₦airaland Forum

New 6x6 developed for the Serbian army by SA company ADG Mobility.
Shown with Denel's new remote turret.

Needs a modified charging handle. That rail is going to mess up your hand quick time!
Maybe use a torch to straighten it and cut the end off so it doesn't stick out as far and heat shrink some plastic over it.

saengine:
...

All valid points.
My argument is just that all their impressive equipment needs re-supply. If a airborne division goes in that heavy they need much more tonnage in supplies that need to be airdropped continuously. Its much easier to cut someones supply lines by air than a land force that's connected to their rear.
IMHO the VDV has too much heavy equipment for any reasonable conventional airborne operation.


A fully mechanised force isn't just the armour they can put in field. Its the sum of its parts. Logistics is the most important factor in this. Just don't see them last long against a conventional opponent that's close to their log. train.

They'll have no problem in dealing with rogue states or operations against non peer forces like Afghanistan in 1979 though. I see them more of a tool in Putin's asymmetrical tool box to be used in regime change operations in Russia's backyard.

Henry240:
Well, how many developed Nations have faced each other in combat since the end of the Korean war?

Primarily we have to look at doctrine and equipment tailored to fit that doctrine. The Russians are looking to maintain or project power far from their borders, unlike the Americans.

The VDV's conventional task isn't to overrun European defences. They are created to cover the enemy in the air and conduct combat operations in its rear.

With Regards to Antonovs, that's a Ukrainian aircraft, the Russian mainly use IL-76s for Airborne operations, and besides SEAD operations are a core mandate for most Airforces in the developed world.

the VDV are fully mechanized. So while they are ‘paratroopers’, these paratroopers are not just light infantry (like, say, the US 82nd AB), but a very mobile force, fully mechanized and with a lot of firepower. The artillery of the VDV which includes such systems as the 2S9 Nona, the D-30 howitzer or the 2S25 self-propelled tank destroyer, BMD4, BMD3 can all be air dropped.

Secondly, the VDV are a numerically huge force which currently totals 70,000 men and includes 5 Airborne Divisions and 6 Airborne Brigades (including the 45th Special Forces of the VDV Brigade). All of them air-deployable and on a top-level or readiness.


Infact, on this matter, let's agree to disagree. However before i go, please watch this analysis from Janes Defence Weekly.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VhtlrT5DqI

US SOCOM absolutely train for conventional warfare. SF has always been an integral part of conventional warfare regardless of their primary deployments over the last couple of decades. You're also not counting the massive US airborne divisions that are very well equipped for conventional airborne missions.

The VDV's conventional task of overrunning European defences depended on the Russian air force and nukes clearing the skies ahead of them. Against a peer nation with a reasonably modern airforce and air defence systems, that would be impossible for them to even contemplate today. The giant Antonoffs would be detected far from the border and have meteor missiles locked on them before they even crossed.
The impressive inventory of mechanised vehicles they have cant be deployed in the numbers they need to take on an conventional mech unit.
They wouldn't survive long against a force with heavy artillery that's close to their supply lines. Even in the cold war those VDV units were not expected to last for more than a week against NATO.
There's very good reasons other major militaries haven't invested in this type of "air-mech" force.

Henry240:
US SOCOM cannot be considered an Airborne force as they are trained to conduct unconventional operations.

The VDV are the highly mobile Arm of the Russian Armed Forces, designed to cover the enemy in the air and conduct combat operations in its rear.

They are the best equipped forces to conduct airborne operations. They are fully mechanized and have a lot of firepower compared to airborne forces around the world.

NATO countries have no equivalents of BMD-3/4. NATO cannot match the mobility of the Russians in the first instance, the gap is even wider with the VDV.

Russian and US doctrine are not the same. The Russians don't need to project force far from their borders. I can't remember if it was a RAND report, which stated the Russians can overrun all of NATO's eastern flank and be by the border of Poland in 48 hours.

Russia's SSO operates similarly to SOCOM not the VDV.

Actually a separate vehicle called the Bismarck. Was conceived as more of a wheeled tank concept to take on T-series tanks over long distances.
Got a vid of it somewhere i'll post.

Henry240:
South-African Rooikat with an Olifant Tank Turret.

Experiment

US SOCOM could be considered a airborne force by itself and that's not even counting US airborne divisions.
Much better trained and equipped than the VDV. Also has almost 2 decades of high intensity combat experience in multiple theaters.

VDV has very little force projection capabilities beyond the Russian border. Looks cool when they drop tanks from Antonovs in exercises, but the US airborne can deploy en masse anywhere on the planet and back up those operations with massive airpower.
VDV's main task was to project Soviet power onto its immediate neighbors aka the former Soviet satellite states. Ukraine is an perfect example of their purpose under the Putin years.
US SOCOM operate on a entirely different scale.

Henry240:
Off-Topic

Russian VDV, airborne troops

The VDV is considered to be the worlds best and equipped Airborne troops

You know you're fvcked when you see these guys rappelling down.

Just a upgraded missile for the ABM defence system surrounding Moscow called "Gazelle".
Its been around since the 80's
Not as accurate as the hit-to-kill systems the US uses. Instead it relies on a nuclear warhead to make up for the lack of accuracy.

dunsin125:
I just saw the video now, Russia is crazy o.... I think they are planning something and whatever it is, its not good and besides its like China is trying to be on their good side. About 20 times the speed of sound, that's super fast.

Almost definitely a RPG.
An HE 23mm would contact detonate its fuse on the cargo box lid blowing it off, but will not continue into the hull. A AP 23mm round would not leave burns that extensive on the surrounding area.

lionel4power:
Not really sure about the 14.5mm though.. during the battle that caused the damage, anti-tank munitions and other heavy weaponry was used by both sides.

Libyan sources are saying its either a 23mm or RPG.

Looks like a RPG hit.
14.5 won't leave a damage like that or a burn pattern. The hit on the left might be a 14.5 though.

Stopping a 14.5mm AP from the side is a bit too much to ask for a AFV. M1 Abrams have been done in by that round from the side and back. probably caused more M1 casualties than the T-72 in GW2.
It has about 2X the energy of a 50cal. Ad tungsten AP and you've got a problem. Only heavy IFV's in the 30+ton range can defeat 14.5mm from the side and that's just ball ammo. AP ammo for that round is quite ubiquitous. Mbombe weighs in at 16t.

Standoff and slat armor defeats RPG's 25-60% fo the time ,depending on who you ask. For the weight it adds, its worth putting on, but its not an insurance policy.
Some of the best measures against RPG damage is actually on the inside. Better ammo storage,spall liners and fire prevention systems helps a lot. There's been plenty of instances of whole crews walking away with fubar eardrums etc.

On a tactical level, when you get abused on a road like that, std. contact drill is turn into the ambush and fight your way through. Give them your front where you have the most armor, tell your driver to floor it and empty your ammo bin. If you're out of ammo, run them over where they stand.

Henry240:
We can clearly see from this photo the hull of the Mbombe 6x6 could not stop the round.

The 14.5mm round tore through the hull if the Mbombe.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pnsdPBWJbR0

They have sensitive elbows.

GreenandGold:
Can anyone tell me why the Parabats wear the "snake skin"

Quickest way is to look at the stock. SADF soldiers were bigger than the IDF boys ,so they changed the length of pull on the R4. That's why the divider in the stock looks different.
Other than that its a licenced Galil.

Gun Jesus will provide more details:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMkiTnNA1NI

kikuyu1:
Any list that puts the DRC ahead of anyone isn't worth reading! IDGAF about their methodology. Been meaning to ask was your original R4 a Galil licence or clone? Knowing your deep tech cooperation in other matters especially the nuke field and the fact that both are based on the AK rotating bolt what are the differences beyond the cosmetic?
First is Galil,for everyone else-spot the difference between the two.

In my old unit they were classified.
On second thought I might be remembering the nr's related to a specific location being kept secret for opsec reasons and not total inventories. For example, if you know the number of logistics vehicles like fuel trucks in a particular unit, you can deduct the time it would take to deploy over a certain distance.
Military field intelligence can use this info to work out how quickly a enemy formation in a known location could counter attack for example.
I was told they even take into consideration soil types and conditions to work out the max speed some vehicles can move.

SuperSixSeven:
Most European and even the US army are quite transparent about equipment numbers and serviceably because these numbers are reviewed by the MOD and several committees of the parliament. With exceptions for sensitive items like Nuclear weapons & Special Forces these numbers are usually disclosed to the public. In fact this helps the military to articulate their needs towards the government and is not seen as a threat to the defence strategy.

These sites often contain BS information on numbers.
No consideration for vehicle retirements, scrapping serviceability etc.
In most militaries actual equipment numbers are classified.

kikuyu1:
A word of advice-don't use GFP for anything. In fact if you see a printout maybe its good for toilet paper and that's about it!

You should talk to some older black Zimbabweans from that era about Ian Smith vs. ZANUPF rule.
I prefer to stay away from political discussions on this site. Never seems end up very productive for anyone. My point above was that the post colonial history of Southern Africa , like everywhere else, is much more complicated than the black and white narrative that's put out there. That's why you find these anomalies like black soldiers in the Rhodesian and south African armies.

Henry240:
The overriding factor for the conflicts at the time were in regard to majority rule. Ian Smith was just as horrible as Mugabe, the claim by a lot of people that the country is worse off now under then Mugabe holds no water. Rhodesia under "sanctions" still traded with governments in the west, compare that with Mugabe's sanctions.

I'm still looking up on the militaries of Southern Africa during the years of segregation. Like I said, these are new information to me.

Now, since you're from that era, I'll like to ask a quick question, why do most soldiers of the SADF from the era of Apartheid complain a lot about the current state of the SANDF?

Not genuine complaints though, but let's make-believe the complaints are genuine.

These conflicts were not just about black liberation. There was a lot of tribal factors at work below the surface as well. The cold war was also in play and dominated geopolitics at the time. The liberation movements in southern africa was dominated by Marxist ideology with all that implied. Not all Blacks were onboard with this. If you think this was just white propaganda, look at what Mugabe did in Matabeleland North to the Ndebele
people after the war.

The soldiers of 32Bn. which was arguably the finest infantry unit in African history were originally from Angolan tribes that the MPLA government tried to wipe out. Along with their families they found a home in the SADF. In Namibia SWAPO was commiting lots of atrocities against rival tribes while conducting their insurgency. South West African territorial forces were dominated by black soldiers from opposing tribes.
About 40% of SADF special forces who qualified as operators during the apartheid years where black as well. I ended my service before ANC rule and had lots of black and coloured NCO's around.

Its a oversimplification to say these soldiers were traitors to their race. An Ovambo is a Ovambo before hes a black man.If you have to choose between a group who wants to wipe out your tribe and a gov. who denies you the right to vote, its a easy choice.
In the same vane, you could argue that the white populations in SA,Rhodesia,Namibia were just another tribe rather than some colonial power. After all, the Boers fought one of the first anti colonial wars in Africa against the English.

Henry240:
I find the whole situation in Southern-Africa during white minority rule to be quite confusing.

I only just learnt that Black South-Africans served as volunteers, not conscripts in South-Africa during apartheid. In-fact only whites were conscripted. Looking at footage during 16 years of fighting in Angola, I see a lot of Black soldiers. Contrary to what was everyday Nigerian public knowledge.

My question is why?

Why did they put those "biscuit" wheels on the RECCE Hornets ?
It must have 10x the ground pressure that the Gecko has.

Henry240:
South African Special Forces

7.62 makes even less sense in short barrel. Your loosing all the range performance of the round and gaining what ?
I've shot short barrel 7.62's a lot. At night prepare to blind yourself completely and go deaf. There's no flash hider that can compensate for all the powder still left over after the bullet exits form the short barrel.
Impractical in military combat as your basically lighting a flare on yourself every time you pull the trigger after 6PM

Lots of fun though.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FylF6mbync

kikuyu1:
Actually,61Mech and Nemesis8u on 2nd thought I'll stick with my 7.62 mm! Yes,the FN and G3 may be unwieldy for rapid fire and/or FIBUA but there are reliable carbine versions by SIG with the 716 and Brazilian IMBEL both under 16 inches barrels and DSA SA 58 with a 14 inch barrel seen here in rapid fire.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQhjr8XAXSU

You also need to consider follow up shots when talking about 5.56vs7.62NATO.
If you take into account total amount of hits a trained rifleman can make in a set amount of time at distance, you might find that the sum of 5.56 hits could very well produce close to the total ft.lbs a 7.62 NATO can achieve in the same time.

The anecdotal evidence from the "war on terror" conflicts of the last 18 years are just that, anecdotal. There are plenty of WW2 stories of Japanese continuing to charge after being hit by 30-06 M1's. I suspect if you look at the bodies of dead insurgents that kept on fighting, you'd find that shot placement was more of a factor in them surviving hits. I've personally seen guys take 300lbs. deer with a 5.56mm, so I dont see why some call it a "wounding round" on people. Full disclosure, I myself don't use 5.56 for deer. For the last couple of seasons I've used a Howa MiniAction in 6.5 Grendel. Mostly, because I like the handling and the action.

If you look at the US army's RFP's for new rifle ammo, they seem to be more concerned by barrier penetration/deflection than energy. The 62-grain bullet for the new M855A1 ammo is a far cry from the old M855. It even outperformed 7.62 NATO on steel.

kikuyu1:
Thanks,Nemesis8u and 61mech! The takeaway is tactics and specific scenarios all have a place in the firefight not just calibre.

"scenario: 2 enemy platoons blunder into each other at 400m"
Problem with that is that combat is a fluid situation.
That distance will change depending on the situation and how you are going to maneuver on eachother. Besides, those platoons will have 7.62NATO/Russian available in their MG teams anyway. I'm not a fan of replacing 7.62mm LMG's with 5.56 btw. I'd even go as far as having it at the squad level. My point is that combat doesn't happen on a shooting range with angry guy poster targets.

For example, 5.56mm also doubles the distance your platoon can fire and maneuver. Lets say, 5to7 shots for every bound at 20 metres (10m bound-cover, fire 5/7 aimed shots + 10m bound).Count the distance for 200 rounds expended. 7.62NATO wouldn't even get you half that.
On top of that, I'm doing 30% less mag changes with my 30 or 50 rounder than the other guy with his 20. Mag changes are a bitch in maneuver combat, because you have to retain mags AND try to do your mag swaps on the run when your nr2. is on the ground covering your exposed ass. I gave up on putting empties back in my pouches and just dumped them straight into my shirt. Its not like movies or a IPSIC competition were you just drop mags on the ground.

What I can tell you for sure is that the Pl. armed with 7.62 will run out of ammo in 1/2 the time and distance covered if not sooner. Remember, you need to keep 1/3rd of your ammo in reserve after contact is broken with the enemy. That's the SOP in case of a counter attack. That leaves you with 100-120 rounds max for 7.62 in the fight. That goes pretty quickly.
On top of that, I dont think anyone disputes the fact that most infantry combat takes place at less than 300m with the vast majority happening at less than 100m historically. If your going to stand at 400m and shoot at each other I'd actually prefer to have my .300 WinMag with a scope rather than a 7.62 or a 556.

Also, the Indian Army (ignoring the fact that they've been pretty clue-less about selecting a rifle over the last 30years) is "standardizing" on intermediate cal. (5.56 Caracal's CAR 816 and 7.62x39 AK) for the bulk of their forces.

kikuyu1:
The bolded is smth everyone ignores! For now our the 5.56 mm is adequate-none of us at least on this continent have faced properly trained and kitted oppos. However in Syria,level 3 armour wearing ISIS have been confronted. What happens when one day the SADF encounters a true formation beyond the level of FAPLA and/or M 23,a properly enemy force armed with 7.62 mm and level 4 body armour? IIRC,even Nemesis8u,said the Indian brass was overjoyed by the induction of the 7.62 NATO Trichy to replace the smaller INSAS.
Anyway,give me your opinion in the following scenario: 2 enemy platoons blunder into each other at 400m. Both are units of proper national armies and thus equally trained though one has 5.56 mm and the other 7.62 NATO-who'll come out on top all things being equal?

Go to pace out 500m somewhere and actually look at what a human target looks like at that distance.
That's not a realistic range to be hitting anything with a standard open sight assault rifle. (BTW. flip sights will compensate for drop.)
Even with a combat optic you'd issue to a rifleman its very difficult. Additionally you're target is also not going to present you with a full torso range target and if he does, hell be moving making it practically impossible.

Your disqualifying the caliber based on what it would be asked to do in 2% (being generous) of combat situations while ignoring the massive weight penalty of 7.62 NATO. Carrying 200 rounds doesn't mean you're expecting to kill 200 enemy. 95% of your fire is speculative (people tend to go to cover when shot at) or covering fire to enable you to manoeuvre and close distance on the enemy. Thats were round count and volume of fire comes in to play)

All this stuff has been played out in combat since WW2. Army doctrine is not based in theory. There's a reason all major countries have dropped the 7.62mm as a assault rifle round.

kikuyu1:
Errrr,no...as you can see it drops twice the distance of a 7.62 NATO at 500 m and hits with less force than a .38 bullet while the former has 9x the force!!

Dailymail offices are chuck-full of morons.

5.56mm is probably the most battle tested round in history. Killing is 30% ammo and 70% shot placement. That big 7.62mm round does nothing if it flies by my head. I suspect most people in the "5.56 is too small" club had never ran a 2.4 with a loaded battle jacket.
Biggest problem is the stupid adherence to the Hague convention regarding ammo types. I can shoot you with a 20mm HE round, but God forbid I use a expanding .22 bullet !
Ammo has been improved so much over the years that its actually legal to hunt deer with 5.56 in some US states.

patches689:
7.62 was abandoned for a reason and 5.45 and 5.56 adopted for a reason.

"MUH STOPPING POWA" is a meme. 5.45 and 5.56 has a yawing effect, which results in bigger wound cavities than 7.62 it equally has a biger chance of fragmentation than 7.62. Equally is the "muh energy muh penetration" is a meme the US military has M995 AP rounds that shatter ceramic armor and pen steel/aluminum armor, a new tungsten variant of M995 has been issued a few years back as well. Range is irrelevant as both rounds have a simular trajectory over 700m, US SOCOM actually gave up 7.62 SCAR rifles almost as soon as they were adopted.

Anyway, the argument is semantic. 6.8 grendel has been selected for the US militarys future weapons as it has the benefits of 5.45/5.56 and the range of 7.62

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y7eHvjfkdH8

Problem is, every time there's a new problem like smoke in the cockpit the whole fleet gets grounded until its sorted. Very much like whats going on with the 737 Max at the moment.
The Rooivalk had to be over designed ,because they only had access to the big Turbomeca's and gearbox used in the Oryx. That's why it overperforms in hot and high conditions compared to the Tiger. In a way its the same philosophy Toyota uses to build the landcruiser.
It's not just the Aussies that had problems with them. There's a reason its not been a very good seller outside of the countries that bought into the development form the start.

Compare that to the Rooivalk which operates in austere environments in Africa without any issues by airforce with a fraction of the resources.

kikuyu1:
My goodness!
[url][https://warisboring.com/australia-to-ditch-its-tiger-gunships-which-have-never-seen-combat//url]

However a more recent article has a more nuanced view:
https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/follows-aussie-tiger-part-1/

Anyway they're retiring their 2 squadrons. Procurement decisions aren't as easy as fan girls would have us believe. I'd pay to read the entire process.

Hard to say. Might have been a battery firing a MRSI firemission or multiple batteries. You can't even count the hits.
Any unit under that would have no time to get into cover. Plus you'd have more fire for effect incoming for the next 10 mins.

kikuyu1:
How many guns were involved in that fire mission?

52Cal refers to the length of the barrel compared to the caliber of the ammo. A 155mm round can fit (sideways ,so 155x52=barrel length) 52 times in a 52cal barrel.
Nato MOU specs for 52cal has a 23 liter camber. That refers to the volume you can use for you charges. Denel developed the project Losfoor ammo and guns in the 90's. They were looking at higher chamber volume for even more range.
It's actually not all about range. A 52cal Asagai round has a much shorter flight time at lower elevation/range. This means less time for the environment/airpreasure changes etc. to have an effect on accuracy. It also allows for better multiple rounds simultaneous impact performance.

MRSI firemissions can resemble a B-52 strike.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A65S19yldP0

frumentius:
I know absolutely nothing about the intricacies of arty. More info, please?

They also should have gone for Rooivalk instead of Tiger. The Tiger has been an absolute disaster.
They had to rely on other countries for attack heli support in Afghanistan.
Rooivalk was built for hot-and high work from the get-go and its also much more FOB supportable. It's actually the Grippen of Attack helis, because you don't need a dedicated airbase to re-arm/refuel.

frumentius:
Australia screwed up their 155mm arty procurement, but they now buy ammo from us!

I suspect the SAAF is moving towards Hawks toss bombing with ground designation as their go-to PGM deployment. Hawks are also 2 seaters , so you could "window lase" like they did with the Cheetahs.

Not enough Gripens to do both CAP mission in contested airspace and do air to ground. We probably only have enough to keep 2x two ship sorties in the air for CAP with the numbers we have. Drop tanks and AA loadout only.

frumentius:
Integrated and fired from the Hawk at ACD2019. Interesting how many weapons systems have been integrated on the Hawk.
Validates the planning towards an operational Hawk squadron.

The 'shorty" Casspir can also carry 23/14.5mm guns and mortars/rockets the Recces seems to love so much.
Ignoring budget, i'd go for the RG-33 SOCOM variants and a log. support flatbed to each patrol. Should give them long range and lots of protection if they have to fight their way out of trouble.

frumentius:
I agree. In 2013 for the 1st FIB mission, they deployed with Hornets, which proved completely inadequate. Mambas and Casspirs were then used, which invalidates their light-footprint, covert role. At some point there was serious thought about Denel's RG-32, but personally I'd rather opt for the 4X4 Light Casspir the CSIR and Denel are working on. For 2 reasons: cheaper than RG32 and similar logs with the Mamba and Casspir family.

I'd keep the 120mm in Mech Bns. and use the 81mm truck mounted tubes in Mot. units.
Generally speaking, you can shoot 120mm mortars closer to advancing infantry, because of the higher trajectory and shorter range, so they are still very useful. Shooting 155mm "danger close" can get hairy.
RDM is no doubt developing 120mm PFF ammo that might even outperform 155mm HE.

Also use 81mm PFF for airborne/SF units.
Buying the ammo is a no brainer. Its ballistically matched, so they can train with the old stocks and deploy with the PFF ammo.
This ammo could have made the difference in Bangui as its particularly devastating against light infantry. Not so much against armoured formations, but even there , it'l do a lot of damage to equipment like optics/tyres etc.

Getting the 60mm is essential though as ammo needs to be manprotable, so double the effect on target means half the ammo.(in theory)

frumentius:
Some of us have been asking the question for some time now: what does this all mean for the 120mm and where they're located in the ORBAT?

interesting to note that the SANDF Arty guy there gave a speech explaining that the T-5 battery they acquired will be used for doctrine evaluation. but is fully supported by the SANDF, so they could deploy operationally.
They are also evaluating upgunning the old G-6's to 52cal.

We don't use NATO spec ammo, so theoretically the SANDF could opt for the full bore/high chamber volume "Losfoor" guns that they developed, but did not meet NATO spec because they were too much daka-daka.
That would give them the best 155mm SPA system on the planet, by a large margin!

Some info on Asagai family of 155mm ammo. Those little squares on the shrapnel kill zone pics are football fields btw! Dont f with 155mm.
Info here : https://www.edrmagazine.eu/modular-improvements-for-assegai-artillery-ammunition

Would NOT want to be close to that G-5 muzzle brake when it goes boom.
Blew my eardrum and got pretty bad concussion from being next to a Olifant when it fired.