The Gun Thread

I'm curious; does anyone know why the Russians are still keeping the RPK around as a SAW, and many other ex-Soviet Bloc nations?

This article kinda helps, but I was wondering why it's still popular, while in the West, belt-fed is the norm for SAWs.

Parts compatibility with the standard issue AK rifles is a big factor.

But more importantly it fits better in Russia's standard combat doctrine.

See Russia is basically built around mechanized infantry, that means that their guys on foot are basically having to keep pace with a BTR or BMP at all times.

So the RPK is a good option because it's very light and doesn't require much setup or effort to move with it. It can also be shoulder fired very easily too and reloads are very quick thanks to using traditional magazines.

It means they can provide heavier fire than their AK wielding comrades while staying very mobile.

It's worth remembering that your average Russian infantry man has a BMP on station at all times so if you need some really heavy fire support or suppressing fire that's something their attached IFV will provide for them, not a guy with a belt fed.

Edited by LeGarcon on Mar 18th 2020 at 7:49:11 AM

I thought the Corps was replacing infantry-level SPRs with accurised versions of the M27.

The USMC started with the same thing the army was using. That is a variant of the M-16 accurized for use as a Designated Marksman Rifle. This was the USMC Squad Advanced Marksman Rifle. This was in turn largely supplanted by the adoption of the SPR. The USMC also used a mix of M-39 and SR-25 as the Mk-11 as well. Those were both largely supplanted by the M110. All of this was replaced by the adoption of the CSASS (Compact Semi-Automatic Sniping System) which picked the HK-417 which the USMC just started receiving. It fills all the same roles the old M110 did. The DMR for general infantry use is also in play and intended to make it easier to get a common DMR weapon into the hands of the general infantry units. Also easier and cheaper on logistics.

As for the RPK. Its basically a gussied up AK variant. Longer barrel, usually a modified stock, a bipod, and larger ammo source. Its only real advantage is the sustained rate of fire and some improved stability from more weight and the bipod. That and its dirt cheap to make. If you can make AK's you can make RPK's.

As for Mechanized infantry. It has nothing to do with any imaginary fit. It was just cheap and common just like the AK itself. You could even largely make the RPK, both variants, on AK assembly lines. You also readily found PK MMG's in the Rifle Motor Platoons as well as other heavy weapons as far back as the 70's. The Russians have no issues with putting their MMG line into the mechanized units. You can also shoulder fire those weapons fit them in transports, and provided better firepower than the AK armed rifleman.

Also, mechanized infantry does not work by "keeping up" with their armored transport. Its the other way around. The sole purpose of mechanized infantry is to improve infantry mobility by putting them in vehicles either IFV or APC type vehicles. The vehicles primarily support the infantry. Hell, the Russians still deploy their mechanized troops the same way. Vehicles slow usually in formation and troops spill out the back and form up in front of the armor which has overwatch of the deploying troops and adds overall firepower.

Yeah, the RPK mostly stays in use because it’s ridiculously easy to procure.

BMPs and BTRs are treated as much more than battle taxis these days and Russian infantry doctrine is built around extreme aggressiveness and high mobility.

The IFV doesn't stop advancing and the infantry detachment never separate from it.

Edited by LeGarcon on Mar 18th 2020 at 7:56:54 AM

No, they most definitely stop. The infantry has to get out and establish their part of the base of the fire and maneuver element of mechanized infantry before the infantry jumps off again with the vehicles following in support if they move forward. Their tactics really haven't changed. Especially in urban or enclosed environments infantry escort armor, not the other way around. The infantry is not "trying to keep up" with armor simply because they never could pull such a maneuver. Armor even in low gear would easily outpace the troops.

If the two elements separate such as infantry trying to keep up with armored vehicles can easily leave them behind it leaves them rather vulnerable. The only time they try to move together is for certain kinds of assault such as assaulting a single point with vehicles flanking and at most the vehicles move at a snail's pace so the infantry can keep behind them unless the enemy is threatening with AT weapons. If At weapon threats are present the infantry takes the point.

Edited by TuefelHundenIV on Mar 18th 2020 at 7:54:36 AM

The Russian military has extreme (sometimes) strategic mobility. Their tactical mobility is nothing too out of the ordinary.

When you get down to it, Russian mech infantry tactics really aren’t much different from Western ones. The infantry typically dismount the vehicle before combat starts and the vehicles provide overwatch, particularly suppressing fire for an infantry maneuver, similar to the way an organic armor formation would support light infantry. They’re separate elements once the infantry dismounts, very rarely will you see the infantry staying in the exact proximity of the AFV the whole time they’re dismounted.

Edited by archonspeaks on Mar 18th 2020 at 6:13:09 AM

I don't mean in that the BTR driver never takes his foot off the gas I mean in that they don't tend to hunker down or wait for air support like you might see more Western squads do.

Usually operating without CAS on standby Russian mechanized infantry respond to incoming fire by immediately trying to jump down the enemy's throat and using the autocannon and grenade launcher from the IFV to put pressure on them.

More recently you're seeing a shift towards less aggression in the face of more asymmetric fights the Russians find themselves in but I'm talking more in terms of their original purpose and doctrine in a peer conflict scenario.

Uhh..what?

No offense, but that sounds like something out of a bad war novel. It’s basically all wrong.

Russian military doctrine is centered around their indirect fire systems, and using them to put overwhelming saturation fire on enemy targets. They’re considered the “striking” portion of their military, armor and infantry support them as opposed to the Western system where fires support armor and infantry. At a tactical level, infantry and armor are largely reactive rather than aggressive, to allow their fires room and to shape the battlefield for them, as well as to increase the longevity their forces which is compounded by an inefficient logistical system. In the context of mech inf, this usually means fighting a defensive action and conserving ammo to make time and space for artillery. That gets combined with EW and information warfare to frustrate forces who might try to aggressively maneuver in order to combat that strategy. On the whole Russian forces fight far more defensively on a tactical level than Western ones, though they generally compliment that with very high strategic mobility.

It’s also worth noting that Russian indirect fires are controlled at an operational level, not a tactical one, and communication between those levels are somewhat limited. Infantry generally isn’t going to advance aggressively to avoid their staff dropping artillery on them on accident. This was seen in Ukraine recently, artillery would hit targets, then armor and infantry would screen their advance to start the cycle again.

Here’s a good rundown of modern Russian doctrine: [1]

Edited by archonspeaks on Mar 18th 2020 at 8:13:47 AM

Actually I realized that an hour after posting and then I remembering that artillery exists and now I'm struggling to remember where I got my other posts from.

Forgive me, I've had a very long week and a lot of overnight shifts.

Hey, happens to the best of us.

Really, the Russians do love their artillery. It’s basically the centerpiece of their entire military.

It's interesting because the American military also really loves its artillery, but prefers to combine it with fire support bases, forward observers and airstrikes, while the Russians have been happily building on their beloved rocket artillery since they got the Katyushas out.

Anyway, that's a discussion we can take to the Military Thread, thanks for the RPK explanation folks.

But yeah, the Soviets put the centerpiece of their infantry doctrine around the BTR, and the Russians now center it around the BMP.

Edited by TheWildWestPyro on Mar 18th 2020 at 9:22:51 AM

Basically it’s like I said above. For the US, fires support infantry and armor. Leaders at a tactical level can call out for those resources as well as airpower (and they’re targeted very precisely) to help accomplish their objectives which gives the whole structure a more flexible and aggressive build. In Russia, infantry and armor support the artillery. Fires are controlled by high level staff and forward observation isn’t well integrated, so infantry and armor at the tactical level are reacting to the targets they’re hitting or screening their movement. Because of this highly centralized structure and focus on fires they’re generally more reactive than proactive tactically.

This has slowly been changing since Crimea, but the key word there is slowly. If you notice in that report I linked above there are some serious logistical and organizational issues that need to be overcome.

Edited by archonspeaks on Mar 18th 2020 at 9:52:23 AM

They've been using laser guided shells more and more and making laser guided munitions for smaller and smaller delivery systems lately.

Including their cute little air droppable SP Gs

Saturation fire is still by far their preferred approach with indirect fire. Efficient application of precision fires is difficult with the way their command structure is set up, which is why you typically only really see it with specialized units or on very portable systems like squad-level mortars.

More precision weapons isn’t really the solution to their problems, though.

Edited by archonspeaks on Mar 18th 2020 at 9:59:29 AM

Should probably move the organizational parts of this to the military thread.

What is the weirdest firearm anyone has seen on the net or in person? For me, it was the Slostin machine gun one of the early gas-operated Gatling Guns developed by the Russians.

For me, it's the Kriss Vector. I can't quite wrap my head around this design, or it's strengths and weaknesses compared to similar systems. It just looks weird!

You figure out its strengths and weaknesses pretty quickly once you fire it. It’s incredibly flat-shooting with almost no apparent recoil, but the ergonomics just are not great.

The Huot is up there, along with Interdynamics rifles.

Hmm! I just learned about 9mm revolvers getting popular among law enforcement as a backup gun due to using the same ammunition of their issued sidearm, usually. But it's mostly for older dudes it seems.

More uncommon is carrying a .45 ACP revolver for the exact same reason.

Surprisingly, well-liked is the single-action Ruger Blackhawk, as you can swap the .357 cylinder out for the 9mm quickly and with little issues.

The main problem, it seems, is that due to the 9mm being rimless, its performance can vary wildly in revolvers depending on the type of ammunition used. A Czech-made military-issue 9mm for their semiautos can be too hot to use in revolvers.

Wait, they carry around a revolver in 9mm as a backup for a handgun?

Why

Same ammo chain, greater reliability are the usual reasons. That's only a few of them, though. I think most officers who use backup guns just carry a smaller semi-auto, like a Glock 26 and the like.

I think the 9mm carbine is a better "why" question than the backup revolver.

There really isn’t any difference in reliability between a modern semi-automatic pistol and a revolver.

The only real reason I could see to choose one over a semi-auto for defensive carry is that you don’t have to worry about the slide going out of battery if you’re struggling with someone, but that seems like a fairly minor advantage for the tradeoff in capacity.

In my experience the single most common off-duty weapon is a Glock of some variety.