Its interesting because of the debate about Russian capability and their armed forces, and people saying that they're not capable or second rate. But what we're seeing is a huge tactical and philosophical change with the Russians.
For years NATO planning involved countering a Russian Force that was designed as a brute force kitchen sink military. It used a minimum of 3-1 advantage of forces to counter their inferior technology. If you had 1000 tanks they would hit you with 3000 supported by mass artillary. If you had 1000 fighter bombers they would have 3000. The Russian/Soviet ideal was hitting you with overwhelming force at one point, rip your line open and then poor their reserves through to ravage your rear area (and yes that was intentional). We also saw it with their navy, they had massive numbers of subs and more specialization in their classes then Americans.
But economic reality has changed that. They can't afford to build 10,000 tanks and 500 subs and 50,000 armored fighting vehicles.
Instead they're following the philosophy that Canada should be following. fewer men, fewer tanks and fewer planes and ships and subs, but you spend lavishly on those numbers and bank heavily on either technological parity or an advantage.
The playbook has flipped.
The new Russian Submarines are on par if not slightly more advanced then their American counterparts. Their tanks well what they call a MBT is comparable now to the M1 tank, however the T-14 is more advanced and has a strong ability to survive in the battlefield. The Russians are spending a lot of money on their airforce and naval aviation wings.
At the same time, while the Russians have always been obsessed with special forces units, they've completely thrown their backs behind the use of special action teams.
I guess that the russian military is no longer the brutish Russian bear, they want it to be a surgeon.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
From reports there seem to be a huge number of mechanical problems with Russia's new tanks, breakdowns and transmission problems so far including one during the last victory parade
Quote:
A new Russian tank touted by military analysts as a fearsome, ultra-advanced machine broke down during Victory Day parade rehearsals in Moscow on Thursday, leaving puzzled engineers red-faced. Organizers of the rehearsal for Saturday's parade, which was attended by members of the public, said that the breakdown of the T-14 Armata tank was staged in order to show how the vehicle would be salvaged in a real-life situation.
“We will show how the evacuation of military equipment will be carried out. The stoppage of the tank was planned,” announced the public address system, to chuckles from the audience, according to several media reports.
According to Russian newspaper Moskovskiy Komsomolets, the tank came to a full halt and appeared to be experiencing difficulties even though the engine was still running. Other tanks trundled past as army officers approached the crew of the T-14 to discuss the situation. A military towing vehicle was dispatched to salvage the tank, but was unable to pull it away.
I'm confused, because I thought that Canada had sold most of its Tow 2 stock to the US marines 2 years ago,
I guess it depends on how many we have left, the 2A is designed as a pure armor penetrater, and is supposed to be effective against modern main battle tanks with reactive armor. the 2B is probably the better weapon as it attacks tanks from above where the armor is thinner.
I don't know how the Tow would do against the newer main battle tanks. the T-90''s are suppossed to have three levels of protection. A very heavy armor a second armor skin that's reactive and their Shtora counter measures suite that can alert the crew of the tank being panted to they can turn the turret and fire on the enemy position before they get a shot off.
If the Russians have T-14 Armata's in the field and suppossedly they've built over 100 of them, I really don't know how well the Tow would do. the T-14 has duel reactive armor and the Aghanit missile interception system, this system has a duel passive/active defense. The passive is designed to jam the missile guidance system. The active fires a penetrator at the missile destroying it far away. This system is designed to defeat the latest generation of anti-tank missiles, so I would assume that missiles like the Hellfire, the Tow and Brimstone for example wouldn't be as effective.
As well the T-14 has an unmanned turret so its cross section is lower, and its coated with radar defeating material and thermal defeating technology.
Its considered a next generation up from the M1 tank, and countries like Germany are working on developing bigger main guns to combat the T14's armor and defensive capabilities.
Right now, just looking it up the Russians have over 100 of the T-14's in active units and about 600 of the T90's upgraded.
The Russians have always thought that tanks were the best expression of the new Soviet man that they wanted to build. A unstoppable combination of men and steel.
They've also been the tactical innovators of tank offense for a long time. During the Gulf War the Americans used a lot of Russian created tank tactics, as did the Israeli's.
Georgy Zhukov was probably one of the best tank generals in WW2, and was the grandfather of the Tank army. Konev was also a great tank general and a rival to Zhukov
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
What is a tank now, anyway? Armoured assault gun? Direct fire support? I guess the Russians love their tanks because you can just drive 'em across those steppes.
The Russians have always thought that tanks were the best expression of the new Soviet man that they wanted to build. A unstoppable combination of men and steel.
They've also been the tactical innovators of tank offense for a long time. During the Gulf War the Americans used a lot of Russian created tank tactics, as did the Israeli's.
Georgy Zhukov was probably one of the best tank generals in WW2, and was the grandfather of the Tank army. Konev was also a great tank general and a rival to Zhukov
Also, standing in a hole in the ground while a tank bears down on you is terrifying.
Had this happen on exercise in Wainwright with M1's. Just trench after trench of dead soldiers.
__________________
Captain James P. DeCOSTE, CD, 18 Sep 1993
Corporal Jean-Marc H. BECHARD, 6 Aug 1993
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to undercoverbrother For This Useful Post:
From reports there seem to be a huge number of mechanical problems with Russia's new tanks, breakdowns and transmission problems so far including one during the last victory parade
What is a tank now, anyway? Armoured assault gun? Direct fire support? I guess the Russians love their tanks because you can just drive 'em across those steppes.
All of the above.
Tanks to me are the ultimate terror weapon. they move with speed that nothing else can compare to. they're next to impossible to kill now unless you have another tank backing you up.
While APC's are nice they don't have the range or protection that a tank has. I'd feel alot better going into an assault backed up by a tank.
I mean I guess its nice to have a Tow missile with a 3700 meter range, but when a main tank gun has a effective range of twice that and a reloading rate of 3 or 4x that, I'd rather have a tank gun.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Tanks to me are the ultimate terror weapon. they move with speed that nothing else can compare to. they're next to impossible to kill now unless you have another tank backing you up.
While APC's are nice they don't have the range or protection that a tank has. I'd feel alot better going into an assault backed up by a tank.
I mean I guess its nice to have a Tow missile with a 3700 meter range, but when a main tank gun has a effective range of twice that and a reloading rate of 3 or 4x that,while travelling at full speed across what ever it wants I'd rather have a tank gun.
You forgot this part.
__________________
Captain James P. DeCOSTE, CD, 18 Sep 1993
Corporal Jean-Marc H. BECHARD, 6 Aug 1993
The Following User Says Thank You to undercoverbrother For This Useful Post:
From reports there seem to be a huge number of mechanical problems with Russia's new tanks, breakdowns and transmission problems so far including one during the last victory parade
Meh, I'm more worried about the capabilities then the fact that a tank broke down.
I'm sure the Russian's were laughing at the talk of the Strykers tipping over when they fired because of a serious design flaw in that vehicles.
As it stands even Americans are saying that the next variation of the M1 which is the A3 sep due out in 202 might be a very poor match for the T-14.
The big question for the Russians is around the cost and mass production of the T-14, is the intention to replace the T-72 B3's all 2500 of them with the T-14? or even the T-90? That's doubtful. However if they have a deployable regiment or 2 of the T-14's backed by the T-90's it becomes a pretty deadly force.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Meh, I'm more worried about the capabilities then the fact that a tank broke down.
I'm sure the Russian's were laughing at the talk of the Strykers tipping over when they fired because of a serious design flaw in that vehicles.
As it stands even Americans are saying that the next variation of the M1 which is the A3 sep due out in 202 might be a very poor match for the T-14.
The big question for the Russians is around the cost and mass production of the T-14, is the intention to replace the T-72 B3's all 2500 of them with the T-14? or even the T-90? That's doubtful. However if they have a deployable regiment or 2 of the T-14's backed by the T-90's it becomes a pretty deadly force.
Cost aside (which Russia will have problems with given current economics), another big issue is the source of most of their equipment. Computer components, command and control, sensors suite and other components were designed, manufactured and developed by EU defense companies. Most notable are main gun targeting, sights and electro-optical suite developed by Thales.
Sanctions are going to kill Russia's ability to mass produce this tank until such them they can reverse engineer or re-develop these components. That's never been their forte anyways. Either than or all of the EU goes facist through Russian political interference and starts selling these systems willy nilly to all.
Location: In a land without pants, or war, or want. But mostly we care about the pants.
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlameOn
Sanctions are going to kill Russia's ability to mass produce this tank until such them they can reverse engineer or re-develop these components. That's never been their forte anyways. Either than or all of the EU goes facist through Russian political interference and starts selling these systems willy nilly to all.
Which is why all this talk of how "advanced" their weapon systems are is little more than propaganda. They simply don't have the technological base or money to compete, it's very similar to how the Chinese supposedly had an F-22 clone that would match American planes - until they had to actually deliver such a plane instead of tell everyone how good it was going to be.
__________________
Better educated sadness than oblivious joy.
The Following User Says Thank You to jammies For This Useful Post:
Which is why all this talk of how "advanced" their weapon systems are is little more than propaganda. They simply don't have the technological base or money to compete, it's very similar to how the Chinese supposedly had an F-22 clone that would match American planes - until they had to actually deliver such a plane instead of tell everyone how good it was going to be.
I really think jammies is on the money here. We know how over-hyped American military tech is, and this is with a semi-functioning political/media branch to keep developers accountable.
I really think jammies is on the money here. We know how over-hyped American military tech is, and this is with a semi-functioning political/media branch to keep developers accountable.
During the 90's I was of this opinion. Having seen the left overs of the JNA, I have no doubt NATO would have been victorious, but the cost would have been nauseating, both in equipment and personnel.
CC is more in touch with the current condition of NATO v Russia, but your statement stands.
Although I don't think you are correct in saying the US military tech is "over-hyped". Granted there is some propaganda thrown in, but their kit was (and I suspect still is) top notch.
Hell, they got little bottles of Tabasco in their meal packs. We got....ham omelet.
__________________
Captain James P. DeCOSTE, CD, 18 Sep 1993
Russian forces and their accompanying logistics units are moving to the Ukrainian border as part of a significant buildup of Russian forces.
Quote:
While training were originally given as a possible explanation for the buildup, a U.S. defence official told CBS News here that the locations and types of units seen on the ground didn’t line up with what the Russian Ministry of Defense had announced last month.
####ing Russia
__________________
Captain James P. DeCOSTE, CD, 18 Sep 1993
Corporal Jean-Marc H. BECHARD, 6 Aug 1993
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to undercoverbrother For This Useful Post:
