Krasnoarmeyets

Apologies for bringing it up again, but are You still intending to do the plain green version of the BRM-3K? As it currently is, it is the only vehicle standing out from the rest either by using old camouflage, or by being extraordinarily clean. Thank You.

2K22 'Tunguska' was intended as a replacement for ZSU-23-4 'Shilka' SPAAG, with the primary weapon feature being the more powerful 30mm cannons over the older 23mm ones. The SAM engagement capability is secondary to the vehicle's concept. 2K22 were intended to be used together with 9K35 'Strela-10' (a dedicated SP SAM system) in the regimental / brigade anti-air missile-artillery squadrons, and they still are. A replacement for 9K35 is in development ('Sosna'), but in the meantime it remains in service and will recieve an upgrade (which will bring it to 'Strela-10M4' version).

4GTD is armed with T-80U, UK and UE-1. All Russian UD were phased out of active service in 90's and early 00's due to unavailability of 6TD line engines. There is a number of them (perhaps a few hundred) stored at central vehicle reserve bases, with some being used as turret donors to produce the UE-1 version.

And before this topic irrevocably slides into yet another pointless arguing, here are some more running vintage vehicles (including T-20, T-27, T-37, T-26, BT-5, BT-7, T-28, T-60, T-70, T-34, T-34-85, SU-76, SU-100, ISU-152, etc.), at 22:00:

Okay, bringing things completely off-topic now. It was the Type-96G/A that participated in the biathlon. One curious bit of insider information is that apparently Chinese were allowed to use APFSDS munitions during firing challenges, while everybody else had to use HEAT practice rounds.

Interesting - nice to see so many different vehicles in running condition. Do they belong to reconstructors, or are they borrowed from some museum?

Yes, it is somewhat hard for it to stand out when it is just one brief thing among many during a more than hour long event. Besides, we spoilt it for ourselves by hunting for every little glimpse of it during the previous months. But here is a bit shorter and more dramatic version for you, set to some classical music : Duly noted, veering off topic now. The other two most notable parades this year are probably those that happened in Donetsk and Lugansk Peoples' Republics. Not bad for the first time ever:

I just noted that because cmrd BTR likely meant the chief parade on the Red Square (which the topic is devoted to) when he said "no hiccups".

This is not Moscow, but the city of Chita that lies over 4500 km to the east of it in Siberia.

Here is a recording (the vehicles parade starts at 56:30): I am slightly displeased with organisers - very little coverage of "Armata"-HIFV and almost no "Boomerang" (Air Force could easily have waited another 5 seconds). The most prominent AFV (in directors / operators eyes) seemed to be... T-90A. Also, looks like the footage from the vehicles POV is not transmitted live, but is a recording from the final practice run, and the one from "Pantsyr" (at 1:07:28) really should not have been used... P.S.: But the beautiful roar of T-34-85's and SU-100's makes up for all of that. P.P.S.: Всех с 70-й годовщиной Великой Победы! And congratulations with the 70th anniversary of Victory over fascism to everyone!

From our side it looks like it is the West (or, more specifically, the ruling elites of the United States and the governments under their influence) that is being deliberately adversarial, unconditionally demanding and hypocritical. It likes to crusade all around the world under pretense of dispensing justice and protecting the oppressed when it suits its interests, but screams bloody murder when Russia tries to protect its own people and their brothers at its borders from oppression by tyrants that are useful to the West, or does not see the sense in making yet another middle eastern country (which government has been inconvenient for the West) fall to religious extremist rebellion. Since becoming an "ally of the West" (read: United States puppet) would entail losing any real measure of national sovereignty and any prospect of doing what is best for your people, Russia is better served by sticking to the allies it has now. China is at least honest about its demands. All right, since this is likely to turn into an endless back-and-forth where neither side can convince the other, and therefore be a waste of time and energy, I will cease this tangential political discussion. Yes, we need a new Revolution to restore the power of the people...

But in order to avoid a sudden incapacitating strike against nuclear forces you need to cover them with an air and missile defense shield. And that shield itself has to be protected from being taken out by ground threats with ground forces. Not to mention that it is a very dangerous and unreliable arrangement when your only two options of dealing with rising crises on your borders is either ignore them or immediately start a nuclear war. Perhaps not. But currently the western countries are at the nadir of their military adventurism due to exhaustion from involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq. The situation may well be different ten or twenty years from now. The temptation to use the quick option of military force in order to achieve your political goals is always present, and grows stronger the weaker your opponent becomes. And the stakes (and therefore political goals and considerations) may get higher, since geopolitical turbulence might force Russia to involve itself ever closer to NATO sphere of influence, possibly having to use force (or threat of it) in Ukraine (if the Kiev government attacks Donbass again, or threatens Crimea), Moldova (if it puts Transnistria under blockade) or even NATOs fringe in Baltics (if radical nationalist forces come to power in Estonia or Latvia and start to harass the Russian population). Especially in the last case, it would take a lot of threat potential to convince NATO leaders that it is better not to engage the collective security protocols, but to put enough pressure on the nationalists to pacify them. Besides, NATO is not the only major potential threat. China is in a "friendly" phase now, but friendship is best when both sides are on relatively the same level. And Japan has been slowly but surely upgrading its military capabilities, and has standing claims on Russian territory. And the new platforms have many different complectation options with varying degrees of sophistication. That may not always be an option, and even if it is, you can probably get a much better deal when you have a credible threat of force as an alternative. "Talk softly and carry a big stick." Unfortunately, there is no resting in the marathon of geopolitics. Any ground lost can only be recovered by great effort and expense. You have to take care of your economy and military simultaneously. If you focus on just the economy, you will probably find out that you have fallen hopelessly behind in military capabilities and technologies twenty years from now. And Russian capabilities had suffered a decade of rapid contraction, followed by a decade of painfully slow restoration, so that now it has to run twice as fast. P.S.: Russia would very much like to be a part of the global community - as long as this community is not dominated by objectives and priorities of capitalist elites (the current Russian government is quite happy with these elites though).

But capabilities degrade and become obsolete, and you have to start introducing new ones today to have them available and ready tomorrow. You have to run to stay in your place.

Since the WW3-type scenario that ultimately leads to total obliteration of at least one participating side is now a rather remote prospect, Russian Armed Forces no longer have to be capable of winning a drawn-out total war against NATO, but to present credible threat of doing enough damage to make the option of initiating any kind of military action against Russia politically impossible for Western leaders, or highly impractical for the Chinese ones. Which is why, among other things, the conventional forces have to increase their capabilities to the maximum achievable technological level as long as the potential enemies to be deterred are doing the same. This is one side of the issue. On the other hand, actual possibility of participating in local and regional conflicts calls for steps to reduce political, psychological and socioeconomic costs of such involvement, which is answered, among many other things, by increased protection and survivability levels of the new generation of vehicles. Combined, these considerations make introduction of the new platforms a worthwhile effort, however long and arduous it will prove to be.

But maybe... they can suddenly land in Seattle using merchant cargo ships! And then airdrop in some T-80s on big red parachutes! And mechanized bears! But, seriously, even Alaska does not present any realistic military targets of strategic consequence (what good would disabling only a part of air/missile interception capability do in the long term?), nor is it a viable potential territorial possession (even if you manage to take it and hold it unopposed, what use would it be when inhabited by hostile foreign population?). Well, personally I would prefer a more accurate if lower-definition model to a prettier but inaccurate one.