Who's winning the tank war?

[IMHO]

On 3/16/2018 at 10:57 PM, Machor said:

Beyond semiconductors and electronic engineering, there are challenges of materials and industrial engineering

Certainly US military technology taken overall is way ahead of Russian's. But if you take the rest of the pack then Russia is more than competitive except for very specific areas and sometimes is even ahead of the curve. You can take turbine blades for materials science or military grade electronics where your latest iPhone is many times if not many magnitudes more impressive as a computational platform than F-35 - and Russia produces sensible amount of industrial semis. The major problem for Russian military production is not that they are unable to produce a toy at a certain technological level but rather that there's little if any market for such a toy (if it's of Russian origin ). Russian military budget alone is peanuts compared to US's so Russia cannot afford both big series production and/or too high a per unit cost. And with cutting edge equipment R&D is a major part of your per unit cost so you end up in a vicious circle. A half-measure to alleviate this is to put up with a lower per year output while trying to stick to the same series production numbers by extending production timeframe. You'll run into different kind of troubles - high maintenance costs, "teething problems", subtle or not-so-subtle differences between equipment within the same series - but still it may let you jump over your head a little bit.

There was this idea that Russia may spend a hell of money overnight and come with a totally updated army in an eye blink - hordes of Armatas AND Boomerangs AND Kurganets, 5th gen fighters AND Stealth bombers AND a full lineup of new transport planes. The idea was peddled by people who know nothing about the economics of high-tech business and sometimes have reasons not to know 

Edited March 19, 2018 by IMHO

[DerKommissar]

On 3/16/2018 at 11:04 PM, IMHO said:

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.

Aye, I've seen some photos of rows and rows of beautiful toys rusting in overgrown fields. They should just give them out -- my house could use a gate guardian.

From what I've seen, those tank husks look like they're being slowly scuttled for spare parts. If **** hits the fan, it'll be easier to manufacture new ones, rather than bring those up to spec. The odds of a major war in Europe are quite low. I see there's very little demand for keeping and maintaining a highly sophisticated tank corps. Soviets produced so many T-80s (I had no bloody idea they had 3000 of those beauties in storage). When push came to shove, they deemed T-55s and T-62s were more suitable for a modern COIN environment. Now, the T-64's bargain-bin cousin is the backbone of the tank forces. There's no arms race anymore. No need to spend money on advancing MBT tech -- better to line your pockets.

Why should NATO countries make Leopard 3s and M1A3s, when their current tanks are good enough against a T-72? Better develop lighter cost-effective platforms, that'll be easier to deploy and maintain. I may be getting too facetious now, but that's the trend I'm seeing.

[Machor]

1 hour ago, IMHO said:

A half-measure to alleviate this is to put up with a lower per year output while trying to stick to the same series production numbers by extending production timeframe. You'll run into different kind of troubles - high maintenance costs, "teething problems", subtle or not-so-subtle differences between equipment within the same series - but still it may let you jump over your head a little bit.

Very interesting, thanks.

It would be interesting to compare how South Korea, Sweden, and post-war Italy and Japan developed their defense industries - those being cases I could think of where exports were marginal or non-existent. I do recall reading that Japanese tanks are the most expensive in the world. 

4 minutes ago, DerKommissar said:

Better develop lighter cost-effective platforms, that'll be easier to deploy and maintain.

Shhh, you just gave away the secret of Stryker. 

[DerKommissar]

27 minutes ago, Machor said:

I do recall reading that Japanese tanks are the most expensive in the world. 

The Japanese actually have super sophisticated tanks, such as the new Type 10. This thing is a beauty, and may be my favourite modern MBT. It has a domestic cannon, auto loader and active suspension (ACTIVE SUSPENSION!). It's the Lexus of MBTs. It's actually smaller than their current Type 90 and super expensive (half a billion per vehicle). Considering Japan is an island nation with a high population density, there's really no tank country for them.

Now, you know what to ask for, this Christmas.

Edited March 19, 2018 by DerKommissar

[Erwin]

Brief comparison:

 

[Battlefront.com]

On 3/19/2018 at 10:33 AM, IMHO said:

The major problem for Russian military production is not that they are unable to produce a toy at a certain technological level but rather that there's little if any market for such a toy (if it's of Russian origin ). Russian military budget alone is peanuts compared to US's so Russia cannot afford both big series production and/or too high a per unit cost.

Yup, and it shows the futility of Russia's strategy from a military standpoint, therefore it's pretty clear that the strategy is for propaganda and pocket lining reasons.

There's been many discussions about this aspect of Russia's military strategy on this Forum for many years.  The fact is that Russia spends a huge percentage of it's GDP on a military that it doesn't need for any practical reason.  What does Russia need its military for?

• Defense against military confrontation by a superior foe (US, NATO, China)
• Ability to invade, threaten, and otherwise bully neighboring countries
• Maintain domestic order in the event of another large scale uprising
• Project power to 3rd world conflicts such as Syria

Of the three, the one that theoretically requires the biggest quantity and quality of force is the first one (defense).  But in practical terms, that's absolutely not true.  Europe has ZERO interest in invading Russia in any conventional sense.  First, because they know an invasion of Russia is impractical for a thousand reasons.  Second, because Russia has nukes AND WILL USE THEM without any doubt if invaded.  Heck, Russia has threatened to use nuclear weapons if the West shuts it out of their banking system.  Since Russia has nothing physical that the West wants, and the West could destroy Russia's economy through policy moves, there's absolutely no reason grounded in reality to view the West as a military threat to Russia's homeland.  Period.

The ability to cause trouble for its neighbors is a very, very important part of Russia's foreign policy concept of world order.  Therefore, it must maintain a credible combined arms force to impose Moscow's political will on its neighbors whenever it wants.  Since the potential targets are small and under equipped, quality and quantity are not factors.  Russia could win any border battle with any nation it choose to at any time with status quo technology.  Force size, however, is necessarily different when talking about a vast nation like Kazakhstan vs. Georgia.  Taking on it's NATO neighbors, on the other hand, would require a force and economy that Russia isn't even planning on having, not to mention could have, so that's out of consideration.

Domestic order is something that can also be done with status quo technology.  If Chechnya were to try and break away again, Armata would have no practical improvement in outcome vs. a T-62 because high tech weapons do not beat motivated insurgencies.  At best they can reduce the overall number of friendly casualties and increase the ratio of friendly to enemy losses.  Better training, tactics, communications, and other things have a much better payback than tank technologies.

Projecting active military power abroad is a new thing for Russia and that does require a certain investment in capabilities, mostly logistical in nature, but again the forces needed are modest in size and not significantly improved upon by big expensive toys.  The reason is that their adversaries are themselves under equipped.  As with an insurgency at home, spending money on better quality soldiers is vastly more effective than better quality equipment per Ruble spent.

 

Quote

There was this idea that Russia may spend a hell of money overnight and come with a totally updated army in an eye blink - hordes of Armatas AND Boomerangs AND Kurganets, 5th gen fighters AND Stealth bombers AND a full lineup of new transport planes. The idea was peddled by people who know nothing about the economics of high-tech business and sometimes have reasons not to know 

It was also the idea peddled by Kremlin bots, media, and official statements from members of the government.  Which, sadly, many otherwise intelligent Russians bought hook, line, and sinker just as they bought the notion that NATO is an offensive organization bent on invading Russia at the first possible opportunity.  Which emphasizes the propaganda nature of Russia's weapons systems modernization program.

Steve

[kraze]

To put it shortly - you'd think the most hyped, supposedly best, most intimidating russian tech wouldn't just stop working outright in the middle of a military parade designed to intimidate other countries.

[DerKommissar]

34 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

The fact is that Russia spends a huge percentage of it's GDP on a military that it doesn't need for any practical reason.  What does Russia need its military for?

I think it's entirely possible that a lot of that money is being pocketed. Say, the government starts funding some project and then it produces nothing but hot air, is eventually ended, and forgotten. Good way to pass along tax payer's cash to your political allies. Unqualified people, in charge of the project, will just blame it on sanctions or imports or meteors. Tax payer won't complain, they are surrounded by geopolitical adversaries. This cycle has happened to a lot of weapons development, GLONASS is the most infamous example.

34 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

If Chechnya were to try and break away again, Armata would have no practical improvement in outcome vs. a T-62 because high tech weapons do not beat motivated insurgencies.  At best they can reduce the overall number of friendly casualties and increase the ratio of friendly to enemy losses.  Better training, tactics, communications, and other things have a much better payback than tank technologies.

Aye. I recently realized how many T-80s, the Soviets had. Previously, I considered them mostly a rare commodity within the Tank Forces menagerie. The T-62s and T-55s were used in Afghanistan, and from what I've read -- mostly did their job. While, the T-80's bad reputation is mostly the result of post-fall antics in Chechnya. I had read that T-62s were well-liked in Chechnya, because of their higher gun elevation. Suffice to say, very little demand for expensive super-tanks.

21 minutes ago, kraze said:

To put it shortly - you'd think the most hyped, supposedly best, most intimidating russian tech wouldn't just stop working outright in the middle of a military parade designed to intimidate other countries.

As we say in development -- it's not a bug, it's a /feature/.

Edited March 20, 2018 by DerKommissar

[IMHO]

2 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

it shows the futility of Russia's strategy from a military standpoint

Yes, you're absolutely correct there's no sane rationale to spend these money. The real reason is... Mere human vanity  Like I understand it's irrational but I'm dying for a shiny new toy

2 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

It was also the idea peddled by Kremlin bots, media, and official statements from members of the government.  Which, sadly, many otherwise intelligent Russians bought hook, line, and sinker

No, don't judge the reaction of Russian public by Russian media. Rearmament program didn't have any friends whatsoever outside the military and military industrial complex - it was very contentious issue. Even a long time personal friend of Mr. Putin and most influential member of Russian cabinet - way more influential than prime minister himself - quit over the size of rearmament program. It's just fighting vanity was a loosing battle  And however it may sound unbelievable it wasn't Mr. Putin who adopted the rearmament program as the most beloved pet and who pushed it against all the opposition inside the government.

Edited March 20, 2018 by IMHO

[Machor]

1 hour ago, IMHO said:

Even a long time personal friend of Mr. Putin and most influential member of Russian cabinet - way more influential than prime minister himself - quit over the size of rearmament program.

Are you referring to Sergei Ivanov?

1 hour ago, IMHO said:

however it may sound unbelievable it wasn't Mr. Putin

I believe you. 

1 hour ago, IMHO said:

who adopted the rearmament program as the most beloved pet and who pushed it against all the opposition inside the government

Can you give the name?

[IMHO]

13 minutes ago, Machor said:

Are you referring to Sergei Ivanov?

Kudrin

13 minutes ago, Machor said:

Can you give the name?

Medvedev

[Machor]

3 minutes ago, IMHO said:

Medvedev

Without taking the thread OT - wow! Medvedev has always been portrayed in the West as the 'good cop' vis-a-vis Putin; even the latest BBC long read on Russia mentions "The ambitious project was launched during a brief liberal “spring” when Dmitry Medvedev took over the presidency. The constitution barred Vladimir Putin from running for a third consecutive term so Medvedev kept his seat warm." (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-sh/russia_election )

Anyways, dropping the political discussion with some food for thought on Western foreign policy 'expertise' brought to my attention by Burak Kadercan's twitter feed: "Guilty Men:" https://www.the-american-interest.com/2017/04/24/guilty-men/

 

[IMHO]

1 hour ago, Machor said:

Without taking the thread OT - wow!

But this case is true and it was common knowledge right from the start. Believe me even what you see in quality Russian press, not "TV for an average Joe" but quality business press, even there you're lucky if 5% of what they write comes anywhere close to what people in higher echelons really believe into, what positions they take in internal deliberations etc. And Western reporting on Russia not only hopelessly lacks any local sources, the guys do not even bother to do background checks on the Internet. Which is not only useless - it's dangerous. The mass media forms the public opinion and then politicians has no other option but to follow. It's amazing for me but the Russian dispatches in Western press is now almost universally written in B-rate Hollywood style. Everything is simplified to the utmost, everyone must be labelled either good or bad and once this happens the protagonist never changes his/her assigned camp.

Disclaimer: I didn't mean the BBC article you linked - haven't read it yet.

Edited March 20, 2018 by IMHO

[db_zero]

 

[Battlefront.com]

10 hours ago, IMHO said:

Yes, you're absolutely correct there's no sane rationale to spend these money. The real reason is... Mere human vanity  Like I understand it's irrational but I'm dying for a shiny new toy

Of course   It is the same with autocratic governments all around the world.  Military force is something people understand mean power, and power is what autocrats are all about.

10 hours ago, IMHO said:

No, don't judge the reaction of Russian public by Russian media.

I was partially judging it by various conversations here with Russian players of CM games.  There was much repeating of the false idea that NATO is a threat to a peaceful Russia.  I remember saying that all Russia needs to deter a NATO invasion of its soil is one guy at the border shouting harsh words.  Maybe waving a piece of wood or something.  The non-Russians in the thread all agreed because we've seen how disunited and disorganized NATO is even when there is an obvious call for action for their own defense.  This was in the 2014/2015 timeframe and there's been even more evidence of this since.

10 hours ago, IMHO said:

Rearmament program didn't have any friends whatsoever outside the military and military industrial complex - it was very contentious issue.

Yes, but unfortunately the the military industrial complex has a lot of friends.  It is the same in the West, so it is not unique to Russia.

That said, I think Putin finds the shiny new toys very useful for his overall strategy of staying in power.  He has managed to keep the military from getting the budget it requested, but obviously it received far more funding than it should given the economic problems Russia has.  IIRC the 2018 budget is the same as 2017 and money is being internally shifted away from the Navy and Airforce to land forces (and a bit more to nuclear).

Steve

 

[Sgt.Squarehead]

Seem to have drifted away from tanks a wee bit here.   

Sorry, couldn't resist!   

On Paper, this (related) pair seem like candidates to me:

South Korean K2 MBT

Turkish Altay MBT

Edited March 21, 2018 by Sgt.Squarehead

[IICptMillerII]

16 hours ago, DerKommissar said:

Aye. I recently realized how many T-80s, the Soviets had. Previously, I considered them mostly a rare commodity within the Tank Forces menagerie. The T-62s and T-55s were used in Afghanistan, and from what I've read -- mostly did their job. While, the T-80's bad reputation is mostly the result of post-fall antics in Chechnya. I had read that T-62s were well-liked in Chechnya, because of their higher gun elevation. Suffice to say, very little demand for expensive super-tanks.

Context. Steve was talking about Chechnya, which would be another so-called "low intensity" war. Meaning, it would not be a full on conventional conflict against a peer enemy. Against a peer enemy in a conventional conflict, you need "super-tanks," which I'm taking to be your way of describing modern, category A tanks. The T-55s and T-62s were deployed to Afghanistan by the Soviets for this reason. They were not fighting NATO, but a smaller, unconventional force that did not require large amounts of category A mechanized forces. T-55s and T-62s (even modernized ones) would not last very long at all on a modern conventional battle. If you would like some proof of this you can see for yourself, load up CMSF and fight Abrams/Challengers/Leopards with T-55s or T-62s. 

[kraze]

4 hours ago, IICptMillerII said:

 If you would like some proof of this you can see for yourself, load up CMSF and fight Abrams/Challengers/Leopards with T-55s or T-62s. 

Just Easting 73. And that was just a single generation of tanks apart

[DerKommissar]

5 hours ago, IICptMillerII said:

Context. Steve was talking about Chechnya, which would be another so-called "low intensity" war. Meaning, it would not be a full on conventional conflict against a peer enemy. Against a peer enemy in a conventional conflict, you need "super-tanks," which I'm taking to be your way of describing modern, category A tanks.

I suggested that the probability of facing a peer enemy in a conventional conflict happening is negligible, but nobody knows the future. Over the last 50 years or so, Soviet (and Russian) armed forces have been involved in these low-intensity conflicts. As times passed, T-62s and T-55s became hopelessly obsolete and the aging T-72s and T-80s eventually replaced them in the same role. The conclusion being that, based on their previous experience, there is no immediate demand for new MBTs. 

This being said, I did realize something while watching FSA and SAA go-pros on youtube. T-62s and T-55s are zipping about, putting rounds down range, defending and attacking. These were technically "medium tanks", not even 1st generation MBTs even. They are operated outside of their intended doctrine and maintained by inexperienced crews. Yet, they are putting in work -- even in the days of drones and man-portable ATGMs.

Just 10 years ago:

[IICptMillerII]

1 hour ago, DerKommissar said:

I suggested that the probability of facing a peer enemy in a conventional conflict happening is negligible, but nobody knows the future. Over the last 50 years or so, Soviet (and Russian) armed forces have been involved in these low-intensity conflicts. As times passed, T-62s and T-55s became hopelessly obsolete and the aging T-72s and T-80s eventually replaced them in the same role. The conclusion being that, based on their previous experience, there is no immediate demand for new MBTs. 

You don't keep a fire extinguisher in your house because you need to use it every day. You keep it in your house because 1 day out of 1000 you need it, and if you don't have it on that day, all other days are irrelevant because now you have no house. A military (for a world/want to be world power) is the same concept. Said military needs to be able to fight against the worst possible threats primarily, even if they are not the most common. Modern MBTs will always be relevant to conventional militaries. 

1 hour ago, DerKommissar said:

This being said, I did realize something while watching FSA and SAA go-pros on youtube. T-62s and T-55s are zipping about, putting rounds down range, defending and attacking. These were technically "medium tanks", not even 1st generation MBTs even. They are operated outside of their intended doctrine and maintained by inexperienced crews. Yet, they are putting in work -- even in the days of drones and man-portable ATGMs.

Any opinions formed about ANY fighting vehicle based on observed experiences in the Middle East should be taken with a massive grain of salt. 

Edited March 21, 2018 by IICptMillerII

[DerKommissar]

4 minutes ago, IICptMillerII said:

You don't keep a fire extinguisher in your house because you need to use it every day. You keep it in your house because 1 day out of 1000 you need it, and if you don't have it on that day, all other days are irrelevant because now you have no house. A military (for a world/want to be world power) is the same concept. Said military needs to be able to fight against the worst possible threats primarily, even if they are not the most common. Modern MBTs will always be relevant to conventional militaries. 

Any opinions formed about ANY fighting vehicle based on observed experiences in the Middle East should be taken with a massive grain of salt. 

The fire extinguisher is a good analogy. People living in each house buy their own fire extinguishers. Some houses may keep the extinguisher up to its date of expiration, others may delay replacing it after that. A house where the head of the household is a kleptomaniac may steal the fire extinguisher, and replace it with excuses. I agree, each house should have an effective fire extinguisher. However some houses forget about theirs, and others have British-made ones.

I'll admit, I have a soft spot for the manual-loading, coincidence-range-finding era of tanks. I've got a thing for the T-62s. So, my analysis warrants skepticism. However, even the lumbering NATO beasts are switching to auto-loader, sadly. No more slick loaders -- just push the button. I guess the Type 10 will be my new favourite tank. The Lexus of fire extinguishers. 

[Bearstronaut]

On 3/19/2018 at 11:51 AM, Machor said:

 

It would be interesting to compare how South Korea, Sweden, and post-war Italy and Japan developed their defense industries - those being cases I could think of where exports were marginal or non-existent. I do recall reading that Japanese tanks are the most expensive in the world. 

 

I can't speak to Sweden, Italy, or Japan but I know a bit about Korea. South Korea used old US equipment until the 1980s. After the Miracle on the Han rebuilding of the South Korean economy (particularly heavy industries) the ROK was capable of producing their own weapons systems but didn't until Nixon and Carter reduced the US presence on the peninsula. President Park Chung Hee decided that the ROK needed their own domestic weapons industry in case the US decided to pull out in the future. They have their own domestically produced small arms, tanks, and even fighter planes. 

[Kozlice]

31 minutes ago, DerKommissar said:

...I've got a thing for the T-62s...

Ah...Steel Armor! It's a shame they never really expanded it

[IMHO]

10 hours ago, IICptMillerII said:

Against a peer enemy in a conventional conflict, you need "super-tanks," which I'm taking to be your way of describing modern, category A tanks.

IMHO the idea of T-14 supplementing T-72 lineup is like when one tries to move from wooden construction to masonry and instead of working on the bricks production and new architecture techniques one starts spending money like crazy on the best grooming process for the lawns. Hardly anyone would argue a nice lawn helps a nice house but is it really the first thing one starts with? I'd say the major technological areas where Russia is lagging behind are:

1. Thermals and light intensifiers
2. "Really long" long rods
3. New armour laminates and/or NERA, SLERA or at least enhanced ERA
4. Day-time targeting and observation
5. Engines - engine life/MTBF, power output, power-to-weight ratio
6. APS
7. Tube life
8. Powder stability / Burning regimes

Seems like I listed half of a modern tank  The only point that T-14/T-15 could help designers with as opposed to T-72 platform major upgrade is "long" long rods. And even in this case Black Eagle option was a possibility. But surely they started designing full tank having none of the component technologies. Money's gone, no T-14 in sight and T-90 and T-80 upgrades are fashionable again.

PS And who would think the trick of designing a forward engine heavy APC is to take a tank of classic configuration and to put it hinder part forward 

Edited March 21, 2018 by IMHO

[FoxZz]

To be honnest, having best gear doesn't really matters, as long as there is not a huge gap between the two (like T55 vs M1A2). What really matters is experience of the crew, training, speed of planing, quick decision making, coordination between branches, support, etc. The tank is just a smmall part of it. People tend to focus too much on it.

There is plenty of examples where OPFOR forces with inferior gear, wipe the floor with regular army units in their last generation tanks.

Human factor will always be the most important one.

If Desert Storm was such a cake walk, it was mainly because of the training, not the tanks. You could have swapped the gear, result would have been the same.