Russian Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

Gloire_bb

Gloire_bb

Captain
Registered Member
gelgoog said:
No. Msta-SM2 uses 2A79 gun with 60 cal.
Click to expand...
1, SM. There is no such thing as Msta-SM2.
2, 52 cal
3, 2s33 didn't exist beyond a single prototype(scrapped in favor of the much more ambitious 2s35).

Russian armed forces use a mix of old Soviet vanilla 2s19, as well as Russia-produced 2s19m1 and 2s19m2. All of them use 47 cal gun.
Moreover, i frankly doubt at the current stage Russian armed forces really need every brigade battery to shoot at 80 km.
Those who do - division- and army- level fires(given current order or battle, not much difference between those two) - now started to switch to the 2s35.
 
Gloire_bb

Gloire_bb

Captain
Registered Member
still 2s19m2 on a photo.
Gun tube is still 47 cal, too. It doesn't mean it isn't new - length isn't the only measure for a gun.

Basically - yes, there is this widely spread mistake, esp. because the WMD press office accidentally launched it back in 2017.(because no one spreading it bothers to compare gun tube lengths, which is an obvious giveaway)
 
Last edited:
S

sheogorath

Major
Registered Member
Gloire_bb said:
roblem is, no one really knows if the corresponding round (Krasnopol-D) is in combat, or, like with many things, Russian MOD simply didn't bother to purchase them until bitten in the soft place.
Click to expand...

Pretty sure there have been images of Krasnopol being used against targets in Ukraine. It has also seen a lot of use in Syria.
 
Gloire_bb

Gloire_bb

Captain
Registered Member
sheogorath said:
Pretty sure there have been images of Krasnopol being used against targets in Ukraine. It has also seen a lot of use in Syria.
Click to expand...
There are 3 generations of Krasnopols.
(1)Krasnopol
(2)Krasnopol-M
(3)Krasnopol-D

The latter is more or less analogous to the best Excaliburs (43km range from your average 6" gun, ability to dive under cloud cover, INS/GPS+laser). But no one actually saw them bein purchased and/or used in combat.
 
S

sheogorath

Major
Registered Member
That looks like some good old ground resonance. Surprised the pilot kept it under control.

The article makes a boat load of assumptions that require actual structural analysis of an helicopter that has seen intensive use since Syria, not something that can be gleaned by osint types from two pictures unless x-ray eyes is part of the job, or something
 
Confusionism

Confusionism

New Member
Registered Member
sheogorath said:
That looks like some good old ground resonance. Surprised the pilot kept it under control.

The article makes a boat load of assumptions that require actual structural analysis of an helicopter that has seen intensive use since Syria, not something that can be gleaned by osint types from two pictures unless x-ray eyes is part of the job, or something
Click to expand...
I don't understand what "good old ground resonance" is, do you see the Z on the tail? Did you see how much those anti-tank missiles were jiggling?
I don't believe the intensity of use in Syria compares to that of Ukraine, and we have much less reliable information on use in Syria than we do from the Ukrainian battlefield.
When we get new multi-perspective information that contradicts previous one-sided information, you should more than likely compare the two and question the veracity of the old information, not use the old information to dismiss the new.
 
S

sheogorath

Major
Registered Member
Confusionism said:
I don't understand what "good old ground resonance" is, do you see the Z on the tail? Did you see how much those anti-tank missiles were jiggling?
I don't believe the intensity of use in Syria compares to that of Ukraine, and we have much less reliable information on use in Syria than we do from the Ukrainian battlefield.
When we get new multi-perspective information that contradicts previous one-sided information, you should more than likely compare the two and question the veracity of the old information, not use the old information to dismiss the new.
Click to expand...

Ground resonance is excesive vibration caused by an out-of-balance rotor or helicopter, it happens near or on the ground and usually can cause the helicopter to self destruct.

And this new information can be dismissed until new, more consistent evidence shows up. Extrapolating and assuming a design-flaw or fleet-wide issue based on the picture of an helicopter missing one of its landing gear doors(planes and helicopters operating without non-essential hatches doors/plates are not uncommon, case in point the USAF F-15's and their lack of petals on the nozzles) and a video of a single helicopter entering what seems to be a ground resonance state is bad reporting, to say the least.

The claim of cracks in the structure requires a more detailed analysis of the entire frame, most likely back in Russia, and I seriously doubt he as access to that information. And if the crack is actually visible to the naked eye by field techs(or pictures), then it is unlikely that helicopter could even take off again without falling appart.
 
Confusionism

Confusionism

New Member
Registered Member
sheogorath said:
Ground resonance is excesive vibration caused by an out-of-balance rotor or helicopter, it happens near or on the ground and usually can cause the helicopter to self destruct.

And this new information can be dismissed until new, more consistent evidence shows up. Extrapolating and assuming a design-flaw or fleet-wide issue based on the picture of an helicopter missing one of its landing gear doors(planes and helicopters operating without non-essential hatches doors/plates are not uncommon, case in point the USAF F-15's and their lack of petals on the nozzles) and a video of a single helicopter entering what seems to be a ground resonance state is bad reporting, to say the least.

The claim of cracks in the structure requires a more detailed analysis of the entire frame, most likely back in Russia, and I seriously doubt he as access to that information. And if the crack is actually visible to the naked eye by field techs(or pictures), then it is unlikely that helicopter could even take off again without falling appart.
Click to expand...
This is not a report from the Russian Federal Agency for Air Transport on the "Structural Issues of the Ka52 Helicopter", and you can't expect it to contain photos of an X-ray detector. In fact most of the information on this forum comes from sources of equal quality, and if such a piece of information should be simply dismissed, then I don't see the point of having any discussion here.

The fact is that OSINT itself is based on a lot of information that does not come from reliable sources, and although this independent source itself does not directly prove the structural problem of Ka52, it can give us a possible direction of the problem.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top