[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/k/ - Weapons

[Advertise on 4chan]


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.


[Advertise on 4chan]


File: russia_17.jpg (252 KB, 1222x813)
252 KB
252 KB JPG
I keep hear people comparing Russian Airborne Troops (VDV?) To MARSOC or UK PARA in terms of effectiveness and tasks. What do you think? Post Vanguard troops of other countries if you will.
>>
>>50815261
I love these threads, it's like /g/ trying to argue which programming language is better except this time it's just tards shit talking each other because no one can bring up any reliable info
>>
>>50815261
VDV is Russian equivalent of USMC. Glorified retards who's job is to get shit done until the Army pulls its shit together.
>>
>>50815310
VDV is much more elite than usmc
>>
>>50815261
Well they're paratroopers, work about as well as you can imagine. Weak ass gigantic vulnerable airtruck has to ferry them behind frontlines and they will have no resupply nor reinforcements. Shooting them down while parachuting of course is easier said than done, you won't hit anyone at that range and speed unless by a fluke and the parachutes themselves can take nearly infinite amount of abuse from small arms and sustain no meaningful damage. But they won't be dropping directly on top of anyone's forces for you to shoot at them, they're there for sabotage.

So it really depends on where you try to deploy them and for what purpose. Could be a tideturner, could be a disaster.
>>
B Д B - c нeбa пpивeт!
Ультpaмapинoвый нaбoк бepeт,
Teльник c вoлнoй и мope-пoгoн c нeбoм нaвeки дecaнт oбpyчён!
B Д B – cкoлькo пoбeд!
Из пapaшютoв бeлый бyкeт,
Paдyгoй миpнoй пapят кyпoлa
CЛABA ДECAHTУ ЧECTЬ И ХBAЛA!!!
>>
>>50815261
>any given military unit is a 100% homogeneous group with easily quantifiable abilities and training
yeah
>>
>>50815261
The VDV is leagues above MARSOC or Paras. No one rapes recruits like the VDV, although the marines try their hardest in Okinawa.
>>
>>50815261
they're doing the only thing they're good at.
waiting in line.

or are they trying to push start that Il-76?
>>
You can say whatever about VDV but they have the coolest songs.
>>
>>50815337
https://youtu.be/0rAHrHd2lcw
Prob the most unbiased Military add.
>>
File: cz7v9t8svc731.jpg (259 KB, 1524x858)
259 KB
259 KB JPG
>>50815322
Don't know about Professionalism aspect for each soldier but I heard VDV can air drop heavy IFV with them. That's quite good I should say. After all, whoever possess bigger firepower wins.
>>
Yeah like you can compare a cookie to a wedding cake maybe.
Russians are nothing but bluff, incompetence and dead civilians (usually their own) no matter which unit
>>
>>50815385
>heavy IFV
Nah. They can drop functional IFV but they are still functionally lighter than any other IFV. It's just a good idea that your paratroopers have a big gun behind them. They are aiming for a 125mm BMD-4 atm so they have an actual tank gun when they deploy but I don't know if they bothered.
>>
>>50815415
t. armatard victim
>>
>>50815261
>inb4 someone posts about armatard
>>
File: ExRf96QXAAI4u_w.jpg (47 KB, 1080x1080)
47 KB
47 KB JPG
>>50815415
I sense /pol/ in you.
>>
I have to question effectiveness of paratroopers in general. What's even their use case? For when you deleted all enemy anti air in the region but not the non-AA ground forces specifically, but you couldn't take advantage of your uncontested air superiority by using bomber and attack aircraft, yet you can field a dropship which is basically a bigger bomber less weapon refit? Just the whole premise sounds absurd.
>>
>>50815440
Sprut-SD cannon looks like it can punch even MBT quite badly.
>>
>>50815465
It has a T-72 gun. It can likely kill anything a T-72 can but it's also 18 tonnes and probably shits itself at anything larger than 20mm, like most Russian gear.
I mean it's a light tank but it's not airdroppable. That's why the VDV wants BMD-4/125mms.
>>
>>50815261
>I keep hear people comparing Russian Airborne Troops (VDV?) To MARSOC or UK PARA in terms of effectiveness and tasks.
LOL NO

1. They are not elite infantry
2. there are 70 000 of them.

Their direct comparison is the US Airborne divisions. Para's and Marsoc are chosen men; Marsoc are operators, Para's exist in the grey area between line infantry and operators both of which are applied tactically. VDV are just regular boots who operate like any other line formation and their employment is strategic- the only exception being that they come from the sky.
>>
>>50815528
>they come from the sky.
provided the factory packed their chutes. otherwise they just cover the ground
>>
>>50815461
I've watched recent Russian drill in Belarus (ZAPAD-2021) and judging by that I could conclude their VDV tactics. They used them mostly for reinforcing their crippled positions on the front, Halo jumping into enemy's rear in order to capture key structures such as airports, Railway stations, etc. And sometimes to make daring offensive action during sunlight. In all those cases they used their drop IFV and trucks. I also heard that Russian MoD is requesting for large fleet of mi-series helicopter to integrate them more heavily into VDV ranks.
>>
>>50815461
They could be deployed in secondary regions not properly covered by AA.

Honestly thought the idea of using paratroopers in their intended role is probably a thing of history now.

However training for such missions develops high end infantry skills, and the type of guy who is willing to jump out of a plane is generally well suited for combat. Paras exist to create decent troops who can be deployed quickly. Its also relatively cheap.

We won't be seeing ww2 style para missions any time soon
>>
>>50815528
Incorrect. According to the talking sock puppet they're not even included in the militarys COC and answer directly to the Kremlin. Basically serving as Putin's muscle in the armed forces. It makes perfect sense given doctorial paranoia. It also explains why they get the best equipment.

They also have way more in the way of deployable armor than the USMC or any US military unit so from that aspect alone they are a unique asset to Putin.
>>
>>50815569
Super cool story, however, the question was are they comparable to MARSOC or the Para's and the answer is no.
>>
File: VDV-550_4.jpg (233 KB, 550x390)
233 KB
233 KB JPG
>>50815528
>VDV are just regular boots
If so, why they get all sweet equipment from arsenals? They definitely comparable to PARAs in that regard.
>>
>>50815587
>they get the same standard as equipment as regulars in the west
>so they are comparable to the Para's
Yeah, okay.
>>
>>50815569
>>50815610
Is everything ok?
>>
>>50815583
You're butthurt you're wrong. It's ok kek. Aechanized airborne infantry unit like the VDV would absolutely demolish any special forces unit the US could field. SF isn't magic.

"The airborne core isn't part of the ground army...it's and independent force reporting directly to the commander in chief or his delegates..."

Puting also has 300K soldiers in the national guard that are a light infantry component not actually part of their army and instead operate as a separate force.
>>
>>50815617
>>50815614
I suppose the answer to that is "no"
>>
>>50815617
>You're butthurt you're wrong
I am pointing out that you are trying to counter an argument I didnt make. Something you are continuing to do now in a strange ramble.

>VDV would absolutely demolish any special forces unit the US could field. SF isn't magic.
Yes. Line infantry would demolish SF in a stand-up fight. Thats why SF arent used as line infantry.
>>
>>50815614
That's not me sperglord. Bottom line is the VDV can deploy with more assets than any special forces unit currently in US or UK units.

Now if you move to say, a USMC MEU, the story is completely different.

Special forces isnt made to combat mechanized infantry or an airborne unit. Not my fault you're ignorant.
>>
>>50815617
I also thought about this matchup between Mechanized troops and SF teams. Who would survive firefight and become victorious? I bet my money on less trained but more heavy packed group. >>50815617
>>
>spergs out
>calls someone a sperglord
What did she mean by this?
>>
>>50815632
>Bottom line is the VDV can deploy with more assets than any special forces unit currently in US or UK units.
An argument that no one made hence the general confusion as to why you are responding to it.
>>
>>50815631
>I am pointing out that you are trying to counter an argument I didnt make. Something you are continuing to do now in a strange ramble.

Are you illiterate? OP asked a question of efficacy, not training. Yes the VDV is more effective and capable at Fielding a highly mechanized force anywhere on the globe. Something MARSOC isn't equipt to do.

He didn't ask which one had the biggest dick or more training. You just got asshurt about your fanboy SF shit.
>>
>>50815550
The issue is that the transport is a huge, low flying, slow and extremely vulnerable target. If it flew over a battalion of riflemen, you could just tell them to shoot their rifles at it leading the target by half a body length and it would go down in flames. Nevermind that it would die to any rocket. And what it does is puts your own troops into a pre-compromised position which logic tells you just makes their job harder. Maybe back in WW2 before even shilkas existed and your AAA couldn't hit donkey dick if their life depended on it, it would make sense. But nowadays a 50 year old manpad would put any of those planes out of commission before they could get anywhere close to the drop zone.
>>
>>50815640
Who would win in a fight between ~4000 guys and ~70 000 guys?

Really?
>>
>>50815640
Mech, obviously. SF isn't magic. It's a small group of light infantry with some cherry-picked higher quality guys and side skills.
>>
>>50815652
I'mma eurofag so my knowledge is limited but isn't MARSOC used in every major conflict? So I guess they are more than capable to deploy wherever they please.
>>
>>50815652
>I keep hear people comparing Russian Airborne Troops (VDV?) To MARSOC or UK PARA in terms of effectiveness and tasks
That was the question which was answered. Your response has nothing to do with my post or the op post.

> anywhere on the globe
VDV do not have a global reach. The Il-76 has a combat radius of 2000km.
>>
>>50815658
That's what OP asks. Cry more. If you want to argue who's been to more seminars on combating racism and extremism such as believing your culture is superior to your sworn enemies then we'd have a different answer.

>>50815676
And you'd be wrong. They're light infantry. They literally don't have the assets of a mehanized infantry unit. The seething your feeling right now is mythos facing reality. Yes, a bunch of grunts in a couple IFVs can murder a platoon of highly trained light infantry. That's literally their job.
>>
>>50815655
That's why Night time comes in. They didn't drop anyone during the day cause it would be too risky, duh.
>>
>>50815681
The smallest full load range of any variant is 4000 km.
>>
>>50815688
>That's what OP asks
>I keep hear people comparing Russian Airborne Troops (VDV?) To MARSOC or UK PARA in terms of effectiveness and tasks. What do you think? Post Vanguard troops of other countries if you will.
>>
>>50815696
>combat radius
Read things before you respond to them.
>>
>>50815697
Portugal also uses Airborne troops as Vanguard force.
>>
File: pb180013.jpg (121 KB, 1000x750)
121 KB
121 KB JPG
>>50815707
Oops, forgot the damn pic.
>>
>>50815587
All paras rotate in and out of the SFSG, which is a tier 2 special forces unit. You really can't compare them to regular soldiers.
>>
>>50815697
One is an air drop capable mechanized force more than 10 times the size of the other. One is a lightly armored glorified SWAT unit that hasn't trained combined arms operations in over a decade.

>Which one is more effective guise?
I wonder.
>>
>>50815732
One is a strategic line formation comprised of conscripts
The other two are tactical units comprised of chosen men, one of which isnt even airborne.

>Which one is more effective guise?
Depends on the job as they all have completely different jobs.
>>
>>50815699
Combat radius isn't just range/2, ya mong. It's empty range is over twice that of full, you need to burn much less fuel on return trip then on your way there. Here's a simple math exercise: x + 0.4x = 4000. The answer is a bit shy of 3000. It's a respectable range considering its payload capacity and being old as shit low bypass turbofan.
>>
File: chosen LARPers.jpg (63 KB, 576x1024)
63 KB
63 KB JPG
>>50815750
>Chosen men
Oh boy, so you're one of them, who use this terminology?
>>
>>50815760
The point is moot. 2000km or 3000km is not "global" (its about London to Moscow).
>>
>>50815792
>who use this terminology?
People who speak English. It comes from the Napoleonic Wars, stemming from Corporals who were men hand-picked to perform a role. In modern militaries it's used to describe people from units which have selection requirements.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eY52Zsg-KVI&ab_channel=JulianJapenga
>>
File: sharpe.jpg (16 KB, 240x340)
16 KB
16 KB JPG
>>50815792
>>
>>50815821
Why no one still use "old Guard" As well?
>>
>>50815795
Well no but what is? A 747 not carrying anything can't even manage to go halfway across the globe.
>>
File: SLURP ROD.jpg (127 KB, 1022x684)
127 KB
127 KB JPG
>>50815830
Because it has no meaning.

>>50815834
>Well no but what is?
Pic related
>>
>>50815850
Aerial refuelling doesn't count as "infinite range lol" because you need an airfield close to refuelling point, strategically it's not different from just landing there to refuel.
>>
>>50815451
/pol/ is a CCP board now
>>
>>50815834
>>50815850
>>50815933
Why you guys argue about max distance these thing can fly and drop airborne assets? No general would ever commit air assault so far away from his operational HQ and other Ground hardware, it would be suicidal to say the least.
>>
>>50815933
>Aerial refuelling doesn't count as "infinite range lol" because you need an airfield close to refueling point
No, you do not. You just shuffle your tankers.

>>50816009
Because the angry cossack is pretending they have a global footprint when they in fact do not.

>No general would ever commit air assault
You dont need to say anymore than that. Air Assault is a thing of the past, the role of airborne in the modern era is to have a regional or global QRF - units designed around being able to fit all their shit in a plane, deploy quickly on the other side and operate for a time on a limited logistical footprint.

The only time you will see combat jumps will be niche tactical shit like when the Rangers take airfeilds.
>>
>>50815528
>2. there are 70 000 of them.
LOL not even the US could field 70k combat paratroops. even if we're being generous and assume 2/3rd are supply and support, that's 10K jump troops plus the entire rest of the Russian Army.
The US has barely 20,000 11Bs and our military is 3 times the size of Russias.
That's some gold-plated old school Kremlin aгитaция lololo
>>
>>50816081
The only time you will see combat jumps will be niche tactical shit like when the Rangers take airfeilds.
Not necessarily. I'm sure Russian VDV could drop themselves unto heads of poorly trained and motivated Baltic armies without huge losses from both sides. Baltic pussies would definitely ry to hide or surrender after witnessing just one plane dropping armed men right at them.
>>
>>50816199
cool fanfic bro
>>
>>50816199
If I'm not mistaken there was a case in the Baltics where TV started airing a mocumentary about the Russians invading and people believed it was real news and started panicking.
>>
>>50816238
Not far from the reality.
Estonian Armed Forces are 85% LARP conscripts while the rest 25% is comprised with everything possible. I feel like Estonian police armed units have more experience than the actual army itself. This is even more horrible for Latvia.
>>
>>50816270
I would like to check it. Do you have any links?
>>
>>50816272
>Source: Dude, trust me
>>
>>50815261
russian airpower wouldn't get far enough against NATO to use them so they're effectively a useless unit that only works on third world shitholes that lack airpower and AA
>>
File: Sprut-SD_airdrop_2.jpg (32 KB, 533x800)
32 KB
32 KB JPG
>>50815504
>it's not airdroppable
U mad? U mad.
>>
>>50815461
>What's even their use case?
Strategic insertions.
>>
>>50819070
Could a Javelin or similar guided anti-tank missile engage it while it is descending to the ground?
>>
>>50815933
This is a retards take. To get one bomber 4 times it’s range you send out one bomber, 12 tankers. Each 9 outbound tanker fills the next and returns to base while 3 more tankers leave the base to refuel the tanks coming home
>>
>>50815344
>No one rapes recruits like the VDV
huh? why does the russian military like raping their recruits so much? don't they have a aids epidemic going on?
>>
>>50815550
>They used them mostly for reinforcing their crippled positions on the front, Halo jumping into enemy's rear in order to capture key structures such as airports, Railway stations, etc. And sometimes to make daring offensive action during sunlight.
so your daring conclusion is that they use them for everything that airborne troops can possibly be used for
stunning observation, thanks for the analysis
>>
>>50816199
>poorly trained and motivated Baltic armies
This is literally a cope. Obviously the batlic armies are tiny and underfunded, and in the hypothetical case of 1v1 war with Russia they would get steamrolled. But they are all highly motivated because they know what living under Russian rule means. They are also all modernized NATO armies, meaning their training certainly beats the training that your average Russian conscript gets (provided he stops getting raped for long enough to actually get some training in the first place).
>>
>>50816199
Except Russia is too chickenshit to attack any NATO country in the first place. Welcome to realpolitik. This is fanfic tier as another anon mentioned anyway, do you think none of NATO would have any intelligence at all that Russia would be sending multiple Il-76 airlifters and a bunch of Sukhois as escort straight at the Baltic border? Military invasions involve buildup.
>>
>>50815641

'she'
pls dont validate the tranny delusion
>>
>>50819228
>IR seekers
No, a cold vehicle will only have an ambient heat signature. The operator could optically track it easy but the guidance package wouldn't register a heat sig and you'd have no lock.

Radar and laser guidance would probably work fine but I'm pretty sure most of those systems are mounted or at least crew served, which makes them a different class of weapon than something like Jav, which is man-portable. Optical guidance would work fine too.
>>
>>50822032
Bongs I have spoken to rate the Estonians and Latvians as doing pretty well in Afghanistan. Furthermore each of the Baltic countries has a pre deployed battlegroup built around US, UK & Can units. As well as acting as a trip wire force they are there to act as opfor in excercises. Baltic countries have been practicing against high quality NATO countries for years, particularly improving at their anti armour game.

Add in the deeply ingrained animosity to the idea of Russian rule and I see the Baltic nations as putting up a hard fight.
>>
>>50822032
>in the hypothetical case of 1v1 war with Russia
But which country would win in an improv dance-off? That's about as relevant to anything as the nonsensical ego boost of a scenario you're posing there Ivan.
>>
>>50819070

>YOU SEE IVAN
>WHEN PARADROP TANK
>ENEMY NOT KNOW WHETHER TO USE ANTI AIRCRAFT OR ANTI TANK AGAINST YOU
>IS FOOL PROVE PLANE IVAN
>>
>>50822389
Maybe you should re-read his post anon.
>>
>>50815322
VDV does cartwheels to faggy music and loses wars. Afghanistan collapsed after the USA left. The Mujahedeen were doing just fine while Russia was still balls deep in it trying to make Islamic Communism happen. Cute pirate shirts though; you'll look super hardcore humping your 60 year old squad LMG in airsoft plastic furniture
>>
>>50815569
>According to the talking sock puppet

lol this is the same puppet that thought the Soviets could not invade though Turkey and the Black Sea in the Cold War
My advice is don't listen.
>>
>>50815261
Can someone explain why do USMC/VDV exist?
There will never be a major airborne/shoreline landing operation like the ones from ww2, even most basic third world military can shred air/sea invasions with ease.
>>
>>50822842
The majority of nations have some form of para and marine troops. VDV & USMC are exceptional only in their size and in being separate services.
>>
vbump
>>
File: 1357687475579.jpg (9 KB, 100x97)
9 KB
9 KB JPG
>thread full of people comparing the VDV to the marines, and not to the Rangers, who are literally the exact same unit but American



Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.