Re obat 70 Chechnya

[Spike11]

"Well, it is likely that those tanks did not serve in combat long enough for any ammo shortage issue to manifest itself. IIRC they were taken out relatively early during the fights. However barrel fired ATGMs were a limited issue and several models required advanced training to be used, so I think that removing them may make sense."

I think your comments make sense, particularly re T-80U and ATGMs. However - and this is more of a question - isn't it likely that the Russians used more CS style tanks themselves? Afterall, they weren't expecting to fight a highly mechanised force, thus more HE rounds would make sense for them too (although very little made sense for the Russian army during the 94-95 Chechen campaign, so I might be on thin ice here...).

[PlasmaKrab]

Makes sense that the Russian troops would use more HE rounds against a guerrilla-type opponent. Now as you said, Spike, the level of preparedness most Russian forces showed in the first Chechnya war makes it hard to rule out that armored troops would have been rushed into battle with "standard" loadout, whatever this is.
By the way, does anyone have any idea of the standard loadout of cat.B/C (do they still use this classification these days?) tanks stationed in central/eastern Russia these years?

On the matter of gun-launched missiles, bear in mind that they could be of some help for taking out point targets like snipers, hidden AT teams, AA guns, MG nests...
I don't know if Russian troops have integrated that in their doctrine, since the only mention of a possible anti-personnel use of these weapons is in the OPFOR's WEG...

[Marcello]

"the level of preparedness most Russian forces showed in the first Chechnya war makes it hard to rule out that armored troops would have been rushed into battle with "standard" loadout, whatever this is."

Some sources I read a few years ago implied that this was indeed the case. But as I said it was few years ago and I may not remember it correctly.

"n the matter of gun-launched missiles, bear in mind that they could be of some help for taking out point targets like snipers, hidden AT teams, AA guns, MG nests...
I don't know if Russian troops have integrated that in their doctrine, since the only mention of a possible anti-personnel use of these weapons is in the OPFOR's WEG..."

I suppose that in theory you might fire one of them at a sniper but why? First of all they are horribly expensive to be fired at such sort of targets. Then even if you had some of them available, let's say a batch of "Kobra" nearing the expire date, setting them up is such a pain in the *** that would be hard to undertake with early 90's russian crews. Not worth it.

[PlasmaKrab]

I suppose that in theory you might fire one of them at a sniper but why? First of all they are horribly expensive to be fired at such sort of targets. Then even if you had some of them available, let's say a batch of "Kobra" nearing the expire date, setting them up is such a pain in the *** that would be hard to undertake with early 90's russian crews. Not worth it.

Good point. I was more thinking about more recent weapon systems (even the early Svir-Refleks and Bastion were in limited service in the late 80s), and using them in coordinated support for forward troops a couple of kms in advance of said tanks. Other possibility is using missiles to plink long-range ATGM teams when in overwatch.
That's considering that these missiles are way more accurate than any HE(AT) tank round at ranges beyond 2km. And also that any guided missile round is way less expensive than a tnk and its crew.

I know the Russian way (particularly in the first Chechen war) would be more like "let's fall back and cover every square foot in a one-km radius from that damn sniper with one ton of arty shells", but hey.

[Marcello]

"That's considering that these missiles are way more accurate than any HE(AT) tank round at ranges beyond 2km. And also that any guided missile round is way less expensive than a tnk and its crew.

I know the Russian way (particularly in the first Chechen war) would be more like "let's fall back and cover every square foot in a one-km radius from that damn sniper with one ton of arty shells", but hey."

Blasting ATGM positions with indirect fire is actually a good idea. Short of that a few HE shells in direct fire should do the trick. If you really want to go high tech using the Ainet system to get some airbusts will work nicely.
When I said these things are expensive, they really are.
The guidance suite for the missile represented 20% of the cost of a T-64B for example. And for the missiles themselves a small number of them was worth the price of a new tank.
The whole scheme makes some sense only if you are very careful about what you are shooting them at. Only high value targets or specific dangerous threats that could not be dealt with otherwise are worth the expenditure of such missiles.

[Marek_Tucan]

Good point about the cost, however I'd guess that the laser guided missiles are (relatively) cheaperwhen compared to Kobra?
Anyway, I recall reading somewhere that one of LAHAT potential tactical uses is accurate direct fire on enemz positions in urban terrain, reducing collateral damage and danger space for own troops.

[Marcello]

The idea behind the russian barrel fired ATGMs was to provide a limited, accurate long range capability against high value targets. This was very expensive, as I noted, but as long as it is limited (only a fraction of the tanks fitted with it and a limited number of rounds) still easier and cheaper than developing and deploying on every tank all the technologies necessary to ensure comparable performances with conventional rounds (very sophisticated FCS, tighter tulerances in gun manufacturing and what not). I also suppose that especially early on it provided capabilities that it would have simply been impossible to match otherwise.
The scheme basically makes sense only as long as you use them sparingly. Otherwise it is more cost effective investing into high end FCS and such.