26 Landing Exercise In Kamchatka

Landing Exercise In Kamchatka

Posted on December 12, 2011 by

While the attack team diverts the attention of the defenders away, a field engineer company is disembarking off motor boats to clear mines to make way for military hardware.

The forward echelon, a naval infantry company, is landing on their armored troop carrier to capture the debarkation point.

In the background, there is a Yevgeniya class minesweeper.

To disguise the landing, sappers puff smoke.

The PTS-2 is coming up to the shore.

The second echelon begins to land.


More stories:

Click here to read next random post from English Russia

26 Responses to “Landing Exercise In Kamchatka”

  1. Addy says:

    “By the way, possible losses in advancing troops by such landing reaches 40% and it’s 60% among the defenders.” Is those numbers from 100% or 140%?

  2. Mike Lee says:

    Excellent photography…beautiful location

  3. ayaa says:

    Nice pictures.

    Great exercises.

  4. Matlok says:

    I would like to see more post of this exercise

  5. Testicules says:

    With the increased range and lethality of small guided missiles, slow moving APCs are floating coffins. That is why the US is developing a high speed amphibious APC. The more time you spend in the water, the more likely you are to die. 10 Toyota pick up trucks with mounted TOW style missiles could wipe out a battalion.

    • jeffrey pigden says:

      The high speed AMTRAK is to decrease the time an an enemy has to prepare defensive positions. The mother ship stays further offshore for safety and security. The high speed carrier means the attack force gets to shore from this greater distance in the same time as a slow speed carrier from close to shore. The danger is to the MOTHER SHIP! The carriers are almost invisible to radars; they ride too close to the waves & get lost in the surface clutter. They are more vulnerable to mortars & machine guns than to missles.

    • ayaa says:

      No matter how fast an amphibious vehicle is, missiles are faster. That means you focus on trying to survive the missile hit, than to try to outrun it.

      • jeffrey pigden says:

        But if you can’t hold a target lock, you can’t hit it! We were taught that hitting a moving target is nearly impossible. A moving target obscured by surface clutter is invisible to targeting systems, even the Mark 1 eyeball!

        • ayaa says:

          I was a tank man, I usually trained for T-80’s. There are several “rules” to tank warfare involving tank rounds. It’s easiest to hit a static tank from a static tank. Its harder to hit a static tank from a moving tank. Its even harder to hit a moving tank from a static tank. But it’s hardest to hit a moving tank while you are also moving.

          That was with a tank round, with a missile the rules are different. The Svir and Reflex missiles are capable of locking onto a MBT moving at over 30kmph. So why can’t they lock on to a an AAPC which can’t go over 15kmph in water.

  6. yojimbo says:

    “Vertical artillerymen” they look more like like RPG-29s to me(hard to tell much is hidden behind the back)so they are anti-tank men.

    The tubes appear a bit too long to be part of a mortar.

  7. guest says:

    “Vertical artillerymen.”

    All such landing operations will be a) in a location that is least likely to be defended and b) will be shelled to kindom come before any landing. You`s need more than a toyota in that case to survive it.
    Also, in case you don’t know, landing ships come up close to the shore and the APCs travel just a short distance trough water.

    Go read a bit before you say anything.
    The american APC hardly has any space for people in it, and is just as easy target for ATGMs as any other vehicle. The rockets fly just below the speed of sound, in case you don’t know.

    • yojimbo says:

      True I know a former Marine that was an AMTRAK commander the hull is mainly made from aluminum so it will only defeat rounds in .50 caliber range for sure anything larger can penetrate a BTR-80 would have similar armor an APC only needs to protect troops from small arms not antitank weapons.

      “Vertical artillerymen.” is an error by who ever posted this they mistook the men for Mortarmen but those are not mortar tubes because they have an opening at each end of the tube making it a rocket launcher not a mortar.So mortars are out of the question.Next they are clearly not Sa-7,Sa-14,or Sa-18s so they are not MANPADS either they are RPG-29s that is the only Russian weapon that is the size and general shape of what they have on their backs.

      • guest says:

        Those are Igla (maybe Igla-S) MANPADS and it does not take a military genious to see that they are that, and nothing else. They are long, relatively thin, and notice the slight broadening on one end – the one pointing to the ground.

        @ jeffrey pigden
        The high speed AMTRAK is to decrease the time an an enemy has to prepare defensive positions. The mother ship stays further offshore for safety and security. The high speed carrier means the attack force gets to shore from this greater distance in the same time as a slow speed carrier from close to shore. The danger is to the MOTHER SHIP! The carriers are almost invisible to radars; they ride too close to the waves & get lost in the surface clutter. They are more vulnerable to mortars & machine guns than to missles.

        They are vulnerable to ANYTHING both in or out of water. Also, if the landing ship is far away and hiding, instead of doing its job – which is to open fire from all weapons available and thus prepare the beach for landing – then no matter how fast the APC they will suffer too much casualties doing a landing all by themselves.

        Russian APCs, IFVs and light tanks (such as Sprut-SD) with their low speed of modest 5 knots will in most conditions be able to fire on the move because of that low speed, thus being actually able to help themselves stay afloat. Being low and slow under water will be just as dangerous as being dug in in a hull-down position on land.

        • jeffrey pigden says:

          Are you talking American or Russian? The American paradigm is to place the mother ship BEYOND the horizon, limiting its exposure to hostile fire. Supporting fire for the landing comes from littoral vessels and air assets, currently AV8Bs, SeaCobras, & SeaHawks. The F35 VSTOL is scheduled to replace the AV8B, & the SeaCobras will be retired, RSN. The high speed AMTRAK is meant to cover the longer distances, faster, in an attempt to maintain a level of surprise.
          As to vulnerability, even the M1A1 TUSK can be killed. But if you can’t see it, you can’t kill it. We were taught that hitting a moving target is hardest. During a launch, the mother ship needs to be almost stationary, hence EXTREMELY VULNERABLE. Therefore, the farther from shore, the more likely THE WHOLE FORCE can be launched & the mother ship will live to fight on. This paradigm is the newest. Unlike the Russian paradigm, which dates from WW2.

          • ayaa says:

            What do you do when you have to hit a beachhead, without airsupport?

            Also, I’ve seen Polnochny class troop ships, launch motor boats while making the run up to the beach, sometimes at upto 10knots. So it’s not really necessary for the mother ship to be static.

            • jeffrey pigden says:

              In the American scenario, the AMTRAKs & the air support come from the same ship. The ship doesn’t have to be dead stopped to launch an assault but with the well deck flooded, speed and manoeuvrability are limited, hence, the farther from shore and defensive assets, the better. Remember, a speed boat is NOT an AMTRAK; the AMTRAK has almost no freeboard! Usually, only the upper deck and the commander’s cupola show above the waterline. In a sea state above 1 meter waves, that means they are invisible!

              • ayaa says:

                Really? F-35’s and other VTOL aircraft take off from amphibious assault ships?

                The high-speed motor boats are launched on the run to the beach, carrying naval spetsnaz and their likes. Each squad/team will have one or two man-portable missiles, and would use them to secure a beach head (even in the worst case scenario, they would atleast draw fire and attention away from the larger landing force).

                With the powerful radars and sensor suites of the coastal defence, it’s impossible to have surprise. Best you can do is strike fast, before the defenders get properly organized.

  8. yojimbo says:

    Never mind finally found a good picture of an RPG-29 and they have a larger tube than what is shown in the picture.

    They are most likely a training version of the SA-14/18.

    ER for future reference Air Defense=Vertical Artillery.

  9. jeffrey pigden says:

    The amphibious landing I have described is the result of YEARS of research by the US Navy & Marines. It is the current performance policy of the MEF. Throwing snide remarks at me about a process about which you know nothing only diminishes you.

    • ayaa says:

      Really? Well the landing tactics of the Russian naval infantry date back, in principle, to the second world war. Thats DECADES, not YEARS.

      And just curious, from what you say, I gather that air-supremacy is necessary for a US landing. Again, what do you do when you have to land without air-support?

      Besides, why not just bomb the fcuk out of the defenders on the beach, if you have F-35’s and so on available. Would save a lot of lives.

      • jeffrey pigden says:

        Yes, and these tactics were ABANDONED by the Navy & Marines. A group who have been doing amphibious landings for about 2 centuries. The same people who TAUGHT the Russians amphibious landing tactics. The group that was doing amphibious landings BEFORE modern Russia even existed!
        The point is, you cannot compare Russian and American landing tactics because of the vast differences. The largest American equivalent, the LSD49, carries 2times the marines. It is also about twice as long! The Ropucha II Class ship carries about 500 tons while the LSD49 can carry 1.5 times that. Its cargo MUST unload using AAVs or landing craft as they have no bow ramps! The stern area opens to the sea and can be flooded down for boat launch. The roof of this well is a landing space for air assets. This, however is a SUPPORT ship for the actual assault carrier, the LHD, of which there are 8.

        Finally, there hasn’t been a need for an actual amphibious landing since 1950 Korea! All wars since then have been of limited type where the idea of carpet bombing, D-Day type landings and all-out warfare just doesn’t fit the situation.

        • ayaa says:

          Well then, on behalf of the Russia Naval Infantry, I would like to thank you for teaching us those wonderful (although, apparently, hopelessly outdated) landing tactics that worked so well against Georgian forces in 2008.

          Ironically, the Georgians themselves were considered good allies and were taught American landing tactics. Since even Russian forces (apparently) use American tactics, I’d expect the Georgians to atleast put up a better fight.

          Oh, well. Thanks again.

  10. geoff says:

    jeffrey pigden I dont think any one has meant to offend you. I have read all the comments and I dont think there are any snide remarks.

Leave a Reply

  • Random Post