Who's winning the tank war?

[Rinaldi]

7 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Does this suggest that the Russians are willing to export more capable versions 

 

Yes

7 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

something else at play?

 

The almighty dollar. Western MBTs are hard to maintain, require much more involved crew training at the first echelon to keep running and fight the tank well. They're also, let's be frank, designed around armies that have (in theory) the logistical capabilities to keep them in action: which our export clients do not possess on paper or in actuality. Finally: their threats aren't near-peer.

Last time we danced this dance, you were shocked to discover from the Dev team and other people with experience in Western MBTs (myself, Panzersauer, among others) at the low resolution of Russian MBT FLIR, the fact commander's optics are slaved to the gunner on the most numerous chassis, the fact that Western tanks have driver's night sights, 480-1080p FLIR, etc etc. So don't take this the wrong way: but let's not argue from a position of ignorance again on the technological (qualitative) and quantitative advantages we hold.

If you want to pose legitimate criticisms, you should attack the backwards-ass doctrine we're currently untangling ourselves from and the general atrophy of NATO member's armed forces - the Bundeswehr being the most demonstrative. We got the material, but the means remain a question mark.  

[Kozlice]

10 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Interesting that a couple of Abrams users (Iraq & Egypt) have placed orders for the T-90.....Does this suggest that the Russians are willing to export more capable versions of their MBTs than the US or is there something else at play?

Consider that my token effort to get this thread vaguely back on track. 

Something tells me that Iraq and Egypt were not considering ONLY capability of the tanks while placing the orders, already existing logistics and training facilities/capabilities might have been at play (esp. in Iraq). That is not to say that the particular T-90's are less capable the particular Abrams, I have no knowledge of that. 

[Sgt.Squarehead]

2 minutes ago, Rinaldi said:

If you want to pose legitimate criticisms,

Well at least we're talking about tanks again.....I've made it clear on several occasions that I claim no particular knowledge of modern AFVs (but I'm a fast learner and I'm good at finding things). 

[HerrTom]

45 minutes ago, Haiduk said:

I think, this will be interest for you in this topic. Except Russian forces, look, how much armored vehicles have "mined" DPR (1st Army Corps) and LPR (2nd Army Corps). In comparison with some Westernm armies.

My familiar, former Ukr army serviceman and one of LostArmor experts, has complited huge work - he identificated from photo and video of enemy resourses almost full number of armor in DNR and LNR srvice. With aid of LostArmor resourse, of course.  I've asked him make infographic in English for you and he did it. Click to enlarge. 

Thank you Haiduk, very informative!

I think a crucial point hit here was about semiconductors. Computers and high tech sensors are HUGE force multipliers. The cost difference between an M1 and T90 aren't enough to offset that advantage. In the 80s when smart weapons and thermal optics were starting to be fielded Soviet planners equated their power to nuclear weapons! The playing field may be a little more even technologically but I don't think it's quite enough.

[DerKommissar]

30 minutes ago, HerrTom said:

I think a crucial point hit here was about semiconductors. Computers and high tech sensors are HUGE force multipliers. The cost difference between an M1 and T90 aren't enough to offset that advantage. In the 80s when smart weapons and thermal optics were starting to be fielded Soviet planners equated their power to nuclear weapons!

There's a little thing we call Moore's Law. Which has stayed valid from its inception to right now. Semiconductors become smaller, cheaper and more power efficient fairly quickly, compared to AFVs. As such, the Soviets were wise in their assessment. Both the M1 and the T72 have went a long way from the 80s, in terms of electronics. Electronics will constantly get better, and older toys will become more obsolete faster than any cannon, armour package and drivetrain.

If I was buying a tank, I would expect to upgrade its electronics frequently over its life-span. What's high resolution now, will be low resolution in a matter of years. As such, spending too much money on cutting-edge systems is not price-efficient and potentially dangerous, if they have not been well tested. Early Russian attempts to integrated LCD displays and cameras into AFVs was a disaster, yet as their semiconductor industry improves -- more and more electronics are seen.

Edited March 16, 2018 by DerKommissar

[Machor]

Beyond semiconductors and electronic engineering, there are challenges of materials and industrial engineering, which, for Russia, may be difficult to overcome as they require industrial reorganization and long-term investment:

 

[BrotherSurplice]

2 hours ago, Kozlice said:

https://www.globalfirepower.com/armor-tanks-total.asp

Now, I know that only T-90's and Armatas were OP's subject, but in general, I wouldn't say that red hordes meme is dead; and, while surely liked by many on this board, I don't think your statement of US having a quantitative advantage over Russia is entirely accurate (even if you realistically half the number of Russian tanks in active service, as some other sources suggest). 

Did you really just use GFP as a source?

[DerKommissar]

45 minutes ago, Machor said:

Beyond semiconductors and electronic engineering, there are challenges of materials and industrial engineering, which, for Russia, may be difficult to overcome as they require industrial reorganization and long-term investment:

Aye, I absolutely agree. This being said, Russia has plenty of natural resources and had a world-class aero-space industry. Even if they may be limited from importing expensive manufacturing equipment due to sanctions, they certainly had the capability do develop their own. Their problem is bad management. Their entire system is built on short-term profits and no one is interested in long-term investment. But, that's getting a little bit too political.

Nice link, though. Those are surely some rather hot prototypes.

[Kozlice]

25 minutes ago, BrotherSurplice said:

Did you really just use GFP as a source?

I did suppose their figures are inaccurate, seeing how other sources seem to be placing it at 10k (suggested in the post). Do you have a source to disprove my point though? 

[IICptMillerII]

4 hours ago, Kozlice said:

https://www.globalfirepower.com/armor-tanks-total.asp

Now, I know that only T-90's and Armatas were OP's subject, but in general, I wouldn't say that red hordes meme is dead; and, while surely liked by many on this board, I don't think your statement of US having a quantitative advantage over Russia is entirely accurate (even if you realistically half the number of Russian tanks in active service, as some other sources suggest). 

Hot damn this is exceptional bait. Hats off to you sir. I nearly chomped down, hook and all!

Alas, I am already quite full from taking the OPs bait. Maybe next time 

[Machor]

1 hour ago, DerKommissar said:

Their problem is bad management. Their entire system is built on short-term profits and no one is interested in long-term investment. But, that's getting a little bit too political.

"When whole communities go to war - whole peoples, and especially civilized peoples - the reason always lies in some political situation, and the occasion is always due to some political object. War, therefore, is an act of policy. Were it a game of CM complete, untrammeled, absolute manifestation of violence (as the pure concept would require), war would of its own independent will usurp the place of policy the moment policy had brought it into being" - Clausewitz 

2 hours ago, DerKommissar said:

Nice link, though. Those are surely some rather hot prototypes.

That credit goes to @Oleksandr. If you read the part of the thread that starts several posts before Steve's post that I linked to, you'll find a most informative discussion of tank thermal sights, including what is probably the most that a US armor officer can disclose without violating OPSEC.

[Kozlice]

55 minutes ago, IICptMillerII said:

Hot damn this is exceptional bait. Hats off to you sir. I nearly chomped down, hook and all!

Alas, I am already quite full from taking the OPs bait. Maybe next time 

>Compare the only MBT in active service in US Army to one of the three MBT's in Russian Army

>"America has more tanks!"

>I'm the one baiting

Alright 

 

[IICptMillerII]

2 minutes ago, Kozlice said:

>Compare the only MBT in active service in US Army to one of the three MBT's in Russian Army

>"America has more tanks!"

>I'm the one baiting

Alright 

 

Uh-oh, your power levels are showing!

[sid_burn]

15 minutes ago, IICptMillerII said:

Uh-oh, your power levels are showing!

You can’t deny that you certainly do tend to be pretty negative when it comes to russia. You shouldn’t assume @Kozlice is baiting just because he’s trying to have a good faith discussion. 

[Kozlice]

I do admit I confused active and reserve numbers in my research. Seeing how the majority of male population in Russia are technically reservists, I still stand by my red hordes myth  

[IMHO]

10 hours ago, DerKommissar said:

Prior to the fall, the Soviet Army had T-80s, T-72s, T-64s, T-62s and T-55s in active service. Russia has T-90s, T-72s and T-80s in active service?

T-55/T-62 are still kept in store that's why I said it's the Soviet zoo plus Russian-built versions.

Here's MB2017:

• MBT 2,700: 1,100 T-72B/BA; 800 T-72B3; 450 T-80BV/U; 350 T-90/T-90A; (17,500 in store: 2,800 T-55; 2,500 T-62; 2,000 T-64A/B; 7,000 T-72/T-72A/B; 3,000 T-80B/BV/U; 200 T-90)

PS @Kozlice, and it explains the difference between @IICptMillerII evaluation and your numbers

PPS By the way the "storage facilities" present quite a sight. You drive by some obscure unpaved forest road then suddenly you find yourself at a huge forest clearing and you can see whole kilometers of tanks, neatly parked rows of them going one after another and taking up all the visible space up to the horizon.

Edited March 17, 2018 by IMHO

[Sgt.Squarehead]

18 hours ago, Michael Emrys said:

I had the impression that one of the conditions for building the Chunnel was that it was to be mined for demolition to address that very possibility.

I thought we'd finally come up with a crafty plan to get Calais back. 

Sadly disappointed when the first thing to emerge from it wasn't a Squadron of Challengers, guns'a'blazing! 

[Battlefront.com]

10 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Interesting that a couple of Abrams users (Iraq & Egypt) have placed orders for the T-90.....Does this suggest that the Russians are willing to export more capable versions of their MBTs than the US or is there something else at play?

Weapons purchases have almost always been about politics more than anything else because it's one of the few ways countries have some sort of leverage over the larger nations.  Anybody think countries are warm to strong relations with the current US administration?  Plus, the Soviet Union and Russia has always shown its willingness to sell anything to nearly anybody that can come up with cash or barter for their weapons.  The US is far more fickle in that it sometimes supplies arms without care (Saudi Arabia's war against Yemen) and sometimes it doesn't (military aide to Pakistan).

I also think it's probable that a subsidized arms purchase from Russia is cheaper to maintain over the long haul than a subsidized US purchase.  Couple that with the uncomfortable truth that the soldiers of most of these nations are horribly ineffective no matter what they armed with (Iraq is a prime example), why spend lavishly on a military equipment if they aren't willing to invest in the people that operate them?

Steve

 

[IMHO]

6 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

The US is far more fickle in that it sometimes supplies arms without care (Saudi Arabia's war against Yemen) and sometimes it doesn't (military aide to Pakistan)

Funny  In reality Pak aid storyline was like this:

1. Abbotaban raid that US side did not inform Paks beforehand as US was rightly concerned about OPSEC.
2. Paks see Abbotaban raid as a breach of its sovereignty so Pak Army discontinues training provided to tribe zone paramilitaries by American instructors, sends them home and curtails further visas to US personnel.
3. US gets angry as the training was a main/major source of recruits to US intelligence and a good place to keep track of what's going on in tribal zone in general. And the whole program of Predator targeted killings is in danger without HUMINT from tribal zone.

So there was no particular "care" that stopped the arms flow to Paks. US wanted HUMINT from tribal zone so it needed a safe place to recruit. Going to tribal zone directly is too dangerous for US personnel. Paks closed the flow of sources - US stopped supplying arms. No moral high-ground involved.

PS What I wrote here is quite checkable though respectable US press.

[Kinophile]

Interesting, the "named" units are little more than augmented platoons. 

I'm interested in how much mech doctrine the Seps are absorbing, how intensive the training, are they still just over-equipped militia? 

[Haiduk]

1 hour ago, kinophile said:

Interesting, the "named" units are little more than augmented platoons. 

I'm interested in how much mech doctrine the Seps are absorbing, how intensive the training, are they still just over-equipped militia? 

What do you mean under "named units"?

Each Seps unit fomally is regular military unit with all atrributes like in regular army. Each brigade and battalion has own shadow commander and partially shadow HQ staff - they are regular officers of Russian army. Brigades under their command continuously conducts full-spectre of regular mech units trainings like in Russian or Ukrainian armies. Of course, locals complains that many Russian commanders teach by old soviet templates. But in whole, especially from side of discipline and motivation they are really "over-equipped militia" - many "ideological" fighters, who fought as far as 2014, are writing that level of training and motivation of both corpses doesn't allow both corps to withstand Ukrainian offensive without direct suport of Russian army. 

PS. If you ment under named units Legion, Sparta and Somali, its have structures about battalion or some less. "Legion" formally is a special...emergency detachment, which belong to so-called "Ministry of emergency situations of DPR". "Sparta" formally is recon battalion with number of 300+ fighters. So, these two units don't need much armor according to its duties. "Somali" is a separate motor-rifle assault battalion - thus, they have tank company, more armor, own mortar battery, SP-mortars Nona and own artillery. Actully they are using for assault operations or for defense strengthening on critical directions.

Edited March 17, 2018 by Haiduk

[Battlefront.com]

9 hours ago, IMHO said:

Funny  In reality Pak aid storyline was like this:

1. Abbotaban raid that US side did not inform Paks beforehand as US was rightly concerned about OPSEC.
2. Paks see Abbotaban raid as a breach of its sovereignty so Pak Army discontinues training provided to tribe zone paramilitaries by American instructors, sends them home and curtails further visas to US personnel.
3. US gets angry as the training was a main/major source of recruits to US intelligence and a good place to keep track of what's going on in tribal zone in general. And the whole program of Predator targeted killings is in danger without HUMINT from tribal zone.

So there was no particular "care" that stopped the arms flow to Paks. US wanted HUMINT from tribal zone so it needed a safe place to recruit. Going to tribal zone directly is too dangerous for US personnel. Paks closed the flow of sources - US stopped supplying arms. No moral high-ground involved.

PS What I wrote here is quite checkable though respectable US press.

Er, that's what I mean   I didn't say the US was cutting off Pakistan out of some false sense of moral high ground.  It's a practical matter that the US wasn't getting what it wanted from Pakistan and so military aid became increasingly politicized in the US.  The tap was unofficially turned into a trickle in 2014ish timeframe (mostly out of concerns about India), but the military aid stayed in place even though US commanders in Afghanistan complained endlessly about the untouchable safe havens and ISI support for the Taliban.  But then, quite suddenly, the military aid was turned off this year.  I doubt Russia would have done things the same way.

4 hours ago, Haiduk said:

What do you mean under "named units"?

He means the units that have names ("Sparta") instead of standard military designations.  I was also struck by how few vehicles they have, which is understandable since Russia and the regimes of the DPR and LPR have deliberately undermined them (and assassinated their leaders).

Steve

[Haiduk]

2 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

He means the units that have names ("Sparta") instead of standard military designations.  I was also struck by how few vehicles they have, which is understandable since Russia and the regimes of the DPR and LPR have deliberately undermined them (and assassinated their leaders).

Then I already answered on this question in PS of my previous message )

[Kozlice]

3 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

I didn't say the US was cutting off Pakistan out of some false sense of moral high ground. 

To be fair, it seemed like you implied just that when you compared it to supplying arms to Saudis, unless there is also a practical context there that I am missing.

[IMHO]

On 3/17/2018 at 11:24 PM, Battlefront.com said:

Er, that's what I mean

<Sighs>  Seems my "ticklish inner Russian" took over as always