# Ground Vehicle Recce



## SupersonicMax (12 Aug 2008)

I've got a little question for army guys or air force guys for that matter.  What are the physical differences between the SA-10, SA-12A and the SA-20?  I can't seem to differenciate them on pictures....

Thanks!!

Max


----------



## George Wallace (12 Aug 2008)

???

SA-10   Surface-to-air S-300PMU  missile launcher.  The weapon is carried and vertically launched from a dedicated four-round capacity transporter-erector launcher vehicle based on the MAZ-7910 ( 8 x 8 ) truck chassis.  

SA-12A  Surface-to-air missile launcher in a dual role as anti-missile or anti-aircraft with a max range of 75 to 90 km.  The 9A83-1 tracked vehicle carries four 9M83 SA-12a GLADIATOR missiles.  


SA-20  The 9M96 missile is designed to destroy aircraft and air- delivered weapons at ranges in excess of 120 km. The missile is small-- considerably lighter than the ZUR 48N6Ye used in the S-300PMU1 systems and the Favorit. The missile is equipped with an active homing head and has an estimated single shot kill probability of 0.9 for manned aircraft and 0.8 for unmanned maneuvering aircraft. a gas-dynamic control system enables the 9M96 missile to maneuver at altitudes of up to 35 km at forces of over 20g, which permits engagment of non- strategic ballistic missiles. A mockup of the missile was set up at an Athens arms exhibition in October 1998. One 9M96 modification will become the basic long-range weapon of Air Force combat aircraft, and may become the standardized missile for air defense SAM systems, ship-launched air defense missile systems, and fighter aircraft. 

*S-400 (SA-20 Triumf)*
Alternate Name:  SA-20 Triumf 
Country:  Russia 
Basing:  Land 

Details

The S-400, also known by its NATO designation, SA-20 Triumf, is an advanced Russian surface-to-air missile system. Once operational, it will be able to destroy aircraft, cruise missiles, and short- and medium-range ballistic missiles at ranges of up to 400 kilometers. The Russians eventually plan to phase out their existing S-200 (NATO: SA-5 Gammon) and S-300P (NATO: SA-10 Grumble) systems and replace them with S-400 complexes.

A standard S-300P tracked 8 X 8 MAZ-7910 truck chassis launcher originally designed to carry four 5V55 or 48N6 missiles would now be used to transport up to 16 9M96 missiles. In addition, the S-400 would use the S-300P control complex and multifunctional radar, thus allowing for a smooth, cost-efficient transition between the two systems.


The differences are all in the Launcher, TELAR, Radars, and missiles.


----------



## SupersonicMax (12 Aug 2008)

I know the technical differences, but looking at a picture, I can't find obvious differences (with the launchers).


----------



## George Wallace (12 Aug 2008)

???

I'm missing something here.  The SA-10 has 4 tubes arranged in a "square" mounted on a 8 X 8 Truck with no radars.  The SA-12A has four tubes in a row mounted on a Tracked vehicle.  The SA-20 uses the same Tracked vehicle truck chassis as the SA-10 but mounts more missile tubes.  

Are you telling me that you can not tell the difference between a truck and a Tracked vehicle, nor count the missiles or look at their mounting configuration and tell the differences?


----------



## Franko (12 Aug 2008)

Max,

Go onto Janes Defence and go through the pictures. Better yet, invest in Janes AFV Vol2.

There are significant differences between the launchers and the vehicles they are mounted (too many to really list here) and it's just better to go through them by yourself and draw out your own conclusions.

If you were based here in Pet I could loan you a complete study package on almost every conceivable modern AFV and their variants.

Let's see what we can do in the AFV thread....

Regards


----------



## SupersonicMax (12 Aug 2008)

The SA-12A is a more obvious now that you pointed out the tracked vehicle, but the SA-20 and SA-10 are still hard to identify.  I'll show you 2 pictures, and you tell me which is which.

Thanks for your input, RBD.  I'd love to have a good study package.  All I have is powerpoint slides with vehicles and a word document that identifies every slide.  Better than nothing I guess!  

I'm very new at indentifying ground vehicles (started seriously yesterday with the Ground-to-Air defence), so please, don't think I'm an idiot.  Still trying to find tricks to identify them...

Max


----------



## George Wallace (12 Aug 2008)

Now that brings up a question that I was wondering about; do you have a package which contains mistakes?  It is all too common that AFV packages go out and someone has identified an aircraft or AFV incorrectly.  It really doesn't help the student.


----------



## SupersonicMax (12 Aug 2008)

I think this package has been proven over and over again by experts and time.  But I guess it is possible that there are mistakes.  Those 2 IDs really puzzle me.  I would go for the SA-10 for both, but 1 of them is a SA-20.  Everything else seems pretty reasonable though (every others in the package)


----------



## aesop081 (12 Aug 2008)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> I think this package has been proven over and over again by experts and time.



The recce package on my MOAT course had been in eistence for several years but still contained errors. Don't let the "experts and time" thing lead you to beleive there's no errors.


----------



## George Wallace (12 Aug 2008)

How old is the package?  I may speculate to say that at the time it was produced, someone could not find a photo of a SA-20 (or there were no known photos of it), so knowing it was on the same launcher, substituted a SA-10 photo.


----------



## SupersonicMax (12 Aug 2008)

I don't have a date on it, but I would say fairly recently (3-4 years ago?).  Max 8 years ago (when NFTC was created)


----------



## Danjanou (12 Aug 2008)

Max I'll be the first to admit my own AFV recognition skills have gotten a bit rusty over the years from a lack of need to know to keep my but in one piece 8)

A quick google image and wiki search showed me enough pictures etc to quickly spot the differences already given here, tracked vs wheeled, number and configuration of missile launchers etc.

Obviously this is a must know in your new profession and kudos for taking it seriously. Fell free to join one of more of the AFV, weapon and aircraft recognition games ongoing on the site. There is a wealth of expertise on here and I find them a great mental exercise.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (12 Aug 2008)

Max,

It seems to me that asking someone to tell an SA-10 from an SA-20 from those views is a bit much.


As an aside, I find AFV recognition fun (in an army way).  I have found that, at first, it is best to focus on the big things.  Get to be able to tell the type of vehicle first.

I look at size, suspension, turret, shape (both of the hull and the turret) and the gun.  Using these things one can quickly learn to tell a tracked APC from an IFV from a tank from an SP gun from a wheeled recce vehicle from a wheeled APC (although there will always be weird harolds).

Size can be a problem without a frame of reference, but it can be used to quickly differeniate between vehicles.  The suspension may not always be visible, but tracks vs wheels is probably the easiest way to narrow down your choices.  The presence or absence of a turret is another quick and easy way to narrow down choices.  The size and shape of the turret can also be considered (some look like frying pans etc).  The gun is usually quite obvious.  A tank will tend to have a big gun that protrudes well beyond the front of the vehicle (assuming that the turret is over the front aspect).  IFVs and recce vehicles will tend to have thin guns (25mm chain guns etc).  SP arty vehicles will have large guns on a turret, but on an SP gun the turret will _usually_ be set-back on the hull compared to a tank.

Once you've got the hang of quickly telling a tank from a wheeled APC or a tracked IFV or an SP gun you can then get fancy and start telling individual vehicles by name.  I use the same things but go into details.

For the suspension you can look for things like the number of wheels and their layout for wheeled vehicles (4x4, 6x6, 8x8 - are they evenly spaced or are they grouped etc).  For tracked vehicles you can count road wheels and also see if there is live or slack track.  Slack track just hangs there above the road wheels while live track is supported by return rollers.  

Looking at the turret you can focus on the shape (angular vs frying pan etc) and where it is set on the hull.  Sight and episcope arrangements can also give clues.  Bear in mind that stowage and camoflague can obscure things.

The gun can give details such as the precensce or absence of a fume extractor as well as the position of said fume extractor.  A muzzle brake might be present.  There might be a thermal sleeve.  The mantlet might be distinctive.  A muzzle reference system on the muzzle of the gun can also give a hint.  

One big caveat is that with all the upgrades out there many of the details can change.  Basic size, shape, turret and suspension, however, usually stay fairly consistent.

I am not suggesting that a pilot count roadwheels on a tank as he zooms in.  You can use these little things in training, however, to give yourself some tricks.  Over time, your brain will learn the "gestalt" of the AFV world and you will instantly recognize a T-80 where before you were counting the road wheels and their grouping along with counting the episcopes.  That being said, telling a T-72 from a T-80 in combat conditions (ie not looking at a parade or arms show demo) might be stretching our capabilities and we should remain realistic.  

It is the same thing when you are fishing.  At first you are checking the eye location relative to the mouth and counting fins etc.  Later, you can instantly tell a Smallmouth Bass from a Largemouth Bass because you have trained your mind to recognize it without having to think about it.

Cheers


----------



## SupersonicMax (12 Aug 2008)

T2B, thanks for the tips.  Those 2 pictures are what we have to ID in that particular package...

Again, I really appreciate the tips.  I just hope I'll soon be able to ID AFV as quickly as I can ID airplanes!

Max


----------



## George Wallace (12 Aug 2008)

Key features will usually follow these rough guidelines:

*HATS:*        *H*ull, *A*rmament, *T*urret, and *S*uspension.

*WEFT:*        *W*ings, *E*ngine, *F*uselage, and *T*ail.

*MASH:*        *M*asts, *A*rmament, *S*uperstructure, and *H*ull.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (13 Aug 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Key features will usually follow these rough guidelines:
> 
> *HATS:*        *H*ull, *A*rmament, *T*urret, and *S*uspension.
> 
> ...



George,

Speaking of the HATS, I had a friend on Phase II who was only able to tell the difference between the BTR-60, BTR-70 and BTR-80 by memorizing the different hats that the crew commanders were wearing in the parade ground pictures used in the slide package (the BTR 70 guy had a very impressive forage cap).  The slide deck was rather limited, so he just memorized the pictures.


----------



## George Wallace (13 Aug 2008)

Tango2Bravo said:
			
		

> George,
> 
> Speaking of the HATS, I had a friend on Phase II who was only able to tell the difference between the BTR-60, BTR-70 and BTR-80 by memorizing the different hats that the crew commanders were wearing in the parade ground pictures used in the slide package (the BTR 70 guy had a very impressive forage cap).  The slide deck was rather limited, so he just memorized the pictures.



Funny that (s)he wasn't pointed out the exhausts on those three vehicles; as model number increased, the exhaust became more horizontal.  Also the fact, that as the model year increased, so did the improvements to the crew exits, from top to small hatch between 2nd and 3rd wheel, to a larger, more efficient, clam shell hatch on the BTR-80.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (13 Aug 2008)

Those were all, indeed, teaching points.  Different people learn differently, and the different hats that the crew commanders were wearing were what he liked to use.  An illustration of the pitfalls of using the same slides over and over again.


----------



## Franko (13 Aug 2008)

Tango2Bravo said:
			
		

> Those were all, indeed, teaching points.  Different people learn differently, and the different hats that the crew commanders were wearing were what he liked to use.  An illustration of the pitfalls of using the same slides over and over again.



Hence why I teach with different slides from different angles and test with videos mixed in with totally different photos.

Regards


----------



## George Wallace (13 Aug 2008)

;D  

So he took HATS literally.    ;D

It is a problem if the same slides/photos are used constantly.  It really shows up when the students have no problems with recognition during quiz's, and classes; but can't recognize the same vehicles on a test when a "new" photo is introduced.


----------



## Bzzliteyr (13 Aug 2008)

When I was teaching my AFV at the Armour school, I'd "freeze" the projector to black, go to google images and start digging up pictures to review.  I'd then "snap" the image on screen and give students a split second to look.  It was challenging and fun at the same time and to me, seemed to make a dry lesson a little more entertaining.

The big thing to remember for AFV is what the information is needed for? Detailed reconaissances require more information but basic Int may only require that you can identify a tank vs APC.  IE pilot vs dismounted recce.


----------



## SupersonicMax (13 Aug 2008)

Our tests are 100 pictures shown at a 7s interval.  We have to write down the answers as well as ID the vehicles.  7s may look like a lot of time but it isn't (for me anyways)


----------



## George Wallace (13 Aug 2008)

Bzzliteyr said:
			
		

> When I was teaching my AFV at the Armour school, I'd "freeze" the projector to black, go to google images and start digging up pictures to review.  I'd then "snap" the image on screen and give students a split second to look.  It was challenging and fun at the same time and to me, seemed to make a dry lesson a little more entertaining.
> 
> The big thing to remember for AFV is what the information is needed for? Detailed reconaissances require more information but basic Int may only require that you can identify a tank vs APC.  IE pilot vs dismounted recce.



When we trained for Boeselager, we would black out most of the slide and show only parts of the vehicles.  A fender.  A rear Sprocket.  A gun barrel.  A nose cone.  A Tail Fin.  The competition itself was excellent, as depending on the host unit, perfectly detailed miniatures/models were used and put in camouflaged positions on an IMR.  Very realistic through binos.

The thing about AFV Rec is that according to an Enemy ORBAT various units and sub units will have "Signature Equipment".  It it these types of equipment that Recce and INT guys have to know by heart.  What makes up a CRP?  What makes up a MOD?   What makes up a MSG?  What AD Artillery are located at what level of Command.  What Radar is associated with what AD equipment.  All of this is important info.


----------



## Bzzliteyr (13 Aug 2008)

George, I remember us doing that training in 96.. it was fun.. using the small Roco miniatures and putting them at a good distance then using binos to check them out.  Uniforms, rank structures, map symbols, etc being studied in detail.  I wasn't selected for the team but it was great training nonetheless.

However, we have to move away from the good old "russian bear" AFV as we are now in three block war status and need to really know the equipment of the forces we will be working with, not only the badguys.  I mean, in Bosnia for example, the badguys and the goodguys had some of the same equipment.  It is just as important to know the details in what seperates the two as it does to know what each use.  Suprisingly, I don't remember any AFV action for the work up training for Afghanistan.  Oh yeah, they all look the same.

I highly doubt we will ever experience the cold war battles we trained for(and continue to train for in some cases, AFV for example) and need to put that stuff to use, but the defence on that is always "at least it's a basis to start with".  In that case, why don't we start with a three block war base and retrain for Cold war tactics once they ever arise?

My 2 cents.


----------



## George Wallace (13 Aug 2008)

That is why we no longer do the "Friend or Foe" tests.  With the proliferation of arms and former foes now allies, and all, one now needs a greater skill at AFV.  Everything from Ships to Aircraft to AFVs to small arms can be found in anyone's "Backyard".  

I find it unusual that you say you never did any of this during your workup trg.  We usually do whatever Foreign Wpns we can get our hands on as part of ours.  Wpns SMEs could find full time work teaching the differences in AKs, AKMs, PKMs, etc. in all ways: Countries of Mfr, calibre, etc.  Strip and Assemble and IAs would also be good.

There are also a lot of Russian wpns systems still to be found in Afghanistan.  Rockets.  Anti-tank guns and launchers.  Mines.  New wpns coming in from Iran.  Wpns smuggled in from Pakistan.


----------



## Good2Golf (13 Aug 2008)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> The SA-12A is a more obvious now that you pointed out the tracked vehicle, but the SA-20 and SA-10 are still hard to identify. I`ll show you 2 pictures, and you tell me which is which.
> 
> Thanks for your input, RBD.  I'd love to have a good study package.  All I have is powerpoint slides with vehicles and a word document that identifies every slide.  Better than nothing I guess!
> 
> ...



Max, without knowing the radar units associated with these two TELs, there is no way or reasonably telling which is the SA-10 and which is the SA-20.

The only armament difference between the two, is that SA-20 is the only one equipped with 48N6 variant rockets, the SA-10 only uses variants of the 5V55, and you can't tell which is loaded from externally viewing the TEL rocket tube.

I have a bone to pick with people who try to make such differentiation seem important (the difference between what the two TEL's are) when the substantive difference lies not only in the rocket itself (which you can't determine visually) and the associated fire control systems and guidance radar (which is not provided)...thus the question of SA-10 or SA-20 is not only moot, it's not really a value added question at all, because the important elements of the system as an air defence system are entirely lost for somebody being a dick about how many bolts there are on the license plate of the TEL truck as a "dead giveaway".

My other pet peeve is how the NATO designation system often loses the essence of the overall capability of systems by trying to divide variants up into some neat, code-named table.  The SA-10, SA-12, SA-N-6, SA-20, SA-21 systems are a perfect example.  If you looked at the original Soviet S-300 system and tracked the way the Russians grew the S-300P into the S-300V (land army), S-300PM/PMU/PT (army AD, site ABM) and S-300F (naval) you would have a much better appreciation of the overall system, in particular where SA-10 became SA-20 for NATO, but was still the PM, PMU and FM, just with a 5V55 to 48N6 rocket upgrade, and also seeing where the S-300VM and S-300PM linked together into the S-400/M upgraded system (now called SA-21) with improved FCS/Radar and the 9M96 missiles (the small one you occasionally see trebled up, replacing one 48N6 tube on the earlier SA-10/20 TEL.

Attached below is a handy chart for developing a good understanding of the S-300 family.

Cheers,
G2G


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (13 Aug 2008)

I took a US Army course about ten years ago and the Company Defensive test was set in Germany against a Soviet foe.  The enemy division had T-72s but there was also an independent tank battalion with T-80s.  I passed this stuff on in company orders with the added bit of how seeing T-80s would be very important information and that the platoon commanders should let me know.

My DS asked me how my tank and Bradley crews were going to tell a T-72 from a T-80.  I offered up the AFV method of counting the driver episcopes, the differences in the exhaust and the nuances of roadwheels to which he answered "How would you tell that at 2,000m in combat?"  

I think that we can also lead ourselves down a garden path when we make too many assumptions based on incomplete information.  Everybody wanted to call a tank and three BMPs the CRP.  Is it?  I'm not sure.  Maybe it is one tank and three BMPs that belong to a company that you can only see part of.  I would prefer that people tell what they see and not add too many editorials.  Have the guys at the CPs who have a somewhat broader view make those calls.  Still, saying CRP was easier.

p.s. G2G - Excellent points.  The SA-10 and SA-20 test seems (to this ground guy) like asking someone to tell a Large Double Double from a Large Double Cream and Three Sugar by looking at the coffee on a carrying tray.


----------



## SupersonicMax (13 Aug 2008)

G2G, thanks for the inputs, very informative.  If you have any other chart for other systems (russian or not), please fire away!

Cheers

Max


----------



## Blackadder1916 (13 Aug 2008)

While it may not assist Max in his AFV test, this may be similar to a perspective that one in his profession gets a view of these systems.


----------



## George Wallace (13 Aug 2008)

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> While it may not assist Max in his AFV test, this may be similar to a perspective that one in his profession gets a view of these systems.



Now you are getting into a different type of "Recognition".  Soviet style defenses, common to all countries who have had Russian Advisers/Training, are "standardized".  So a good Imagery Analyst will be able to tell you the wpns systems and radar systems simply by looking at the layout of the installation and its' equip.


----------



## Good2Golf (14 Aug 2008)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> G2G, thanks for the inputs, very informative.  If you have any other chart for other systems (russian or not), please fire away!
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Max



Max, not all-encompassing, but good information...a lot is in German.

DTIG - Defense Threat Information Group

Cheers
G2G


----------



## SupersonicMax (14 Aug 2008)

Thanks for the link.  I'll read it over the next week. 

So far, I think I could identify most of today's SAM systems.  Incredible the amount of progress I've done in 2 days with you guy's help!

Thanks a million!

Max


----------



## Franko (14 Aug 2008)

It gets a bit trickier when you get into the support vehicles and radar systems....

Regards


----------

