T-90 tank documentary (2014 in Russian)

[Krasnoarmeyets]

Are their documentarys of similar quality focusing on modern russian infantry ?

"Mountain Soldiers": http://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLETCqLNCeor0v6fY-bqHPkuuRDgOaBVGT

A few days in the life of the recon battalion of the 34th independent motor rifle brigade (mountain), stationed in North Caucasus. Focuses on the training and competition of two recon groups, one composed mostly of "veterans" and one of "rookies". It has a bit of reality TV touch, so there are some "human interest" moments (especially in the first episode), and English dubbing is quite cheesy and not always accurate, but still might be insightful.

Edited March 15, 2015 by Krasnoarmeyets

[John Kettler]

Stagler,

 

Thanks much for that link. Very glad to know there are more Polygon docs to be seen, despite my lack of Russian literacy. As you saw, I can learn a great many things working from imagery, context, mien, manner of speaking, body language and gestures. Naturally, being able to comprehend what's being said really helps.  Our host, for example, seems like a good guy, who probably is able to charm the ladies, and with whom I'd happily have a beer. He's not some arrogant twit, nor a walking collection of insecurities held together by free floating angst. Nor is he a martinet. He's someone who''s comfortable with himself and genuinely likes people and appreciates those soldiers, what they do, and after pulling bore, eating a great deal of dust and washing tanks, what they do. He should be grateful they didn't make him break track or work in the motor pool!

 

Krasnoarmeyets,

 

I just looked at your link. "A bit of reality TV touch" indeed. Twelve episodes of 20 minutes plus. Compared to the T-90 program I reported, "Mountain Brigade" is War and Peace! Nevertheless, I bookmarked it. those guys must be Spetsnaz, which automatically makes me interested. On a separate note, did you catch anything major in the T-90 doc most of us, who don't speak Russian, missed for want of language skill (or English subtitles, instead of Russian ones)?

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

Re: T-90 Article

 

It's actually pretty bad.  There's some howlers in there like comparing the M1's loading process to a bolt action, while the T-90 is a "semi-automatic" (if we're using small arms analogies, the M1 is a bolt action, and the T-90 is a bolt action with a machine that operates the bolt at near human speed), claiming the T-90's smaller size makes it more urban capable (it doesn't, the size/weight difference comes chiefly from the turret, which has only limited effects on the actual ability to fit in places, and both suffer about equally from gun tube length, while the Abrams has much better gun elevation factors).  It also praises the Russian focus on evolutionary designs vs revolutionary designs, while totally neglecting the M1 is pretty much exactly what he's extolling in the progression from M1 to M1A2 SEP v2.  It is pretty bad.

 

I could go on further if you would like however!

 

Addendum: M1 tanker time in service

 

Here's a loose estimate from time in service starting from graduation from basic by crew position:

 

Driver: 0-3 years*

Loader: 0-4 years*

Gunner: 3-9 years **

Commander: 7+ years +

 

*A lot depends on the unit.  Certain units consider the loader the entry position to tanking, while others prefer the driver to be most junior.  However both are good entry level positions on a tank, and most soldiers will serve as both before moving on to being a gunner.  Average rank is PV-2 through Specialist

** Nearly all gunners are Sergeants who've been both drivers and loaders.  Some units that are short on Sergeants will put more junior ranks in the gunner's spot if the soldier is especially good.  For instance my Company had several PFC/SPC gunners because they were that good, and the Army hates Korea and just opted not to send new Sergeants to us for a few months.  Some gunners will stay in position longer, especially if they're the sort of dude who is a good sergeant but who've done something to make them less likely to be promoted to Staff Sergeant.  

+ The two "wing" tanks are commanded by Staff Sergeants, frequently promoted from internal to the organization.  The Platoon Sergeant is usually an angry dinosaur of a man with something around 14-20 years of tanking under his belt, and he will be a positive terror if you do "tank thunderdome" like we used to do with MILES.  The Platoon leader frighteningly enough has something like 1-3 years in the Army, but usually will only be in the platoon for 12-24 months at most.  Generally his gunner is the most senior gunner in the platoon, and serves as sort of a co-tank commander, keeping the tank in good order and fighting it when the platoon leader needs to attend to the platoon.  Tank commander is much the same, although he may have prior experience from his platoon leader/XO time, or being a Cavtasitc dude like yours truly who has not been in a tank since officer's school.  

 

Regardless, the tank has a lot of experience contained within it, and troop quality is certainly something the US Army hopes to leverage into the future.

 

Addendum:

 

I do envy the sort of unrestricted training areas the Russians have though.  

[antaress73]

There's more to ground warfare than tank on tank combat .. It would even be not that common especially in european terrain

[Krasnoarmeyets]

those guys must be Spetsnaz, which automatically makes me interested.

Well, they try to keep in line with spetsnaz's "fighting spirit" and call each other that sometimes (usually in jest, though), but technically they are line recon, not special purpose.

On a separate note, did you catch anything major in the T-90 doc most of us, who don't speak Russian, missed for want of language skill (or English subtitles, instead of Russian ones)?

I remember watching it some time before, and recall that very little of what the presenter says is actually worth listening to - hearing regular civilians trying to describe military matters with civilian terms is quite cringeworthy. By the way, I am not sure if you noticed that this film is in three parts - here are second and third just in case:

Edited March 15, 2015 by Krasnoarmeyets

[Kieme(ITA)]

Tank-urban-capable

 

There are at least two words that should never come in the same phrase.

[Krasnoarmeyets]

But even in the dense urban environment (and some may say - especially in it) it is still preferable to have a lot of heavy armor support. So, that armor should better be ready for urban fighting. Or did you mean something else?

[John Kettler]

panzersaurkrautwerfer,

 

I don't get over there often, so skimmed it, likely while half asleep or otherwise not entire switched on. Frankly, I thought it remarkable to see a T-90 article on a US defense oriented blog. The guy's written some really good pieces in the past. Perhaps he got swept up in his enthusiasm. I suspect, too, he may've drawn some of his research from poorly translated Russian sources, including comments from T-90 crews who clearly don't understand that their impressive to watch autoloaders  can't fire faster than can a loader who knows his business in a tank where the whole kill chain is a few seconds.

 

Can't say I'm surprised by this, both because of the Russian mania for secrecy (at SALT negotiations, the lead Russian negotiator agitatedly called his American counter part aside and complained bitterly; seems the Americans were presenting info on Russian systems other members of the delegation weren't cleared for) and because the same mushroom treatment is done to the crews here. My brother says they were never warned of RADHAZ from DU even before it was fired. The level of threat info provided was terrifyingly inadequate and incomplete (briefed him myself privately having recently spent three days getting the lowdown on all the ground force threat stuff at a directly pertinent CLASSIFIED conference). The last time the Russians tried a revolutionary design, they got the T-64. The evolutionary way the Russians do, for example, aircraft design is kind of a cookbook approach. You get these approved tech and design things from various S&T institutes, from which you select what you want. Then, you may innovate and use a few new elements in your design. You might have three intake designs, four fuselage plans (the VGW Tu-22M BACKFIRE is designated that way because it's essentially a much bigger version of the fixed wing Tu-22 BLINDER) but with the innovative, high technological risk (despite GRU help) swing wing), a couple of engine choices, avionics options and such. Generally, innovation is geared toward answering a specific need their martial erector set doesn't yet have.

 

On the tank side, you have common smoothbore gun and caliber from the T-64 forward, except for, I believe, the T-90 and maybe the latest T-72BM3 which sport the improved gun. You have a bunch of common automotive and running gear, components, you have active IR, you have armoring schemes which outwardly look the same, yet can be radically changed by what gets put inside the cavity. Early T-55s had T-34/85 roadwheels! The T-80 had great chunks of gear taken from the T-64. And so it goes. The 2A46 series guns are essentially T-62 cannon scaled up. And though the Russians preened themselves on having the first smoothbore armed tank, understand that that idea was proven because it was first used in a much earlier smoothbore ATG. But where they killed us was on exploiting and running with Israel's Blazer ERA, captured in Lebanon, on rapidly developing and fielding an answer to the siliceous cored armor equipped tank we didn't build, the T95, only to learn 10 years after the Yom Kippur War that a PT-76 firing this obsolete (else it couldn't be exported) variety of HEAT could punch right through the front of the first Abrams. Things like this were why all the vanilla M1s were crash replaced with M1HAs before Schwartzkopf's "Hail Mary" ODS attack into Iraq. That was but one of the shocking things I learned at that conference.  They were way ahead of us in explosives, wave shapers for HEAT, DU (they had it in full service long before we had a "X" designated DU round out there at all). We also learned that they specifically designed their cannon fired (maybe others, don't recall) HEAT projectiles to exploit shell velocity to aid penetration. The US used to static detonate such weapons, resulting in the appalling discovery dynamic firing increased penetration by as much as 40%. They proliferated LGWs like you wouldn't believe, had rocket boosted BETAB runway busters long before Durandal was ever heard of. As of 1985, we discovered, for a frontal arc engagement, the 105 mm gun was useless, everything short of a (marginal) Hellfire or a Maverick was useless. You can draw the necessary weapon development trajectories from there. The SA-6 with its integral rocket ramjet nearly gave our people heart attacks when they saw it, for we had no such tech at all. As the saying goes, I'll be here all week. Bluntly put, we are in the catbird seat now because what we discovered in 1985 completely galvanized the US defense establishment to crash fix and implement longer term arrangements to get back on top and stay there. I absolutely shudder at the thought of war in 1985, because they had us beaten on both penetration power and protection. We knew this because we got out hands on their gear and did the tests. If we didn't have DU armored Abrams tanks and the large core diameter M829A4 to defeat ERA protection schemes which we were told could break long rod penetrators in addition to repelling HEAT attacks, the T-90 wouldn't be an object of derision here. Fortunately, the US did get well, has worked very hard not merely to maintain position but to widen the gap, and leveraged that with what the Russians couldn't do: mulitband sensors of staggering reach, sensitivity and resolution, precisely the tech Russia really couldn't build and what it could cost a fortune and was far inferior.

antaress73,

 

I totally get that, but the major weapon related CMBS discussion is how to counter the Abrams, particularly from the front. In that context, tank on tank is the topic du jour. It's that way because the already super tough Abrams now has ERA and may have APS. In a sense, the Russians are now facing what we were when we found in 1985 our HEAT couldn't get through their ERA.  Consequently, most of the Russian antitank weapons are out of the fight, making the gun engagement a must win. But because of Russian tank design, US sensor edge and the shattering power of the M829A4, the dice are loaded there, too. Right now, because of the way their ammo carousel is designed, the Russians can't use much more powerful cartridges which would likely help considerably. Yet another US advantage. Fully integrated FCS and stabilization, superb D/N and thermals for gunner and TC, better armor, better ammo, faster ROF, longer effective range and better crews = T-90 behind the Eight Ball. A lot.

 

Krasnoarmeyets,

 

Was unaware there was third part. Thanks. I've learned not to expect much from TV, doc,s even a Hughes newsletter in which a clearly visible Bradley was captioned a tank. Of all the places to screw that up! Bradley had Hughes Bushmaster cannon, Hughes FLIR and I forget what else. Oh yeah, the uber duber Santa Barbara Research Center invented and produced the instant fire suppression system on Abrams, M1 and probably others which so fast and effective it strangled an RPG explosion inside the tank almost the instant it began. 

 

Regards,

[Wiggum15]

"Mountain Soldiers": http://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLETCqLNCeor0v6fY-bqHPkuuRDgOaBVGT

A few days in the life of the recon battalion of the 34th independent motor rifle brigade (mountain), stationed in North Caucasus. Focuses on the training and competition of two recon groups, one composed mostly of "veterans" and one of "rookies". It has a bit of reality TV touch, so there are some "human interest" moments (especially in the first episode), and English dubbing is quite cheesy and not always accurate, but still might be insightful.

Thanks, even if it is a bit cheesy its a rare look inside a Russian infantry unit.

I like to watch this kind of stuff and compare it to my own daily routine in a light infantry unit.

But please tell me, what are those white scarfs for they seem to sew into their uniform ??

I saw that in the T90 video too...

Besides that, i though the russian army would be much more disciplined and they would get their ass kicked much harder for undisciplined behavior...

Some of the behavior shown is just unimaginable in a german infantry unit...

Edited March 15, 2015 by Wiggum15

[Wiggum15]

...also, they seem pretty ragtag (using 4 or five different uniforms in the same unit), nothing like the guys we saw in Crimea.

[VladimirTarasov]

Not going into argument on T-90 capabilities because I'll cut some slack, Its a few levels below F16.net claims. Wiggum15, I can tell you what Russian soldiers go through, And how a average german soldier who has seen training would not even think about having in his training. Beatings are normal just because you see a video made towards the public, And even for possible new recruits doesn't mean that's the real thing. 4 or 5 different uniforms in the same unit is bullcrap maybe 2 different uniforms in a company and that's a few troops and thats their choice not because there is a shortage. Guys that were in Crimea is what is becoming standard if not already. 

Copy and paste this onto youtube search box дисбат. If you would like to know more in depth detail about training of Russian infantry or Russian airborne troops (VDV) I'll more then gladly tell you. 

 

And furthermore I read that Russian tankists are less trained then their western counterparts, That is true for 1990s-2010. Now they even have tank simulation on computers for training of tank crews. Compare the T-90A to the M1A2 SEP not the T-90 from 1993 and old electronics. I'll even agree with you that the baseline T-90 lags behind the M1A2, Leopard 2A6 in many factors. But the T-90A which in 2005 started being bought in bulk with newer electronics, FCS ect, ect, One thing I'll agree is currently Russian tanks does not have a KE round such as the M829A3 or the DM63, although at or under 2KM it will be adequate, At ranges such as 2.7-3KM a M829A3 has to drop to atleast 730MM penetration as its penetration at 2KM is 780-800mm of armor, While BM-42M would be well below 650mm at that rage. But the T-90A is capable to fire the Invar-M ATGM or the Refleks-M, While the Refleks-M is 750mm the Invar-M is 850mm. Which if you ask me gives a huge advantage at range to the T-90A. And I do not want to start on the T-90AM which is even better then the T-90A. Although not in service it can be soon.

[Wiggum15]

@ VladimirTarasov

I know, thats why i was suprised how laid-back everything and everyone looks in these videos. How soldiers behave undisciplined and seem to get away with it...its all a bit strage because one would think RT will try to make the russian military look badass and hardcore...

Can someone please tell me, what are those white scarf things they seem to sew into their uniform collar ??

I saw that in the T90 video too...

Whats that for ?

[Krasnoarmeyets]

But please tell me, what are those white scarfs for they seem to sew into their uniform ??

That is a cloth undercollar, which is supposed to be changed periodically, so that the collar itself does not get grimy.

Besides that, i though the russian army would be much more disciplined and they would get their ass kicked much harder for undisciplined behavior...Some of the behavior shown is just unimaginable in a german infantry unit...

If you are referring to Lt. Tulskiy's unit ("rookies") - they are mostly fresh conscripts, who are yet to get a feel for army service (and you can see them quite often get chewed by their commander for incompetence, though he seems to be much more concerned for their combat performance rather than all looking and behaving neatly). Some older soldiers are contract servicemen, but probably also quite new, and some of them seemed to join just for a steady job and are not very eager to follow orders to the letter - these tend to sift out for rear and support duties positions eventually. As for Sr. Lt. Kotelnikov's unit - most of them have long term contracts and many years of service (and some are combat veterans), so they know each other very well and have adopted a less formalized attitude amongst themselves. The recon has always been allowed more liberties (compared to line infantry, especially in a "fighting" unit (being stationed close to action in North Caucasus)), as long as they got the job done. Still, the officers can drill them quite hard if they deem that beneficial.

...also, they seem pretty ragtag (using 4 or five different uniforms in the same unit), nothing like the guys we saw in Crimea.

That was filmed a couple of years ago, so they are probably right in the middle of transitioning from old VSR-98 (with leafy "Flora" pattern) and what looks like a variation of "Kamysh" and classic KLMK/KZM field overalls to new VKBO (with "digital" EMR pattern). Some officers and veteran soldiers also have nonstandard equipment (like "Gorka" overalls) which they likely bought themselves (perhaps they thought it worked better, or wanted spare sets of clothes for exercises and long missions) - again, recon liberties.

Edited March 15, 2015 by Krasnoarmeyets

[antaress73]

not all missile systems are out of the fight for the russians.. krysanthema, even without the possibility to engage abrams while completely out of LOS in the game, is very effective and would be even more in real life. THe Kornet and even AT-13 metis can punch through the side turret armor of an M1A2 Abrams even when protected by ERA (not the hull though, double ERA protection there). FIring at Abrams from elevated positions OR higher ground can hit the top turret and top hull which kills the tank (happened many times)  I've knocked out quite a few Abrams with the RPG-7VR too. Not to mention helicopter missiles, SMERCH delivered bomblets, Iskander delivered bomblets (tank park attacks). There also arent hordes of them to field in a war in  Ukraine ... current programs at upgrading to SEP V2 and SEP puts the #s at 1100 tanks. You wont deploy them all in Ukraine, America has other engagements and other adversaries may try to profit from the situation.

 

And right now, it doesnt sports ERA nor APS. How many systems could be available at short notice from the Israeli firm that build them ? 

 

ALso the russians could be fielding in great #s the RPG-28 (1000mm+ penetration behind ERA) and RPG-27s and they still have a lot of men of military age to throw at any potential adversaries (140 millions people is not a small country, despite declining demographics). When push come to shoves, don't underestimate the russian capability for sacrifice even in these modern times. A capable RPG behind every bush is not something to underestimate. And the Donbass people are really convinced now they would be genocided if beaten in war, so motivation for them would be high and they would be a formidable supplement to the Russian regular army.

Edited March 15, 2015 by antaress73

[Vanir Ausf B]

But the T-90A is capable to fire the Invar-M ATGM or the Refleks-M, While the Refleks-M is 750mm the Invar-M is 850mm. Which if you ask me gives a huge advantage at range to the T-90A.

Yes, but 850mm of CE penetration is less useful than 850mm of KE penetration.

[Childress]

Even if  you're small crew comfort is limited, which detracts from being able to conduct long duration operations (such as the US march to Baghdad in 2003).  

 

I recall reading that the T-90 series incorporated air conditioning, a Russian innovation late to the party. However these upgrades were mainly designated for high temperature theaters and the export market only. India found the add-on expensive and inadequate:

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htarm/20140317.aspx

 

I would also add crew training. Russian soldiers are conscripted for 1 year. U.S. army troops voluntarily enlist for a minimum of 4 years and often re-enlist for bonuses. 

 

 

A bit O/T: Russia's philosophy implies that conscription constitutes a net benefit toward socializing young males. The downside with draftees is that you sacrifice a selective force composed of highly motivated soldiers. Is the trade-off justified? The Roman legions became a professional army under Marius in the 1st century B.C. In the short term this worked magnificently. However over the centuries the army became a disruptive element giving rise to usurpers and ambitious generals. Caesar followed Sulla. Soldiering became a caste distinct from the citizenry. Is conscription a 'good thing'? Debate.

Edited March 15, 2015 by Childress

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

 

 

There's more to ground warfare than tank on tank combat .. It would even be not that common especially in european terrain 

 

Yep.  But as you'll note especially in my commentary I'm not discussing strictly tank vs tank, I'mk talking about tank A performance vs tank B performance overall.

 

 

 

Tank-urban-capable

 

Tanks are actually very useful in urban fights when used with great care, good tactics and good training however so often folks will make a Grozny of it.  Better examples for tanks doing urban well would be Aachen 1944, Hue 1968 and Fallujah 2003.

 

 

 

And furthermore I read that Russian tankists are less trained then their western counterparts, That is true for 1990s-2010. Now they even have tank simulation on computers for training of tank crews. Compare the T-90A to the M1A2 SEP not the T-90 from 1993 and old electronics. I'll even agree with you that the baseline T-90 lags behind the M1A2, Leopard 2A6 in many factors. But the T-90A which in 2005 started being bought in bulk with newer electronics, FCS ect, ect, One thing I'll agree is currently Russian tanks does not have a KE round such as the M829A3 or the DM63, although at or under 2KM it will be adequate, At ranges such as 2.7-3KM a M829A3 has to drop to atleast 730MM penetration as its penetration at 2KM is 780-800mm of armor, While BM-42M would be well below 650mm at that rage. But the T-90A is capable to fire the Invar-M ATGM or the Refleks-M, While the Refleks-M is 750mm the Invar-M is 850mm. Which if you ask me gives a huge advantage at range to the T-90A. And I do not want to start on the T-90AM which is even better then the T-90A. Although not in service it can be soon.

 

1. The US Army uses tank simulators on computers as something like a last resort after the simulators (CCTT for tank operation and MAGTS for gunnery mostly).  It's a good training tool, but it is a bit like claiming using the same exercise equipment as a major sports team.  It gets you in better shape, but you still have not closed the gap between what you are capable of vs something who's on a whole different tier of experience and training.

 

2. All my statements were in reference to the T-90A.  There's spots were the tank has been improved, but in terms of firepower, armor, optics, crew ergonomics it is still quite far behind current generation Western MBTs.

 

3. Invar-M basically can penetrate in the same place the Refleks can, and it's defeated by the same armor arrays that kept the Refleks out.  It is better, but not in a way that suddenly changes the name of the game.   

 

4. T-90AM.  Doubtful honestly.  There's still a finite amount of resources the Russians have, and doing a T-90AM overhaul+Armata+T-72B3 etc etc is really stretching what any country could reasonably do.  If a war broke out in 2017, and we weren't looking at the first Russian Army T-90AMs rolling out of the factory in a few days, it'd be pretty doubtful we'd see more than a handful.  

 

 

 

 

I recall reading that the T-90 series incorporated air conditioning, a Russian innovation late to the party. However these upgrades were mainly designated for high temperature theaters and the export market only. India found the add-on expensive and inadequate:

 

ACs are neat.  The M1 finally got an AC as standard circa 2000's as the TMS (Thermal Management System) but that's more to keep the computers happy than the crew.  I was talking more about the size of the crew's space and crew workload.  Russian tanks are really something you endure vs ride in and that places a burden on the crew and their ability to keep conducting operations over the course of hours.

 

Also if you work the crewload right you can conduct crew rest and keep moving on an Abrams.

 

Re: Conscription

 

There's certainly a social arguement for conscription, but if you are looking for which one makes the better tank crewman, an all volunteer force is likely the best choice.  

[Splinty]

There's more to ground warfare than tank on tank combat .. It would even be not that common especially in european terrain

Every thing Panzerkrautwerfer said about American armor crew levels of training and experience can be applied to the infantry, combat aviation, and artillery as well.

[db_zero]

I disagree with the contention that tanks and other armored vechicles are useless in built up areas. As mentioned how well you use them is the key. I've found them very useful in all of the previous CM titles and likewise discovered that any mistakes on my part resulted in distaster for the unlucky crews. In the end it was me that was the problem-not the armor, you need infantry support or use the armor as mobile artillery in standoff range at least in the WW2 battles. Liberal targeting of areas you suspect the enemy would place AT guns is also useful. Mortars in direct fire mode, smoke and indirect fire in support of the armor is very useful and you really want to focus on a sector and move on from there.

 

I haven't played BS enough to form any opinion-and I've yet to play BS h2h, but from what I've seen so far you do not want to be facing armor while defending in a built up area with no effective counter to the armor as it will not take long for the armor to target and reduce any opposition with their weapon systems. With the increased range of infantry anti-armor weapons in Black Sea I'm going to have to make some big modifications from WW2 practice, but the speed and lethality of the weapon systems on armored fighting vechicles is just too useful to blow off in an urban fight.

 

If we had rubble and the effect of rubble and other obsticles being created from shooting up buildings or shelling of built up areas that could create obsticles to vechicle movement, then we would have a very interesting situation. The equations would change, but the game engine isn't there yet.

[Nidan1]

 

 

 

A bit O/T: Russia's philosophy implies that conscription constitutes a net benefit toward socializing young males. The downside with draftees is that you sacrifice a selective force composed of highly motivated soldiers. Is the trade-off justified? The Roman legions became a professional army under Marius in the 1st century B.C. In the short term this worked magnificently. However over the centuries the army became a disruptive element giving rise to usurpers and ambitious generals. Caesar followed Sulla. Soldiering became a caste distinct from the citizenry. Is conscription a 'good thing'? Debate.

Staying O/T...this is an interesting observation and may require its own thread. Does a professional miltary lead to the danger of it becoming a dangerous entity involved in the politics of its parent nation? I remember growing up in the 50's& 60s, all young men had the spectre of the draft hanging over them, either serve your two years, go to college and avoid it for awhile, or get married right away and have kids. We all went through it so it was a shared male experience that tied society together in a way, no matter what part of the country you lived in. Also from the end of WW2 and the Korean War to Vietnam, most families in America had someone in the military, whether drafted or not, and could relate to the "Service" as something that was part of the American experience, for males anyway. Today the all volunteer force in America has proven itself to be competent and professional through many years of war in Iraq and Afghanistan, and other smaller conflicts like the Balkans and Somalia. What is lost IMO is the connection between the society at large and those we send into harms way to fight threats and project our view of how the world should be. (which can be debated as good or bad). Our system of government makes it a lot harder for military coups to happen as did in Roman times or in many other countries in the world. But as Americans continue to see our military as the only entity that functions with any competent consistency, would the people support a "Seven Days in May" type scenario in the future?

Edited March 15, 2015 by Nidan1

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

Tank operations in urban areas for dumbys:

 

1. Use your infantry to lead. They can better move through hard cover, and are good sensors (or their eyeballs and situational awareness is pretty good)

 

2. Clear on line, everytime.  When you move your infantry forward, try to keep infantry broadly in a line across the front.  This achieves two things:
  a. IRL, it's clearance of fires.  If I know the next squad over is literally 90 degrees to my right, I'm not trying to guess if the shadowy figures in the windows to my 1 o'clock are friendly or not.

  b. It keeps enemy AT assets from slipping through.  If you're advancing unevenly, or bypassing buildings, there's a chance the last remaining conscript with -2 leadership with an RPG-7 is going to smoke your Abrams with a rear shot.  By clearing on-line you ensure that behind your troops there's nothing but ruins and bodies

 

3. Hold your armor  back, and identify armor-friendly avenues of approach.  This prevents the enemy from trying to mass AT assets because he knows broadly where your tanks are, but you should know how to get your tanks to the front as fast as possible.  This pairs well with the clearing on-line because it ensures that all these avenues of approach are clear of hostiles, so fast moving your tank is a no-threat exercise.

   a. Alternately, do not hold it back, but keep it just behind your infantry as an overwatch piece.  Infantry clears to the next intersection, then tank moves up to said intersection and holds there until the infantry gets to the next intersection up.  Repeat until in Moscow.

 

4.  When your infantry identifies something worth tanking to pieces, then bring the tank forward to start using direct fires.  Often the best technique is use the infantry to suppress the target while using a "target" command on the enemy position (assuming it's a building) to bring it down on the OPFOR's head.  Then keep the tank in overwatch while infantry moves in.

 

 

Some things just to remember:

 

1. No one likes it when a building falls on them.  Don't be afraid to flatten a few buildings you can see tracer fire from, or even knock a building down to give your tank a new LOS (this is historically pretty common, in Aachen US engineers would blow up buildings, or otherwise knock down walls to open new firing angles for tanks)

2. There's no infantry carried AT systems in CMBS that reliably can kill most tanks from the front.  Javelin is the only one that could but it is not so hot from close ranges.  As long as you clear, and secure the flanks your tank will be king of murder mountain.

3. All of these tactics also apply well to IFVs, just be mindful the IFV is still likely to respond poorly to the AT4/RPG type threats from the frontal arc.  Conversely autocannon fire is murderously effective against infantry.  

4. Tanks are great spotters for artillery given their robust coms, and unlike an infantry type spotter, he's not going to get suppressed by small arms fire from the target.  Suppressing with the tank's MG's, then doing a full battery precision strike on the enemy who's pinned down in the target building is often very effective (I'm not sure I really need all six shells hitting, but I find it tends to ensure building destruction, and rarely leaves survivors).  

 

 

 

But as Americans continue to see our military as the only entity that functions with any competent consistency, would the people support a "Seven Days in May" type scenario in the future?

 

The American military has remained successfully fairly apolitical.  The only military coup type situation I could see is a civilian government that is either in flagrant violation of the Constitution (King Barack* the 1st kind of flagrant), or if called to do really bad mojo (King Barack* decrees the state of West Virginia will be decimated for its insolence!).  The military has remained rather loyal regardless of who's in charge (with the Bush and Obama years offering a good contrast between super-supportive, and not supportive of the military) and outside of some crazy stuff, will likely remain so. 

 

*This is no way an attempt at sniping at the current president.  If this was 2002 I'd be writing "King George W the 1st" or 1998, "King Bill." I don't really like the current president, but I recognize he's the legitimate leader of the country, and concede he's at least trying to do what's best for America in a legal and moral manner, I just differ with him on a lot of issues just what the "best" is.  Which gets further into the mindset, if he ordered me to go to Hati in my few remaining weeks on active duty, I would do so without question because it's my job to obey the orders of the commander and chief (within the confines of the Constitution) and he has the authority to do so.  I just don't think there's that feeling in the military of being a part of the government with a say in how the country is run, vs being a tool of the government to carry out policy set by the civilian administration within a legal framework.  

[Childress]

Staying O/T... 

 

We can stray off the reservation from time to time.

 

Our system of government makes it a lot harder for military coups to happen as did in Roman times or in many other countries in the world. 

 

 

The French Revolution inaugurated the national levee en masse in modern times. However the British acquired their 19th century empire with a largely volunteer army. The tendency toward universal conscription accelerated with WW1 and thereafter. With national conscripted armies you get mutinies but rarely revolutions. The conscript considers himself a citizen.

 

In the US you see a metastasizing of government on all levels. Unionized Police forces are acquiring heavy weapons. And the cops are now highly payed and endowed with lavish pensions. Are we seeing a caste in larval form? Presidents- not just the present one- haves arrogated to themselves unusual powers as the middle class shrinks. Elite sectors seek to disarm the rest of us.

 

After the 2nd century Roman citizens gradually lost the right to bear arms. A two tier judicial system (honestiores and humiliores- look them up) emerged that bore down on the middle class and below. Emperors competed to overpay (bribe) the legionaries.

 

So, yes, I see dangers.

 

Sorry for the controversy.

Edited March 15, 2015 by Childress

[db_zero]

Regarding the draft. It can be a double edged sword. The Viet-Nam experience and aftermath was not something the military or public in general wants to repeat. On the other hand some sort of univesal service would be useful, especially in light of how society and some of the institutions have evolved. I'm sure I'm going to offend some, but I simply can't agree with the way schools teach the everyone wins and everyone is special mentality. It also seems like it has raised a generation that some, perhaps too many - seem to feel entitled and feel they should be rewarded for just showing up. There is a reason why we have the most technology savy and educated generation, that is being passed over by many employers for foreign born nationals-they are just easier to manage.

 

We recently hired a few new people-after years of downsizing. Some were ex-military who served in recent conflicts. Given a preference I would hire more. They just seem to be more togther and actually show up on time and are overall easier to train and manage. Yes I know you have screw ups in the military that will not amount to anything once they get out, but you can often weed that out in the interviewing and hiring process. The fact they went through something that held you accountable, responsible for your actions and other intangible factors that seem to be lacking in many of todays youth, raised in such a permissive and non-accountable environment. That is someting very foreign to my generation. There are tons of articles about the new genearation and the issues they are causing in the workforce. if you are lucky enough to land a job with the new, hip social media companies that will cater the ways of the Millennial Generation, then more power to you-but I can assure that in time most will be out of business once they run out of other's people money to burn through.

 

Perhaps something long the lines of universal service, but 2 distinct forces-one a volunteer component with looser rules of deployment and usage and the conscripted component who would only be deployed to clearly defined areas of national interest. I would give the volunteer component higher pay and other perks to make it more attractive.

 

We should also just copy the British and raise a few Gurkha Batallions.

Edited March 15, 2015 by db_zero

[db_zero]

Regarding the current President. Foreign policy and military affairs simply does not interest him. Even those within his own party have spoke about his general sense of disengagement. Personally I believe deep down inside he grew up disliking the military. I say this because I grew up in Hawaii the same time Obama was growing up in Hawaii and back then there were basically 2 groups. Those of us who appreciated the military and those who hated the military. It was cool back then to hate the military and if you were not one of the cool people you got harrased-believe me I know....

 

How you were raised also has a big bearing on your later life as well as those who you associate with in your young adult life also has a bearing. That doesn't mean you can't change, but it is often a very strong undercurrent.

 

Now that he is unleashed and free to do as he pleases with no election to worry about about, we're now seeing the real person emerge and that make many of us very uncomfortable.

Edited March 15, 2015 by db_zero

[Vanir Ausf B]

Unionized Police forces are acquiring heavy weapons. And the cops are now highly payed and endowed with lavish pensions. Are we seeing a caste in larval form?

 

Not sure about pensions, but the median annual income for a police officer in the US is about 52 thousand a year. That's not bad but no one's getting rich off it.