reloads in the crew space that pose the most danger. Those 'reloads' are the ones they moved out of the hull inthe T90MS , But likely more that just that is the fact that they chose to design ammo around semi-combustible cases doesn't help either.

Mustrakrakis

From: Mustrakrakis

1-Jul

Yes.  The only gear that seems to be working as advertised (when not operated by improperly trained morons) is what arrived there from the west.  The other stuff is mostly shit, and has been mostly shit for a long time.  When it's not designed to be shit, it's built to shit standards.

It annoys me that we have to keep relearning this lesson every decade or so.  And by "we," I mean basically everyone not highly placed in the western military industrial complex.  I'm fairly sure that they've known it all along.

Mustrakrakis

From: Mustrakrakis

2-Jul

Their logistics have historically always been terrible.  I was going to say at least as far back as WWII, but now that I think about it, it goes back even further than that.  That's just not something that they do well.  As for tactics and operations...well, I'm no mind reader (none of us are), but I suspect that the Russian Federation's upper management was quite surprised and Kiev didn't wave the flag and welcome them in after being encircled.  I don't think that was Russia's only plan, but I do think that it was their Plan A.  It's not like they didn't have a Plan B or a Plan C.  They're not morons.

It does make sense to discuss weapon system strengths and weaknesses when pictures of inverted tank turrets in upstairs bedrooms are appearing on Turret Tossing Olympics threads on various forums.  The tankies here had assured me several years ago that this wasn't a thing anymore, for a variety of reasons that apparently weren't factual.  I mean, I understand the tradeoffs involved with some autoloader designs, but the reactive armor was supposed to make sure that this didn't happen in the first place.  I had also been told here by the very same tankies that western ATGM's sucked, and were ineffective against proper reactive armor.

What of the Moskva?  She was a beast.  Her job was to steam over to an American battlegroup, spam a "wall of skill" antishipping missile barrage at it, and then haul ass in the other direction while having a reasonable chance of surviving the deluge of missiles, bombs, and aircraft that would be sent in retaliation.  Her antimissile and antiaircraft capabilities had redundancies for redundancies.  And what was the result?  Even with the oppressive amount of western intel being funneled to Ukraine, that shouldn't have been possible.  I've heard it suggested that their sailors are as bad as their tanks, but I don't believe that.  I don't believe that the people are bad.  When you're in the military and at war, if you're bad at your job, you die.  You're directly motivated to do a good job, and to continually learn how to do your job better.  That's how you survive.  Your equipment, unfortunately, is out of your control, and I suspect that Moskva ended up where she did because her AA systems, in whole or in part, were not performing to spec...because if they had been, Ukraine didn't have enough missiles to sink her.

I think it's mostly garbage.  Russia publicly pushed the effectiveness of its equipment because publicly pushing the ineffectiveness of your equipment is not a sound strategy.  The west (primarily driven by the arms industry and the politicians, which are joined at the hip) also pushed the effectiveness of Russia's equipment, because you don't get defense funding if you don't have a credible enemy.  It was all an elaborate act of theater.

Mustrakrakis

From: Mustrakrakis

2-Jul

Not great.  That's a big part of my argument, and what I'm seeking to remind people of with my monkey model comments.  They were all monkey models.

I feel like I'm coming across as shitting on Russia.  I'm not.  Russia is a huge country with extensive natural resources that's plagued by a small population and a correspondingly small economy.  They're a global power by virtue of sitting on a nuclear arsenal, they have an extensive stockpile of what's essentially Vietnam War era equipment, they have aspirations of global influence, and most of the world didn't like them for whatever reasons (including a lot of the countries buying gas from them), even before Ukraine.  They just don't have the wealth to put it together.  Getting them into NATO in the 90's was a missed opportunity.  We'd all be happier now if that had happened.

schnuersi

From: schnuersi

2-Jul

Mustrakrakis said:

I was going to say at least as far back as WWII

Actually WW2 and the immediate post war era was the highpoint of Soviet/Russian logistics. Mostly because the US stuffed the full of truck, locomotives, fuel etc. They also did not have the deal with sea transport. The Americans handled it for them.
During the Cold War they compensated by having the majority of their troops stationed less than a half day combat march away from their operational objectives.

Mustrakrakis said:

It does make sense to discuss weapon system strengths and weaknesses when pictures of inverted tank turrets in upstairs bedrooms are appearing on Turret Tossing Olympics threads on various forums.

Yes it does. Because the question is why this is happening.
As usual the answer is complex and there are several key factors. Also keep in mind that what can be seen on the internet is out of context and only a very narrow view.

Mustrakrakis said:

Her antimissile and antiaircraft capabilities had redundancies for redundancies.

No they did not. That is one of the reasons why it sunk.

Mustrakrakis said:

that shouldn't have been possible

I think you are missining the point. You yourself a few lines above wrote a summary of the mission profile a Slava Class cruiser was designed for. Has it been used in that way? Its a ship design from the '70 designed and build for a specific and very special purpose. It was used completly the wrong way. Sending it to basically perform litoral combat in threatened waters was a dumb idea. The main weapon suits of the Moskva have been unsuitable for the mission. Basically its a glass cannon or a one use system. Its there to move in attack position on a major ocean and saturate a target with heavy AShMs. What happens to the ship once it fired its load is an afterthought.
Its basically the same problem as with most Soviet era equipment. The design parameters assumed a very specific mode of opperation. This resulted in quite specialised but comparable optimised designs. For example the lower weight and size of the Soviet MBTs. Lauded since forever. But it came at the expense of flexibility. If the mode of opperation was not as intended the effectivness of the systems is massively reduced.
 

Mustrakrakis said:

It was all an elaborate act of theater.

No it was playing it safe.
You also should keep in mind that with the latest gear in several cases Russia is not the main user. This is true for the T-90 for example. How these perform is largely unknown to the wider public. We know they are not the stars of the turret tossing shows. Actually so far only one video of a T-90 being scuttled appeard and it was made quite a big deal. We also know that modern ATGMs or not the Russian army is putting immense pressure on UA and are gaining territorry. Once the fighting stops we will get reliable and detailed information over time. Currently its extremly difficult to make good acessments.

schnuersi

From: schnuersi

2-Jul

Mustrakrakis said:

Getting them into NATO in the 90's was a missed opportunity.

This was never up for debate. Russia never wanted that in the first place. This is a completly unrealistic scenario and not a missed opportunity.

Mustrakrakis said:

and most of the world didn't like them for whatever reasons

This is simply not true. Most of the Western world for decades tried to be friend with them and gave them a lot of leeway and benefit of the doubt. Turns out this was a mistake and they didn't deserve it in the first place.
 

Mustrakrakis said:

They just don't have the wealth to put it together

That is also not true.
One of the problems the Russian military has are the massive stockpiles of old gear. This makes it very time consuming and expensive to really get new stuff out there. Once they start training people on the new equipment their stockpiles would become worthless. But they WANT the stockpiles because the WANT to wage war. Building up to a similar level with new gear would have taken decades but they wanted war NOW. So they had to use what was there. Only the party poopers in the West did shower UA with really modern weapons which can deal with old gear with ease. Keep in mind that UA on its own would never have comparable equipment. They would be in a worse situation than Russia.
On top of that comes the Russian defense industry. Which for most parts is outdated. Old facilities old machinery etc. They have been building the same stuff for almost half a century. Its quite problematic to radically change that. Again it takes time and resources. Doable yes but not if you want war now.

graylion

From: graylion

3-Jul

Mustrakrakis said:

What of the Moskva?  She was a beast.  Her job was to steam over to an American battlegroup, spam a "wall of skill" antishipping missile barrage at it, and then haul ass in the other direction while having a reasonable chance of surviving the deluge of missiles, bombs, and aircraft that would be sent in retaliation.  Her antimissile and antiaircraft capabilities had redundancies for redundancies.  And what was the result?  Even with the oppressive amount of western intel being funneled to Ukraine, that shouldn't have been possible.  I've heard it suggested that their sailors are as bad as their tanks, but I don't believe that.  I don't believe that the people are bad.  When you're in the military and at war, if you're bad at your job, you die.  You're directly motivated to do a good job, and to continually learn how to do your job better.  That's how you survive.  Your equipment, unfortunately, is out of your control, and I suspect that Moskva ended up where she did because her AA systems, in whole or in part, were not performing to spec...because if they had been, Ukraine didn't have enough missiles to sink her.

The best reason I have seen suggested is operator fatigue - hours and hours of staring at an analog radar screen

Mr. T (MrT4)

From: Mr. T (MrT4)

3-Jul

Developing and manufacturing new brand new gear from the ground up is not something done with ease even in far more developed countries with much more financial resources and industrial base . If you look at comparable GDP countries , none builds space rockets, jets, helicopters, nuclear subs, tanks and everything else that goes with it . IF you look in Europe french are the closest to sort of manufacturing (even tough in most cases in European cooperation) everything, yet don't even manufacture small arms or ammo.

For Russia the inwestment was mostly to AD systems ,Navy (Subs) and Nuclear deterrent all of these branches got new gen gear . Ground forces were not a big priority when it came to money allocated. so they want to wage war now is not quite what they were planing for.

To ilustrate how small development potential of certain industries is :

Most of the worlds planes use engines from only 2 different manufacturers,  most of the armored vehicles use engines and transmissions from 3-4 different manufacturers, practicaly all the ships use cannon installations from one company ,drives from one , turbines from 2-3 , most of the missiles are made by very small selection of manufacturers , radars from 2or 3 ,electronic parts come from one or two manufacturers .

So when Koreans start a new tank they can buy 50% of the parts off the shelf abroad, same goes for Israelis , one single country building everything while not even having a large civilian manufacturing base that could be taped into pro know how  is in a world of hurt to develop and make every part. Even US buys most of the stuff abroad and has production localized at home. (practically all small arms aside from M4 and M2HB are European) ,many of the new ships are European designs, missiles are being bought in Sweden ,APS in Israel , Stryker was practically rehashed LAV/iranha ,

For Russia post SSSR widely dispersed defense industry was a considerable disavantage , many engines and powertrains were made in Ukraine ,optics in Belarus, NV gear in Belarus and Ukraine , Torpedos in Ingushetia etc... at to that layers of corruption and 60Billion defence budget is not that large considering the size of the armed forces and nuclear deterrent.

You know its much easier to develop around COTS parts sourced all over the world, everyone does it , so its a bit insincere to point out that Russia doing it is somehow different.   Just look at the issues with making a domestic powertrain for many tank projects like Turk Altai tank or Korean Black Panther.

Just imagine Turks building Bayraktar without any foreign parts , there wouldnt be one ever.

Y

schnuersi

From: schnuersi

4-Jul

Mr. T (MrT4) said:

Developing and manufacturing new brand new gear from the ground up is not something done with ease even in far more developed countries with much more financial resources and industrial base .

Actually it is. The R&D is not the problem. Not at all. Especially if there are established organisations and experience. All it usually takes is some time, commitment and money. The problems come from the latter two not being there.
 

Mr. T (MrT4) said:

If you look at comparable GDP countries , none builds space rockets, jets, helicopters, nuclear subs, tanks and everything else that goes with it .

This is relevant why?

Mr. T (MrT4) said:

so they want to wage war now is not quite what they were planing for.

That is very true. They planned for the UA to be a push over and the entire thing done within a few days. A few weeks tops.
Most of their projects are for long term. Once they started to openly antagonise the West they need the strategic assets for it. Never the less even these strategic assets are mostly Soviet era desgings.

Mr. T (MrT4) said:

To ilustrate how small development potential of certain industries is :

First of all you listing isn't correct. You are also mixing supply chain, subsystem contractor and R&D. Its much more complicated than you make it seem. Some things you say are simply false.

Mr. T (MrT4) said:

practicaly all the ships use cannon installations from one company

That for example is utter BS.
Most German Navy ships alone carry guns from three different manufacturers. In the German Navy as a whole guns from at least four manufacturers are used. From the top of my head without google.

You fail to understand how the interconected globalised industry works. For starters the main contractors, who usually get the credit and whos name is mentioned in wikipedia, is not necessarily the manufacturer. They are allmost certainly not the manufacturer of all subcomponents and parts. The country the main contractor is from is usually NOT identical to the country the corporation is from to which they belong. The manufacturers of subcomponents do not produce all parts themself. Usually nowadays the vertical integration of production is rather low. In defense its higher than usual but this is still bellow 50 %. The important question is where do all the subcomponents and parts come from. This is usually negotiated and most of the time it has a very high local percentage.

Its also important to note that certain parts can not be bought. All nations restrict export of security critical parts and know how. If a contract to get this is negotiated it usually comes with a lot of strings attached.

Mr. T (MrT4) said:

So when Koreans start a new tank they can buy 50% of the parts off the shelf abroad

No they can't. As mentioned above. They won't get the critical parts. It also doesn't make sense to design a build your own tank or weapon system in general if you can not produce it domestically.
The Koreans got some help and bought some common and easy to get licenses but the production of the K2 is allmost entirely domestic.

Mr. T (MrT4) said:

same goes for Israelis

Same as the Koreans. Plus there are several nations who will not trade weapons with Israel. Why do you think Israel has such a large defense industry. There used to be embargoes in place which forced them to produce semself. Same with South Africa.
 

Mr. T (MrT4) said:

Even US buys most of the stuff abroad and has production localized at home.

No they don't. They buy from a local part of an international cooperation. They go to great length to make sure all manufacturing is done locally. Who actually developed what is not really important.
Furthermore the question in the argument you are trying to make would be: WHY? Why do they buy x and not y. It has NOTHING to do with the capability to do R&D. The main driving force behind such decision is plain and simple: cost.

Mr. T (MrT4) said:

You know its much easier to develop around COTS parts sourced all over the world

No its not. It produces a lot of new challanges and problems. Which you would not have with a 100 % vertical integration of manufacturing.

Mr. T (MrT4) said:

Just look at the issues with making a domestic powertrain for many tank projects like Turk Altai tank or Korean Black Panther.

Nobody ever said it is easy as such or there won't be any problems. But this is irrelevant to the discussion. Both Korea and Turkey started from 0. Their first domestic MBT programms. They also tried to enter directly into the 3rd gen. In the case of Turkey they are still in the process to become a full industrialised country. Yet they managed to pull it off.
Russia on the other hand has the know how. They have been developing weapon systems for a very long time. They also managed to develope the T-14. As an all domestic program. But they can not manage to get it into production. They don't lack R&D they lack the manufacturing. Since the fall of the Iron Curtain they had allmost 40 years now to modernise. Which they did not. They wasted time and resources for god knows what. Whos fault is it that the Russian industry could not profit from the globalised economy like for example Korea and Turkey could? The Russians deliberatly chose to take the path they are on decades ago. This is now biting them in the ass. The equipment their troops actually use is not up to modern standards.
There is no sugarcoating they fucked up. Royally. Now they are isolated and will be left behind. If they are unluck they will end up like North Korea.
 

Murpat

From: Murpat

4-Jul

schnuersi said:

You also should keep in mind that with the latest gear in several cases Russia is not the main user.

And this would appear to be the issue with German procurement as well - tiny orders - needing extensive export orders to make things worthwhile for the manufacturers - even though Germany can afford them - unlike Russia.

For your delight and delectation (!):-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8jDUVtUA7rg

You may have difficulty with the dialect but perservere. 

TOP