Current Russian army anti tank methodology

[wittmanace]

Let me start by saying this is not a which tank is better thread, or a thread about platform vs platform. I am just keen to understand the current Russian army methodology in dealing with an opposing armoured force equipped along NATO lines. IE what is the Russian methodology for dealing with a NATO equipped force organised along the lines of NATO units, regarding armour?

I am familiar with the deep box methodology in general terms, with ATGM units throughout the box, various methods of attacking armour etc and so forth. I wondered this partly due to the new tank hunter purchases, as well as the speculation regarding the new Russian MBT. in short, are these signs of a new methodology in dealing with the aforementioned type unit? Or what is the current methodology? Whilst I do understand that this type of unit is just one of many potential threats (and not the most likely of course), I would find the answer very interesting. Any answers would be most useful and appreciated

 

[Feanor]

Russian military science and tactics are seriously lagging, even in terms of incorporating their recent military experience. Truth is that direct-fire anti-tank guns (namely the 100mm MT-12 Rapira) are still fairly common throughout the Russian military, and even recoil-less rifles are still in use.

There has also been a very very small, in quantity, procurement of newer anti-tank systems. Basically Russian anti-tank tactics will be highly situational, and generally have not significantly changed since the late 80s. The few encounters between Russian troops and Georgian MBTs in the recent war occured episodically, with few specific anti-tank tactics used. I know of 3 incidents in particular.

In one a Russian VDV unit set up in ambush had to let Georgian tanks pass by without engaging because the reliability of their ancient ATGMs was in question, and they decided not to risk it. In another Russian T-62Ms encountered Georgian T-72Bs, and defeated them in a head-on engagement. In a third, Russian iirc Su-25s destroyed a Georgian T-72B in downtown Tshival. I'm not sure what munitions were used.

One of the things I can tell you is that the VDV drew very direct conclusions from the above incident, and it's one of the reasons they're pushing so hard for induction of the BMD-4M, with it's barrel-launched ATGM capability and modern FCS.

 

[wittmanace]

Thanks for the interesting answer. What were the unreliable atgms in questions? I infer from your answer that the bmd-4m will be expected to attack armour directly as a primary function then? I have been baffled by the AT weapons purchases of the past decade or more...the small numbers of any one type etc. as well as the buying of different tank hunters from the 9p149 to the 9p157-2 to the 9p162, and then the recent kornet extended range in the concealed mount (fire and forget as they said it was). Is this because they are having a problem deciding on a solution or lack of funds or because they are struggling to find a cost effective solution to modern armour? Or is it because these are stop gaps until the new MBT without the apfsds penetrator length limitations is fielded? If it is the latter, I would have thought that that was a major doctrine shift, with mbts becoming the primary tank killers.

I was surprised you said that t-62ms took on t-72bs and came out on top. I would be grateful if you have my more info on that, or knew where I could read up on it? I assume you read the tanks of August by CAST? I dont recall seeing that in there so I would like to read up on that. Thanks again for your interesting answer.

 

[Feanor]

Thanks for the interesting answer. What were the unreliable atgms in questions? I infer from your answer that the bmd-4m will be expected to attack armour directly as a primary function then?

The primary function of the BMD-4M will be transport of troops, and direct-fire support of dismounted infantry. They, being much newer, will be much more capable of engaging armored targets.

There is also the question of the Sprut-SD which is title as an SP anti-tank gun, but is really a light tank, and is definitely a major capability boost for the VDV.

I have been baffled by the AT weapons purchases of the past decade or more...the small numbers of any one type etc. as well as the buying of different tank hunters from the 9p149 to the 9p157-2 to the 9p162, and then the recent kornet extended range in the concealed mount (fire and forget as they said it was).

Russian military purchased handfuls of Kornet ATGMs (for dismounted infantry and pintle-mounted heavy weapons), a few Ataka ATGMs (helo-mounted only so far), and Khrizantema ATGMs (on a BMP-3 chassis). It's a fairly logical distribution. Now one might argue it would be better to develop a unified ATGM for multi-platform use. But they went the specialization route. The new Kornet-M on the Tigr platform has not been purchased so far.

Is this because they are having a problem deciding on a solution or lack of funds or because they are struggling to find a cost effective solution to modern armour? Or is it because these are stop gaps until the new MBT without the apfsds penetrator length limitations is fielded? If it is the latter, I would have thought that that was a major doctrine shift, with mbts becoming the primary tank killers.

It's a problematic situation undoubtedly. I suspect that the next-gen medium tracked platform family will include an ATGM carrier similar to the Shturm-S and the Khrizantema, and the Kornet-M which you mentioned above will be the motorized ATGM for light brigades.

I was surprised you said that t-62ms took on t-72bs and came out on top. I would be grateful if you have my more info on that, or knew where I could read up on it? I assume you read the tanks of August by CAST? I dont recall seeing that in there so I would like to read up on that. Thanks again for your interesting answer.

The Tanks of August mention the incident on page 66, but they don't elaborate on it, instead citing the loss of one T-62M commanded by Lt Neff for unknown causes. I'll see if I can find the source. Iirc I encountered the details in Red Star. But if you google "second lieutenant Neff T-62" in Russian many results come up.

Details of the incident, in Russian, here: Ðîññèéñêèå "ìóçåéíûå" Ò-62 âîåâàëè ïðîòèâ ìîäåðíèçèðîâàííûõ ãðóçèíñêèõ Ò-72 » Ìîðäîâèÿ. Ñàðàíñê. Íîâîñòè. Ñàìûå îïåðàòèâíûå.

Basically a tank platoon under command by 2nd Lt. Neff, using T-62Ms, took up positions in support of an MRBtln. A Georgian T-72 rolled out into an intersection 100m away, with a platoon sized support element (~20 infantry with some RPGs). The Lts tank fired and destroyed the T-72 in one shot, in the side. Another of the tank platoons tanks fired on the infantry killing reportedly 10 of the Georgian soldiers with a frag round.

Lt Neffs tank was later lost to two RPG shots, once they advanced further into the city.

 

[My2Cents]

Basically a tank platoon under command by 2nd Lt. Neff, using T-62Ms, took up positions in support of an MRBtln. A Georgian T-72 rolled out into an intersection 100m away, with a platoon sized support element (~20 infantry with some RPGs). The Lts tank fired and destroyed the T-72 in one shot, in the side. Another of the tank platoons tanks fired on the infantry killing reportedly 10 of the Georgian soldiers with a frag round.

Sounds like they caught the T-72 by surprise at point blank range. At that range with a side shot (thinner armor) the 115mm could probably kill any tank with one hit.

 

[Feanor]

Sounds like they caught the T-72 by surprise at point blank range. At that range with a side shot (thinner armor) the 115mm could probably kill any tank with one hit.

I guess my wording was misleading. I was trying to translate the Russian term встречный бой and head on engagement is all I could come up with. My main point was that recent Russian experience in the area doesn't offer many clues as to changes or improvements in Russian anti-tank tactics. The vast majority of Georgian tanks lost in the war were abandoned. A few were destroyed by RPG fire, including at least one destroyed by the South Ossetians.

 

[wittmanace]

Thanks for the replies. I find it very surprising that a major military is going through extensive overhauls, restructuring and procurement but does not seem to have an identifiable anti tank methodology. I assume it is simply that I don't see it. My understanding of the Russian army changes is that it seems to emphasise defence against conventional threats as the priority (1 priority was given to nuclear deterrent, key changes are to brigades, major procurement is for new vdv vehicles, army new mbt, major change in miles equivelant training centres etc, etc) . Within this context I don't see how a clear anti tank/ anti armour methodology can be overlooked.

Re the new bmd-4 for the vdv point, I guess this indicates new anti armour rounds coming shortly too? The new mbt is going to be expected to fight tank vs tank engagements as a bigger role than before then?

Feanor, do you know which atgms the vdv had and doubted reliability? Does this suggest there will be new atgms coming too? Apart from the new kornet and tigr combo, the new tank hunter deliveries, I don't know of any new atgm or one that would be widely proliferated amongst the vdv for example, replacing the likes of the Metis-m etc.

 

[Feanor]

Thanks for the replies. I find it very surprising that a major military is going through extensive overhauls, restructuring and procurement but does not seem to have an identifiable anti tank methodology. I assume it is simply that I don't see it. My understanding of the Russian army changes is that it seems to emphasise defence against conventional threats as the priority (1 priority was given to nuclear deterrent, key changes are to brigades, major procurement is for new vdv vehicles, army new mbt, major change in miles equivelant training centres etc, etc) . Within this context I don't see how a clear anti tank/ anti armour methodology can be overlooked.

Again Russian military science is in shambles. This can be seen with what kinds of problems they're having standardizing the new brigades in terms of TO. It's even more obvious when you look at Artillery Bdes which have no standard TO at all. Some have 72 towed or SP guns, some have a mix of SP Artys, Uragan MLRS, and towed AT guns. Some have towed guns, Uragan MLRS, and ATGM carriers.

Re the new bmd-4 for the vdv point, I guess this indicates new anti armour rounds coming shortly too?

I don't know if the 100mm main gun for the Bakcha-U module (used on the BMP-3 and BMD-4) has AP rounds. I know it has barrel-launched ATGM capability, and my guess is those will be the main anti-armor weapon for them. Of course the infantry may carry Kornet-E, definitely will carry RPG-7 variants, and we may even see a dedicated ATGM carrier on the BMD-4M chassis.

The new mbt is going to be expected to fight tank vs tank engagements as a bigger role than before then?

Probably not a bigger role then before.

Feanor, do you know which atgms the vdv had and doubted reliability?

Probably the Konkurs, since that's what BMD-2s carry. The BMD-1 doesn't carry any ATGMs as far as I know, and I don't think the BMD-3 or 4 participated in the conflict.

Does this suggest there will be new atgms coming too?

Probably a Khrizantema on the new Kurganets and Bumerang chassis.

Apart from the new kornet and tigr combo, the new tank hunter deliveries, I don't know of any new atgm or one that would be widely proliferated amongst the vdv for example, replacing the likes of the Metis-m etc.

I'm not sure what the standard AT weapons for VDV ATGM teams are. I'm not sure the Metis-M would be the most common one, and given that it's fairly new (relatively speaking) I wouldn't be surprised if there are no current plans for it's particular replacement.

 

[PCShogun]

I would also wonder if the shift from a full on engagement scenario, to that of small urban engagements and brush fire combats also hasn't brought on a shift in anti armor thinking. Why develop a new ATGM when your potential foes only have light, or no armor? Most European armies are cutting back on the number of armored brigades, not expanding them. China, likely the most capable opponent to Russia, is still not capable of fielding an MBT that would resist most of the current missiles deployed, and while useful as a tank killer, ATGM's are poor in the anti-personnel role.

As seen in other conflicts, Soviet design ATGM's work very well when properly maintained and when engaging most armor on the battlefield.

 

[My2Cents]

I would also wonder if the shift from a full on engagement scenario, to that of small urban engagements and brush fire combats also hasn't brought on a shift in anti armor thinking. Why develop a new ATGM when your potential foes only have light, or no armor? Most European armies are cutting back on the number of armored brigades, not expanding them. China, likely the most capable opponent to Russia, is still not capable of fielding an MBT that would resist most of the current missiles deployed, and while useful as a tank killer, ATGM's are poor in the anti-personnel role.

As seen in other conflicts, Soviet design ATGM's work very well when properly maintained and when engaging most armor on the battlefield.

ATGM are just another form of direct fire weaponry, and are often used as such. Just look at the Javalin consumption in Iraq after OIF and Afghanistan. Recoilless rifles and rocket launchers are more cost effective within their limited range (<500m) for most roles, but the much longer effective range of ATGMs (2000m to 5000m) is appealing.

With the appropriate warheads they are even more useful for a variety of roles. Based on their experience in the Chechen wars, the Russians offer alternative HE/fragmentation and especially thermobaric warheads for most of their ATGMs.

 

[STURM]

China, likely the most capable opponent to Russia, is still not capable of fielding an MBT that would resist most of the current missiles deployed,

When it comes to top attack missiles, wouldn't the same also apply to all MBTs that are not fitted with an APS?

Based on their experience in the Chechen wars, the Russians offer alternative HE/fragmentation and especially thermobaric warheads for most of their ATGMs.

Which surprisingly hasn't really caught on with many armies despite the usefulness of thermobaric warheads in a FIBUA/MOUT enviroment. The Indians had planned a large order for thermobaric warheads to be used as bunker busters but found they didn't work to well at high altitudes.

 

[justacaat]

ATGM altitude issue

Which surprisingly hasn't really caught on with many armies despite the usefulness of thermobaric warheads in a FIBUA/MOUT enviroment. The Indians had planned a large order for thermobaric warheads to be used as bunker busters but found they didn't work to well at high altitudes.[/QUOTE]

Could you elaborate on the issues found at higher altitudes? 10,000+<sea level. Is it safe to assume the ATGMs used were wire-guided, not the newer RF?

 

[wittmanace]

Which surprisingly hasn't really caught on with many armies despite the usefulness of thermobaric warheads in a FIBUA/MOUT enviroment. The Indians had planned a large order for thermobaric warheads to be used as bunker busters but found they didn't work to well at high altitudes.

Could you elaborate on the issues found at higher altitudes? 10,000+<sea level. Is it safe to assume the ATGMs used were wire-guided, not the newer RF?[/QUOTE]

Guidance, control etc systems aren't the issue to worry about with thermobaric munitions at high altitude. Inherent to thermobaric munitions use is the pressure issue, and the "fuel-air" basis of their design. High altitude, much thinner air.

 

[Feanor]

Wittmanace, I'm not sure if you're still interested in this subject, but since this thread was created some things have come to light. In terms of VDV ATGMs, they're working on a self-propelled ATGM carrier with a Kornet-D type set up on a BMD-4M chassis. The Russian army is also buying the Kornet-D itself, which is two modules of 4 Kornet missiles with extended range (8 or 10 kms) per Tigr-M vehicle.

They've also upgraded some of the old Shturm-S ATGM carriers with the Ataka missile, under the name Shturm-SM. And finally they've purchased the Kornet-P which is a BMP-3 chassis with the Kornet ATGM installed, instead of the Khrizantema. Why, I'm not sure, but I don't think they're giving up on the Khrizantema entirely given that they've gone to the trouble to replace Ukrainian components in the design, to allow production to continue.

They've had some problems with producing the Vikhr-1 ATGM for the Ka-52, which is why currently the type only uses unguided munitions. It can also hypothetically carry the Igla MANPADS in the Strelets module, but I don't know of any actually being purchased.

Finally rumors continue to circulate about work on the Hermes, a new long range ATGM. There is some speculation that prototypes of it may have been used in Ukraine by the "rebels" but it's all rather murky. Meanwhile the rebels in Ukraine have been using Kornet ATGMs with some success, and even some Kornet thermobaric warhead types.

And of course the new standard module for next-gen light armor is the Bumerang-BM which carries 4 Kornet ATGMs in two modules of two missiles on each side of the turret. It's likely an evolution of the Kvartet module, and it effectively eliminates the need (in my opinion) for dedicated ATGM carriers. With this set up each mech platoon will have 12 ATGMs, and each company more like 120.

 

[wittmanace]

Wittmanace, I'm not sure if you're still interested in this subject, but since this thread was created some things have come to light. In terms of VDV ATGMs, they're working on a self-propelled ATGM carrier with a Kornet-D type set up on a BMD-4M chassis. The Russian army is also buying the Kornet-D itself, which is two modules of 4 Kornet missiles with extended range (8 or 10 kms) per Tigr-M vehicle.

They've also upgraded some of the old Shturm-S ATGM carriers with the Ataka missile, under the name Shturm-SM. And finally they've purchased the Kornet-P which is a BMP-3 chassis with the Kornet ATGM installed, instead of the Khrizantema. Why, I'm not sure, but I don't think they're giving up on the Khrizantema entirely given that they've gone to the trouble to replace Ukrainian components in the design, to allow production to continue.

They've had some problems with producing the Vikhr-1 ATGM for the Ka-52, which is why currently the type only uses unguided munitions. It can also hypothetically carry the Igla MANPADS in the Strelets module, but I don't know of any actually being purchased.

Finally rumors continue to circulate about work on the Hermes, a new long range ATGM. There is some speculation that prototypes of it may have been used in Ukraine by the "rebels" but it's all rather murky. Meanwhile the rebels in Ukraine have been using Kornet ATGMs with some success, and even some Kornet thermobaric warhead types.

And of course the new standard module for next-gen light armor is the Bumerang-BM which carries 4 Kornet ATGMs in two modules of two missiles on each side of the turret. It's likely an evolution of the Kvartet module, and it effectively eliminates the need (in my opinion) for dedicated ATGM carriers. With this set up each mech platoon will have 12 ATGMs, and each company more like 120.

Yeah, I'm always interested. Funnily, in the time since I began this thread my interest has gotten to the extent that I have changed work paths, and I'm currently writing my dissertation for my first graduate degree in war studies, before I go further into it.

I still find it staggering that the Russian army doesn't have a coherent anti tank strategy, or consistent TOE that facilitates and allows for the expectation of executing a coherent anti tank methodology.

Not in reference to the alternate warheads point, the number of ATGM types must be a pain and unnecessarily complex. Given the need to deal with armour encountered, I would have thought this to have been addressed rather urgently. The VDV example of troops allowing armour to pass should point to the need to address this, even in the smaller wars Russia has been facing and seems likely to face in future. Given the wars, Chechnya aside, Russia has had in recent history, one would have thought the need to effectively and rapidly deal with heavier forces using whatever forces are there or get there fast would be priority. Even the chechnyan examples seem to point to the necessity and value of capable and freely available anti tank ability amongst front line troops beyond traditional artillery, or tank hunters/purpose made ATGM carriers.

While I understand the VDV rearmament aims, and the BMD etc family concept and history, I would have thought the importance of the VdV and the nature of their role would have at least seen them have a large number of the latest ATGMs on hand in theatre at all times. Regular army units and the rate of rearmament I can be closer to understanding a lag.

The lack of coherent methodology and/or arms for the task at hand in terms of encountering heavier units seems to be something that Could really come back to haunt Russia, given the nature of the wars in the region in the relatively recent past.

 

[Monoxide]

what

Russia is on par with the EU. There working on new weapons that would destroy American guided bombs.

 

[Feanor]

The lack of coherent methodology and/or arms for the task at hand in terms of encountering heavier units seems to be something that Could really come back to haunt Russia, given the nature of the wars in the region in the relatively recent past.

Look, Russian manuals of arms, and field manuals, include plenty of information on anti-tank tactics. And the density of anti-armor assets in Russian motor-rifle units is extremely high. Consider this. A BMP based infantry btln has ATGM capabilities on every vehicle, and RPG-7s in every squad. They also have a btln-level ATGM section. At the brigade level they have MBT support (with barrel-launched ATGM capabilities), and a dedicated anti-tank artillery btln (realistically either 18 Rapira towed guns or more like 18 ATGM carriers). They have a hodge podge of assets because they're in the middle of trying to fix the situation, and have changed course in the process of "fixing" several times. It's likely that the Kornet upgrade with 8 or 10 km range will become the standard land forces ATGM. It can be dismounted, it is going on the Tigr-M carrier, the new BMP-3 based ATGM carrier, and (if they were really smart) could even come in a helo-mounted variant, opening up eventual UAV use.

 

[Feanor]

Russia is on par with the EU. There working on new weapons that would destroy American guided bombs.

I understand that this is your first post here, but please read the rules. We do not allow one liners, especially when they're border-line irrelevant to the subject of the thread. Please consider responding on topic, and with substance.

 

[Nick underscore]

The Tanks of August

Details of the incident, in Russian, here: Ðîññèéñêèå "ìóçåéíûå" Ò-62 âîåâàëè ïðîòèâ ìîäåðíèçèðîâàííûõ ãðóçèíñêèõ Ò-72 » Ìîðäîâèÿ. Ñàðàíñê. Íîâîñòè. Ñàìûå îïåðàòèâíûå.

Thank you to both Wittmanace and yourself Feanor for the reference source. Just found a pdf version of the 'The Tanks of August' - very interesting read so far.

 

[wittmanace]

Look, Russian manuals of arms, and field manuals, include plenty of information on anti-tank tactics. And the density of anti-armor assets in Russian motor-rifle units is extremely high. Consider this. A BMP based infantry btln has ATGM capabilities on every vehicle, and RPG-7s in every squad. They also have a btln-level ATGM section. At the brigade level they have MBT support (with barrel-launched ATGM capabilities), and a dedicated anti-tank artillery btln (realistically either 18 Rapira towed guns or more like 18 ATGM carriers). They have a hodge podge of assets because they're in the middle of trying to fix the situation, and have changed course in the process of "fixing" several times.

I appreciate what you are saying, but the above was true in 2008 also, wasn't it? Yet the 2008 war saw t-55s, t-62s in use and the VDV unit allowing a unit to pass as it couldn't rely on it's anti armour capabilities. I would also be weary of counting RPG-7s as anti armour components.

Are you of the view that it is an important area that is covered, albeit with less than ideal means, or what do you mean?