Monday, 6 April 2015

Lessons learned from the conflict in Ukraine for the Czech Army

Author: Army General Jiří Šedivý (retired), former chief of staff of the Army of the Czech Republic
Translation: Silentstalker

Source.

Hello warriors,

here’s an article from a Czech NATO magazine, written by the former Czech army chief of staff. I hope you find it interesting.
The leadership of the AČR (Czech Army) has been working on the new concept of the army development for quite some time. It's rather complicated to to find a simple solution that would lead to a consensus regarding the army development direction. Only a few years ago, the situation we found ourselves in was clear, as were the development trends. But it all has changed recently.
Today, two threats are noticeable. The one widely known is that of radical Islam, represented especially by the Islamic State.  The IS represents much more brutal form of Islam, even though Al-Qaeda and Taliban were no “peaceful organizations” either – murders happen daily. Despite all that, the Islamic State is something new. This organization is attempting to behave like a real country in all respects. One of their first steps was to arm their combatants with as good military hardware as possible, including armor and artillery. The vehicles were mostly captured in the initial fighting in Syria and Iraq. It is not clear what kind and how many other weapons were later purchased for the money from illegal oil trade, from kidnapping and blackmail.
The most important discovery is that to prepare our army for the war on terror as we know it from Afghanistan is to prepare it for the war of yesterday.  Even the terrorists know that it’s very difficult to fight against heavy weapons if they want to keep their captured territories for some time and therefore they too have to obtain weapons of reasonable quality. It is up to the allies to destroy the terrorist weapons as fast as possible, especially the heavy equipment such as tanks, artillery and such. Not so long ago first news appeared about the use of chemical weapons – even though they were quite primitive. Despite that, it’s a very serious signal.
Ever since 2014, the previously calm Europe experiences confusion about the Crimea situation, but also about the situation in eastern Ukraine. The Russian annexation of Crimean peninsula was unprecedented, as was the unacceptable interference in the conflict in eastern Ukraine by giving their weapons and even soldiers to the separatists. There are many pieces of proof supporting this claim.
Due to the fighting with Islamic State but especially due to the battles in eastern Ukraine, the question of using heavy equipment in conflicts became actual again. What are the lessons the Czech army should take from the conflict?
.......
We, as a former member of the Warsaw Pact still equipped with a large number of Soviet armor should be interested in how well did the Soviet vehicles in Ukrainian and in Russian service do in battle.
.....

The Soviet armor concept was wrong from the very beginning. Unlike their western counterparts, the Soviet designers never really cared about the human factor. Especially the armor displays such flaws that they are impossible not to notice. All the previous battles between “western” and “eastern” equipment ended with a dramatic loss of the “eastern” one. Both Gulf wars have shown the essential differences in weapon system quality and the conflict in Chechnya only confirmed all doubts. Both losses of Saddam Hussein could be excused by him being outgunned and outnumbered and by his troops having poor training. The same could be said about Chechnya, where improper use of tanks led to high losses.
The conflict in Ukraine however is a clash of roughly the same styles of warfare, of the same level of armament and generally without the involvement of aircraft. You can have a look at the pictures from eastern Ukraine. The tanks are not only knocked out, they are totally destroyed with turrets flying off by the ammo explosions and most of the tanks are burned to a crisp. Both sides are using the T-64 and T-72 tanks – not the same vehicles, but they are in concept roughly similar.
The Soviet armor concept is built around small dimensions and low silhouettes. Combined with the relatively high quality of armor as well as sharp armor plate angles, when these vehicles were introduced, they were considered highly effective. The development roots however reach back to the 50’s with the development continuing in 60’s and 70’s.
This Soviet concept required many solutions that were far from optimal. Especially the inside of the vehicles is so cramped that the crew often does not have enough space to perform their functions. This increases the crew fatigue especially during longer operations, leading to tiredness and mistakes. The worst issue however is the fact that the crew was limited to three members by replacing the loader with an automatic loading system.
The T-64 and T-72 are somewhat different but in both cases the important part is that the crew is “sitting” on the autoloader carousel. Apart from that, the “ready” ammunition is located all around the crew space. Despite introducing various measures, the Russian designers did not manage to ensure the same crew safety as the western vehicles have. The Abrams, Leclerc, Leopard 2 and Challenger tanks are bigger and heavier, they however managed to defeat the T-72 tanks always with minimal losses.
Whenever a T-72 is hit, the armor penetration in many cases leads to the ammunition either exploding outright or starting to burn and the fire always destroys the tank completely. From what we can see in eastern Ukraine, the fire retardant development is clears insufficient. If the crew doesn't get to bail out, it is sentenced to painful death.
The very same issues happen to the BMP series where the attempts to reduce the silhouette and the weight in order to make them amphibious led to many compromises and today we can see the flaws of this design.
.....

Recommendation:
Based on what was said above, we should get rid of the Soviet vehicles and to finally purchase modern weapons from the western and Czech production.

102 comments:

  1. I'm still waiting to see a western medium which can engage a hightier russian medium at close range and not get its ass kicked by losing out in DPM, armour and penetration (lol HEAT).

    It sure as hell won't be the chieftain because hey, that's not gonna be a med.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Moderne warfare is about sporting such mediums at 5+ km and killing it. Such vehicles will only be able to operate in confined areas ikke forrests. And in there you are likely to mest infantry at very close range...

      Delete
    2. Thomas, that's neither here nor there. I understand exactly what Hotwired is saying. Its just a little suspicious that the high tier Russian mediums in WoT kick the crap out of the NATO nation high tier mediums. Especially seeing as tanks like the M48 Patton and the Centurion consistently out-performed their Russian equivalents (T-54 and T-55) in actual combat. True, much of that was due to lack of crew training and experience in the Russian built tanks, but a large part was also due to the fact that western tanks were simply more comfortable and intuitive to operate, thereby giving those tanks a distinct advantage in actual combat, even if on paper the Russian tanks claimed to possess better stats.

      Delete
    3. Talk about random... The article has to do with real life. Wot is a game based on hit points...

      Delete
    4. I thought hot was talking about RL russisk mediums kicking ass - sorry...

      Delete
  2. ya kids no nothing what is going on here in Donbass :) just saying because im here and talking not being in the place is the best.GG politics :)

    ReplyDelete
  3. Why oh why do people label terrorists as 'islamist'. It has nothing to do with the religion and goes against it's most fundamental laws. And before someone says well they claim to be muslim let me remind you the klu kux klan and hitler claimed to be Christians. Yet no-one labels them according to thier religion.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Religion is the mother of all fuckups, just sayin'

      Delete
    2. The reason for this is rather simple. Hitler is not connected with christians and the fucking kkk doesnt mean ku klux khristians. However, IS means islamic state and their aim is infact "religiously" driven.

      Delete
    3. Most terrorists today seems to believe in an extreme version of Islam... Doesnt mean its a bad religion but Ghats why...

      Delete
    4. Not to start a religious fire war on this thread, but to be honest, Islam is more or less going through the same radicalization stage that Christianity went through almost 1000 years ago. Unfortunately the world is a much smaller place now than it was during the crusades, and its a lot easier for a smaller number of fanatics to cause more harm today than it was then. I'm not saying either Christianity OR Islam is a bad religion. Both are inherently peaceful, if one truly looks at the messages taught by their creeds. Unfortunately human beings have a habit of using just about any excuse they can find to justify atrocities, and religion is one of the most common. Djek, that doesn't mean religion is inherently bad either. It is also unfortunate that it seems to be a common pattern in the growth and development of almost all religions that they go through a violent expansion period. But usually they calm down and iron out their extreme views and radical elements. Either that or they eventually die out. Just seems to be the way these things go.

      Delete
    5. Try story bro..... so sad....

      Delete
    6. Because people are dicks and use ANY excuse to their cruel actions.

      Though, to be honest i think all religions must be eradicated for many reasons.

      Delete
  4. "Czech NATO magazine",stopped reading after that

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lol, what youre trying to say m8?

      Delete
    2. nothing bro,everything is biased

      Delete
    3. Rasmussen was a joke.

      Delete
  5. Stick to non politics. This is thus far the most stupid thing posted on this blog.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Will also have to agree.
      (Focusing only on the "tank" part) It would of been more acceptable if he actual analysed his position with detailed facts, rather than stating an abstract idea of "soviet era tanks get destroyed in conflicts, lets buy western ones which don't".

      Delete
    2. Actually this report is very relevant to tanks. No matter hos you think it is politics this man brings forward one of the most important aspect of moderne warfare of today : The soldier, his comfort and his ability to survive. Modern solders cost a lot to train and armies invest Yeats of training in them. Hence it is important to give soldiers optimal working conditions and a better chance of keeping him alive to preserve his experience and knowledge. The russisk tanks have super silhouettes but in moderne warfare this has come to mean less than it did 20 years ago and less than the human aspect

      Delete
  6. Just waiting for Russian Stronk comments :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 7 minutes after this commentary... no so long to wait.

      Delete
  7. To be on topic I found it fascinating that in tank vs tank battle, the soviet equipment fares poorly after being hit. And these are top of the line soviet equipment, no "monkey tanks" in this fight.
    From what I read, they are so small that basically everything is on top of everything without any room for safety equipment.
    I guess the old soviet designers decided to prevent a hit and/or penetration and went for low profiles and small sizes, for an armored vehicle, rather than installing safety measures inside.
    IIRC, modern western MBTs were heavily influenced by the tank battles in the middle east. Crew survival was deemed to be essential since it is far easier to replace a tank than to replace an entire crew, specially when your army is not that large. Soviet tactics basically was to steamroll everything in front and to accept the high casualty rate.
    Another advantage of having a large tank is that you can easily put upgrades in the existing vehicles, like the Abrams improved DU armor plates, as opposed to have to design a new one. Like the Russians did with their new MBT.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "The Russian annexation of Crimean peninsula was unprecedented"

    Russia lost Crimea in 1991 and who said: "Hey, this is RUSSIAN territory since many hunderts years and this lost is unprecedented"?

    Crimea people are happy to be back in Russia. If NATO like to say that people should go in Ukrain again - well. But then don't cry about "ah, soviet occupation of Czech". If you like to dictade anybody, ready to be dictated.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry, OK, this is fucking politics, please, let it out of this blog. I coming here to read news about WOT but not fucking NATO articles.

      Like to lost readers? Post things like this.

      Delete
    2. I'm sure she will be happy to lose readers like you :D

      Delete
    3. http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2015/03/20/one-year-after-russia-annexed-crimea-locals-prefer-moscow-to-kiev/

      Delete
    4. I'm sure Tatars are not so happy, also breaking international law and treaties... How stupid you are? I'm sure Putin brain washed you good.

      Delete
    5. Writer can't be happy to loose readers, it is not writer otherwise :)

      I have site about life in Germany for russian-speakers with 3500 unique visits per day, i know it :)

      Delete
    6. ''Tatars are not happy?''
      BAM!
      You're in the propaganda trap! --> no real prove for this
      ---
      Of course some tatars aren't happy.
      But the majority of them not being happy?
      That's BS spreaded by western propaganda medias.
      ---
      Mature people should realise that there's propaganda on BOTH sides.
      I consider myself as a western person, but I must admit that in the Ukraine case I can understand Putin's decisions from the strategical & political point of view.

      Delete
    7. "I'm sure Tatars are not so happy" did your ask any of? Where you got this opinion? Which brains were washed there? :)

      Delete
    8. Can you tell me how exactly Russia lost Crimea in 1991?

      Delete
    9. Crimea was given to the Soviet Ukraine Republic by Chrustschow.
      (In fact this decision was illegal, because nobody asked the people, but it had no impact, because the Soviets thought that Ukraine would always be part of the Soviet Union)
      Before, Crimea was russian for Centuries.

      Delete
    10. [A]From articles form polish newspapers.
      By your logic Polish towns close to german-polish border that are mostly inhibited by germans and would be probably happy to belong to German should be annexed by Germany?

      Delete
    11. "No real prove for this".

      I guess accounts of Tatars themselves isn't prove enough. Stronk Homo Sovieticus mindset.

      Delete
    12. "Before, Crimea was russian for Centuries".

      And before that Crimea belonged to other countries for many more centuries. E.g. name Kherson is of Greek origin. Because Crimea was once Greek colony.

      And since you're so so fascinated by territores "belonging to somebody for centuries"... When Russia intends to return Koenigsberg to it's rightfull owners?

      Delete
    13. "Can you tell me how exactly Russia lost Crimea in 1991?" - Kravchuk, Eltsin and Shushkevich were drinking vodka in Belovezhskaya Pustcha and decided that USSR does not exists any more.

      "From articles form polish newspapers." - find any Crimea people on facebook and ask there opinion.

      "By your logic Polish towns close to german-polish border that are mostly inhibited by germans and would be probably happy to belong to German should be annexed by Germany?" - My logic? No, it is Kosowo logic. Exactly how it happens with serbian part of country.

      Crimea is russian, inhibited by russians and people are happy to be russian. If somebody like to say them that they should be ukrainian - you are welcome. They will explane back. Then don't cry. Russian have great expirience to explane west who is who.

      Delete
    14. @origami
      Are you kidding?
      Your logic is obviously fucked up.
      ''accounts of Tatars''
      How many tatars? 10? 100? 100? 1000?
      Still not enough! Majority decides.
      I mean if I follow your logic I could easily find 10.000 people in the USA who want to join Mexico.
      Does that mean that the entire US population wants to become mexican?
      Hell, no!
      You're an easy prey.

      Delete
    15. Königsberg will be returned, when 26 millions of Soviet lifes will be returned, stupid troll.

      Delete
    16. Typical Russians...

      [random rambling about rightful ownership of lan taken away]
      "But what about That very thing you are doing that is contradicting your own words?"
      "BLARGOBLARGOBLARG RED ARMY ! WWII ! SOVIET LIBERATION ! BLARG!"

      Thank you Uncle Vlad for your internet propaganda ministry.


      PS: "I consider myself as a western person, but I must admit that in the Ukraine case I can understand Putin's decisions from the strategical & political point of view."
      Nickname : RedRussia.

      Yes, I'm sure you consider yourself a Western and unbiased person.
      Right.
      So, how many other paratroopers tragically got lost and ended up in Ukraine this month? Oh, or are they volunteers. Honestly, it's hard to keep track.

      Delete
    17. So...what about my nickname?
      You obviously don't have a sense of humour.
      ---
      Russian paratroopers in Ukraine?
      Captured every second week. 100% true!!!111
      Russian invasion?
      Every friday on Bild.de
      ---
      I mean...even if there would be russian special units helping the separatists I can't see any problem.
      Russia only reacts.
      12 new NATO members since 2004. Why?
      Coloured revolutions everywhere?
      US agressions in middle East.
      That's what I meant with I can understand Putin's decision to show the agressive USA that he doesn't longer agrees that they try to gain influence in Ex-Soviet Republics.
      NATO hasn't heard the russian warnings.
      Now they get the ''bill''.



      Delete
    18. Ah, shifting all the blame on USA.
      Another one off the checklist.

      Delete
    19. Someone sure wants to save the red flag in here... Why dont you all try to keep this tank related - none of you seems to write anything but onesided propaganda statements anyway?

      Delete
    20. All my statements on USA are facts.

      Delete
    21. Btw. Thomas... I'm reading medias from both sides and then building my opinion.
      I just can't support when people defend the USA and at the same moment criticize Russia.

      Delete
    22. Salute to you, r3drussia, tho your effort in arguing against these brainwashed westerners is futile.

      Btw, what's the number of invasions into Ukraine by now? 200 and rising?

      Delete
    23. The past actions of USA (which they were criticized for) are no excuse for the present actions of Russia.

      Really, Russia should stop being so tsundere.
      "I-It's not like I invaded Ukraine just b-because I wanted you to notice me, USA-senpai, b-baka~"

      Delete
    24. You claim that the USA have been criticized.
      Sure they have been, but...
      Tell me one thing... where are the sanctions against USA?

      Delete
    25. R3d - I could not care less about USA, but you have to stop you nonsense... Even if you read stuff from around the world you are really bad at being objective. Im not saying other nations are flawless, but your comments are completely out of line for a game blog and the stuff you say only makes sende if you believe mother russia have a right to do what they want.
      If those people want to be russian why dont they move to russia instead of trying to kill everyone who doesnt agree with them and why does russia think it is okay to invade another country with force?
      Just start your own russian biased blog and let the rest of us talk about games and machines - because nobody will ever get concensus about the otter subject and you seem to be the loudest minority here...

      Delete
    26. To R3drussia:
      My nation lost almost 15% of it's population to Soviet regime (mostly civilian population and mostly due to political repressions) in 1939-1945 alone. Grow up before calling others "stupid troll".

      Delete
    27. @Nielsen
      In how far am I ''not objective''?
      Is this just another statement without any prove?
      @Origami
      I'm sorry for those people and their families.
      The Soviet regime under Stalin was a dictature but why do you blame Russia for the mistakes of the Soviet regimes?
      Russia accepted your countries integrity in the 90s.
      You shouldn't be so hateful towards Russia, only because your media talks about the EVIL Putin.
      Russia will never ever attack Baltic countries, don't worry :)
      You may disagree with the russian point of view but you should realise that they aren't ''mad'' there. They feel threatened by the Anti-Missile System (shield?:D) plans in Europe which would make their nuclear capacity inferior to the USA.
      They dont need this nuclear power to attack other countries, but if the russian nuclear missiles can be taken out, there is no nuclear equilibrium anymore.
      Btw. I am against all kinds of war. I just told that I can totally understand russian actions. They are LOGICAL. If you feel threatened, sometimes you show the other side the ''red line''.
      Does this make me biased?
      Don't think so.
      I'm a realist.

      Delete
    28. "Russia accepted your countries integrity in the 90s."

      Except for Crimea, it seems... ;)
      More contradictions please, Mister propaganda machine

      Delete
    29. "Russia will never ever attack Baltic countries, don't worry :)"
      Maybe stop making threats about such then...

      "They feel threatened by the Anti-Missile System (shield?:D) plans in Europe which would make their nuclear capacity inferior to the USA."
      Russia was invited to participate in that project. And the planned capabilities would be enough to stop how many missiles? 5, at most? When Russia has thousands?

      "They are LOGICAL."
      They would be, if there was a reason to feel threatened. There is not. The Cold War ended decades ago. Certain people should realize that.

      Delete
    30. @exocet
      I was referring to the case of Baltic countries.
      Last reply for you. I'm not Mr.Propaganda Machine, I have my own opinion and I express it. You only express a mainstream made opinion, without THINKING.
      @ Atomic
      Was Russia really invited? Can you prove it? (source) I'm not telling that your statement is wrong, I'm just wondering, because in an interview Putin stated that there was no real cooperation with Russia, although Russia wanted to cooperate.
      Btw. ''reason to feel threatened''
      The important question is not if there's a reason to be threatened.
      Example: A man is afraid of planes. You know that planes are very secure. The man's fear is wrong. Do you FORCE him to travel by plane?
      Hell, no!
      You give him an alternative. You let him travel by train or by ship.
      Lets assume there's no reason for Russia to be threatened.
      Still, you know what happened in the 90s. People lost the confidence.
      Therefore, IMO it's wrong to build this Anti-Missile Shield.
      If you say it can stop only 5 missiles. What's its sense?
      Iran conflict seems to be solved now.
      Instead we should over the riussians an alternative! This alternative is PARTICIPATION and INTEGRATION. This was not really offered (I mean REALLY!, seriously, without any hint) to Russia after the end of the Cold War.
      ''The Cold War ended''
      Ask John McCain! :) No, I joke.
      I agree. But I fear that Cold War 2 already started.

      Delete
    31. "(source)"
      With the help of Wikipedia I found this article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6570533.stm
      Quote: "US officials said a number of confidence-building proposals had been put to the Russians and that discussions would continue."
      It is very vague about the scope of cooperation, but it was offered.
      In return Putin threatened to use nuclear weapons. :)
      Also apparently there were supposed to be 10 missiles, though with the possible use of counter-measures and large number of available warheads it would completely insignificant if Russia decided to attack. So the fear is entirely unjustified.

      Delete
    32. Quote: "US officials said a number of confidence-building proposals had been put to the Russians and that discussions would continue."
      Well, this is indeed very vague...
      From your link:
      ''The Russian ambassador, Konstantin Totsky, said that if there was a common missile threat as the US says, then there should be a common security approach to meet it. ''
      Isn't that a sign of Russia being ready to cooperate on a honest basis?
      ''In return Putin threatened to use nuclear weapons.''
      There have been many things spreaded in the media, not everything is true.
      Again, could you give me the source?
      Are you 100% sure that the author of the article didn't made a wrong interpretation? Are you sure that the translation was right? Is the source trustful?

      Delete
  9. I'm going to ignore the off topic stuff above and just say "interesting read" :)

    Tbh, previous engagements like the gulf war not only saw poor training (and probably maintenance) on one side, but tanks designed in different eras pitted against eachother. No wonder the better armed, protected vehicle comes out on top. Interesting to see some observations on ex soviet armour and doctrine vs ex soviet armour and doctrine though.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Most exported T-72s are gimped compared to what the Soviets had. Plus, Iraqi T-72s are gimped version of Soviets T-72 and they were called 'Lion of Babylon'. Look it up. Plus, They firing Cheap Iraqi shells by an untrained crew who ran off from a shot being heard in the distance.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In this case in Ukraine vs. Russia, the tanks involved are not export versions but the ones that were in use by the red army.

      Delete
    2. I know. I'm not disagreeing.

      Delete
  11. A tip for the angry Russians on here:

    If you have to invade the country with the closest geopolitical ties to your own for the last century to keep them on your side, maybe you're doing something wrong. Just a thought.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wonder what the Mexicans and Canadians of the 19th century would say now... Or people from all other countries in which the USA intervened/made little landgrabs.

      Delete
    2. Continuously pointing at the past as an excuse to do bad things only gives people in the future an excuse to continue the same cycle.

      Delete
    3. The past forms the present and the future.

      Delete
    4. The message is _learn_ from it, don't repeat it.

      Delete
    5. No, the message is that you can't overthrow a governemt right on the borders of the 2nd biggest nuclear power, after expanding your own military alliance into the former allies of that power, to eventually get to the very borders of that nation. And indeed, Putin performed brilliantly. The Black Sea Fleet's home base is secured, 2 puppet republics on the western border, way better than pro-Nato Ukraine directly to the west and the Black Sea Fleet without a port.

      Delete
    6. You do realise that every time snippets of russian news casts manage to make it into the rest of the world people are going 'wtf' right? Apart from the interesting leapfrogging construction he's figured out using medvedev to skirt two term limits, the old soviet methods of intimidation and downright liquidation of dissenting voices have never ceased, and the picture painted on russian news and media as a result is quite different from everywhere else. Even the cult of personality is back, quite disconcerting.

      Delete
    7. That hasn't got much to do with what I was talking 'bout. But go on and change the topic. In that case I'd like to know how Yeltsins "super-presidential" constitutional powers were perfectly acceptable to the west, yet Putins presidential powers are a sign of dictatorship. So what if he stayed longer in power than what's usual? The events in Ukraine actually show that it was a good decision. Not being russian and talking about a cult of personality in Russia is retarded... Downright liquidation? Oh year, leading oppositionary Nemcov who wasn't even in the fecking parliament (the communists actually have 36% of the parliament and are the true oppositionaries, but the west doesn't give a fuck) got whacked. I wonder if it had something to do with the criminal ties he had left over from the criminal privatization of soviet factories etc.

      Delete
    8. Can't say Yeltsin provides much of a picture of a proper president tbh, not quite sure why you'd bring him up... That multiple parties use assassination in a country rife with firearms does not quite exclude the ruling one from doing the same.
      And Ukraine is exactly the reason I'm citing the divergence between local russian media and news reporting in the rest of the world. You have to admit that sending unmarked military personnel and equipment onto (at that point) foreign soil is extremely shady. If said claim was so rightful, why hide your intentions?

      Delete
  12. Plz get these retardo russians out of the blog, its getting a pain in the xxx to read, when that manny biased Putin brainwashed retards are alowed to write here.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You see, there is no absolute way to "detect" that kind of people especialy in the internet.

      Delete
  13. In the 2 Iraq conflicts in 1990 and a few years ago, the advantage the US and the allies had was engagement distance. (Desert storm and desert freedom) The US abrams tanks could engage the Russian built MBTs at 1500 meters. The Russian MBTs could engage at 1000 meters more or less. So the Russian vehicles could not even get a shot off. At night the better US and european night visions abiltities let them get the first shots off as well.

    As far as WOT goes, we are figting in a city using infantry tactics. That is not much like the modern tank engagements around the world. It is tons of fun, but their would be a lot of infantry causing all kinds of problems for the tanks in real life.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It was relatively well known in WWII and after that tanks fighting in any urban environment required heavy infantry support to operate safely and effectively. In modern military doctrine, it's similarly well known and trained (at least in Western nations; I am not as familiar with the training regimen of Russia and China) and the wide array of infantry based anti-tank weaponry is indicative of this for all nations.

      Delete
  14. Politics aside, I still think Crimea would be the best example to judge soviet armour capability if Ukraine is using NATO armours. While crew safety etc could be analyzed, but for overall effectiveness of armour we need comparasion with NATO tanks on similar condition.

    I hope we don't need to ever prove that, though.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I wouldn't put it outside of the realm of possibilities tbh. Several recent EU members formerly in the soviet/russian sphere of influence are very worried the courtesy will be extended to them.

      There's a term called 'brinkmanship', where one party keeps pushing another party back, and assumes the latter won't dare react for fear of nuclear retaliation. I get the impression this partially forms the basis of Putin's curious adventures.

      Delete
    2. Baltics are always first to be traded, and with the recent pro-Estonian language policy in Estonia and Russia being fuming mad at that and the removal of Soviet statues, Estonia is very very likely a next target for lost paratroopers. They aleady had a border incident where ussian specops crossed into Estonia and kidnapped an Estonian officer(intelligence of police, I forget).

      Either there or Moldova. They shell Moldovans with arty, pump a rogue nation ever fuller with military hadware and troops, and they will see Moldova as an easier test of brinkmanship. EU most likely will not budge and there will be a large Transnistria on Romania's border with a growing Russian army. A Romania that is filled to the brim with Russians that need saving of course.

      Delete
    3. Gives off a real north korean vibe, heh.

      Delete
  15. You have to understand guys like r3drussia and Babkin. If they are not paid trolls part of the media war ( which Kremlin is waging on pretty wide front) they are simply brain-washed. I know russian very well, and from time to time I switch to their tv channels - boy, you can't imagine the level and amount of absurd propaganda being poured 24/7 on the masses aka Goebbles style. Somtetimes I am about laugh as it is so absurd, but then when you think that people are dying and probably will keep dying (Ucraine, Georgia) etc. as a direct result of this, it's hard to laugh.

    You can't talk sence to these brain-washed muppets. Russsia never been a democracy in it's entire history and this have huge impact on the mentality of the ordinary Russians and their judgement of history, other nations most importantly their neighbors.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Avoiding the politics, nice article Rita, thanks. It doesn't matter if you agree with the author or not, it's all grist to the mill that is your own opinion.

      Delete
    2. Poor Whyme.
      You would be a PERFECT Fahrenheit 451 citizen.

      Delete
    3. Good commentary overall but one thing put a smile on my face -"Ucraine", lol. :]

      r3drussia, if you think that only you is rigt and everyone other is wrong with no exceptions (like "what if i am realy wrong?" types of self-questions) proves how wrong you are.

      Delete
  16. "All the previous battles between “western” and “eastern” equipment ended with a dramatic loss of the “eastern” one. Both Gulf wars have shown the essential differences in weapon system quality and the conflict in Chechnya only confirmed all doubts. Both losses of Saddam Hussein could be excused by him being outgunned and outnumbered and by his troops having poor training. The same could be said about Chechnya, where improper use of tanks led to high losses."

    True. Now add Western tanks being mostly in defensive positions (perfect for them), the T-XX series being monkey models and/or firing bad munitions and facing MORE MODERN TANKS!

    T-72 is not a Leopard 2 or Abrams equal. The T-90 is. Maybe T-80 too. Not the T-72.
    The T-54 and 55 are EVEN worse. They cant HOLD a candle to an Abrams.


    "The Abrams, Leclerc, Leopard 2 and Challenger tanks are bigger and heavier, they however managed to defeat the T-72 tanks always with minimal losses."

    I dont remember Leclerc or Leopard 2 entering battle... much less against T-72 tanks.

    Also, yes, they *ARE* superior to the T-72. They should be compared to the T-90 and the T-80!!!


    "Recommendation:
    Based on what was said above, we should get rid of the Soviet vehicles and to finally purchase modern weapons from the western and Czech production."

    Yes, you cant purchase modern T-90 tanks. Getting Type 99's might be problematic.
    So no OTHER choice but the Leopard 2, the Leclerc or Abrams remain. This is logical.
    And yes the steel fleet needs upgrades!

    However the basis was written by a person that knows little on tanks...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. T-80 and T-90 with all their modifications are just improved versions of T-72. They have more modern systems like Shtora etc. but suffer from the same deffects mentioned in the article. Autoloading systems and relatively small space for the operating crew inside.

      The simple true is that SU and Russia then simply did not have the money and resources to develope new generation of MBT for at least 3 decades so they just built over on what they had - 1960's developed T-72.

      Plus during the 1st Gulf war Abrams in its M1A1 modification was relatively comprable to T-72's, perhaps to some T-80's as well. It's pretty undoubted that it outclassed them.

      Now we can argue for ages which is better M1A2 (current modifaction of abrams and the future M1A3) Leopard 2A7, T90 etc. in 1 vs 1 situation. However as mentioned and explained in modern warare no matter what it is - the 1vs 1 or pure tanks vs tanks battles are becoming more and more rare and unlikely. Modern tanks have new challanges and new tasks and in these modern western tanks are more versatile, compared to the Russian based tanks which concept and doctrine (based exactly on the tank vs tank thing) is somewhat outdated. Thesis in which I agree with the author in general.

      Delete

    2. That is the way Soviet designs are made.
      Western powers make a tank. They upgrade it a bit. And then they make a new one.
      Good, logical, effective.

      Soviets constantly analize current and even older designs to see what can be reused or had proven itself. Incorporating it in new designs.
      Again, logical, effective, good.

      The T-80 and T-90 are all more advanced then the T-72. In almost all areas. They can even penetrate the front of all modern Western tanks at sighting range. And can actually survive a shot. Something the T-72 CANT do.

      The M1A1 was superior to the monkey model T-72... not comparable.

      The best current tank is the Leopard. The worst is the Abrams :P. The T-90 is somewhere in the middle.

      Also as for the new threats... the T-90SM was made to counter many of these new threats. Some, a lot better then most western designs.

      Delete
    3. "The T-80 and T-90 are all more advanced then the T-72. In almost all areas. They can even penetrate the front of all modern Western tanks at sighting range. And can actually survive a shot. Something the T-72 CANT do."

      Man man you don't get it do you...Point is there's no tank vs tank shooting at sighting range. Russian concept in tank warfare as well as in military jets is simply outdated. There's no more tank vs tank or jet vs jet in dog fight concept on which Ruskis build their weapons for decades. It's the high tech weapons that resolve unorthodox combat situations - this is what matters. And Russia is falling behind in technology, because they can't even produce the computers for their tanks and jets without the know-how they get from the West.

      Delete
  17. Russia's actions in Ukraine and Crimea are predicated primarily on one reason, fear. Imagine what it would feel like to go in a generation from super power status to basically an overrated regional power. All the while your former enemy now "partner" has been using its influence and your past heavy handedness to convince former “ally” nations to join their pet alliance. You slowly start to see your once proud and mighty sphere of influence decrease to basically nothing while your former adversaries get rich in the process. What happens to old mother Russia of this continues? Will we have to endure this isolation until we have basically no say in the world? So what naturally happens? A huge fucking nationalist backlash and a powerful leader promising to restore the once powerful status of the mother country. See pre-war Germany for reference.

    Now this leader doesn't really care a whit about restoring lost power and glory. This leader is scared to death that the previous trend will continue and he will ultimately seen as to blame. In this case, him and his cronies are partially to blame as they have corruptly siphoned off billions of rubles in petro profits to pad their own pocket books. So the leader needs a distraction to unite the people and divert attention away from his own misdeeds. Boom, Crimea. Boom, Ukraine. Boom, continued support for Bashir Assad. Boom, threaten Europe's energy supply (This by the way is Europe's fault, if you diversify your energy sources Russia would not have this leverage.).

    What Russia is doing right now is trying to react to the fear and reality that they will never be as powerful as they once were and they ultimately lost the struggle. The west is to blame for driving this fear home to the Russian people. At the end of the Cold War we collectively had a chance to change this dynamic. We had a chance to really and truly work together, but that chance was squandered by western triumphalism. The west acted exactly the same at the end of the Cold War toward Russia as they did at the end of WWI with Germany. So we have now entered another cycle of fear and mistrust that will ultimately get society nowhere instead of tackling problems that actually matter. Climate change, antibiotic resistance, explosive population growth, income inequality, etc. These are the things that matter. Not who conquered whom hundreds of years ago to claim the right to a land that we should all share anyway. We need to fucking grow up and get over this petty bullshit because believe it or not time is running out. We have a smaller and smaller margin for error as we continue to fuck shit up.

    Now lets ignore all of this and play some god damn pixel tanks.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Boom, threaten Europe's energy supply (This by the way is Europe's fault, if you diversify your energy sources Russia would not have this leverage.)."

      Too true. And this is the exact reason where I live in Europe newly built homes are either completely electric, or only use some gas for heating water. Guidelines mandate you use electricity wherever possible, ie everywhere. I am in this building not allowed to cook on gas, heat on gas, shower using gas, even if I had a gasline. Many other countries are hooking up to the European powergrid to decrease dependence on Russian gas. Our powergrid is connected to Germany and Norway to be as efficiently and cheap as possible.

      Support for Assad is justified imho, and the islamists are all equally bad, with the western tained ones running to ISIS and Nusra as soon as they leave. Assad is the best option. Take away the dictator and the people are sheep to be herded by sunni's(KUCH Saudis KUCH) that love some shariah around them.

      Remember the grey cardinal? I think while Surkov was gone there was another puppetmaster, and Putin and Medvedev not being as powerful as they appear to the outside. They are an oligarchy and he has to please certain people around him to keep the control he has, and I believe that is the reason for Georgia, Crimea and Ukraine.

      Delete
    2. No. Let humans vaporize themselves.

      Delete
  18. Look at the NATO pig saying democracy is horrible and bad, claiming Russia sends troop and armour to partisans in the eastern Ukraine who does not want to submit to NATO SPONSORED Nazi regime ruling with a bloody iron fist committing genocide.

    Yeah, who the fuck takes anything these Northern Atlantic Terrorist Organisation even says, only Nazis and imbeciles.

    By the way, UN sent people to monitor the Crimea referendum and said it was one of the most democratic thing they ever seen.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. " NATO SPONSORED Nazi regime ruling with a bloody iron fist committing genocide"
      [citation needed]

      "By the way, UN sent people to monitor the Crimea referendum and said it was one of the most democratic thing they ever seen. "
      One Czech senator went there to monitor it. According to his own words he had no idea who invited him, who got him there or who paid for it. He then said everything was alright, somehow ignoring Russian soldiers everywhere.


      It saddens me to see how many Russians call the west nazis, not seeing that they became fascist themselves.

      Delete
    2. Atomic_Emu,
      because default "see no evil" mindstate.

      Delete
  19. 1) Russia didn't break the Budapest Memorandum, because it was NOT ratified - therefore it was not legitimate according to the International law.
    2) We could consider the BM valid morally as long as all sides kept the word. Ukraine broke neutrality and this treaty in 2005 by trying to get to NATO. We can consider the treaty broken since then.

    Politics aside - that general is retired for a reason. Unupgraded T-72 with inferior ammo from 1970s was no match for Abrams in both Iraq wars. They over ran them because T-72s didn't have modern ammo fro their guns - they were simply unable to penetrate Abrams' armour. Without reactive armour and proper tactics it was one-sided fight. Would it be the same with the best reactive armour available and the best ammo? I doubt that - see the horrific losses of Russian tanks in the first Chechenyan and in the second one. The difference of WP and NATO doctrine was quantity vs. quality. Therefore the design. The Iraq army did not have quantity or quality, even ammo capable of penetrating armour. Therefore, both Iraq wars have very little to say anything about T72s. There is no doubt that Abrams are more advanced and resilient.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 1) That's not how it works...
      2) I'm pretty sure said treaty in no way forbids Ukraine from joining NATO.

      Delete
    2. Atomic_Emu,
      1) Yeah, it's just doesn't work.
      When all hell breaks loose no one will ever keep their "responsibilities", that's how it works. Useless piece of paper.

      Delete
  20. 1) Russia didn't break the Budapest Memorandum, because it was NOT ratified - therefore it was not legitimate according to the International law.
    2) We could consider the BM valid morally as long as all sides kept the word. Ukraine broke neutrality and this treaty in 2005 by trying to get to NATO. We can consider the treaty broken since then.

    Yeah - where did you heard this on Russian tv?

    This is such an ignorant and utter b***shit. Don't go into matters you don't understand. First of all it wasn't International Treaty so it wasn't subject of ratification by any of the countries which signed it. Memorandum simply reffers to the Helsinki Final Act WHICH IS SIGNED AND RATIFIED BY USSR aka RUSSIA as legal successor in all ussr international treaties. In the Memorandum itself it is clearly stated that in is applicable upon signing by each party. They all signed it - end of story. Russia made a clear and valid unelatreal undertaking of the obligation to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine as an independent state in correspondance with the Helsinki Act.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WllAi76BMio

    ReplyDelete
  21. For the love of god, stop making fools out of you.

    Putin and the current Russian doctrine are a farce, anyone arguing for it is a fool.
    Russia under Putin has become a subversive, homophobic, clerical, fascist country, with no free press, no real opposition and I am ashamed that at some point I'll have to explain to my Russian son why.

    You can try to rewrite your own history as much as you want, we're not blind.

    ReplyDelete