ArmouredTopHat

That's exactly what happened. Russian units were going forward with a fraction of the infantry they were supposed to have due to not calling up the conscripts who were supposed to fill out the infantry roles.
So you had motor rifle platoons which had maybe 2 dismounts per APC/IFV, tank regiments that had to share a company of infantry when they should have had a battalion, etc.
Russia didn't have a combined arms force - they had a ton of armoured vehicles, and a profound lack of infantry.
Mike Kofman goes into it in this article: https://warontherocks.com/2022/06/not-built-for-purpose-the-russian-militarys-ill-fated-force-design/

The tank has survived several numerous generations of the ATGM, including attempts to convert tanks entirely to missile gun platforms that proved to be a disappointment at best and abject failures at worst. MBT-70 for instance. Every time a new innovation allowed tanks a means of dealing or surpassing the problem at hand. I dont see why we should conclude so swiftly that this time is different with the conflict still on going. 

All I know is that tanks suddenly become extremely useful the moment you need any kind of mobility and firepower, they are actively used on the front now and will be used should there be a collapse even operationally on any sector of front. To decry tanks as obsolete when we are not exactly seeing the best examples of tanks on the whole is a bit of a reach, especially a lot of more recent developments are entirely absent such as aps, which is now a proven concept. There are plenty of things tanks can do even without such fancy protections to avoid ATGMs in addition. The whole NATO concept of approaching into hull down to fire rounds before withdrawing among other things allows a tank to engage with several rounds and be out of line of sight well before an ATGM hit. Things a little more nuanced than they might seem. 

I personally would be asking the Ukrainian tankers the question, they certainly seem to think they have a role on the battlefield, even with major constraints. It personally says a lot to me that even decade old platforms are considered useful on the battlefield in Ukraine despite all the new operational difficulties of using them. Certainly Ukrainian infantry seem to like having them around too, though I guess it makes sense when you have something that can deliver pinpoint explosives onto your problem area. 

The point I am trying to make is I rarely see stuff from the Ukrainians along the lines of 'our tanks are useless' on telegrams, and they usually get pretty vocal about things that are downright getting people killed for no good reason. They seem to view them as a pretty important aspect of the battlefield, if for nothing other than a quick response that can take the odd hit and leverage direct or indirect firepower onto target. The nature of the conflict is perhaps less friendly to tanks than ideal currently, namely one side loves to use theirs like a blunt instrument and lose dozens of them while the other has far less resources to attack to begin with and is simply not in a position to attack right now. 

Does it come with a can of silver spraypaint?
WITNESS MEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!

While autocannons are pretty lethal as a weapon system, a 125 /120mm gun is really the final word in terms of direct fire capability. You can erase anything on the battlefield with it quickly and efficiently. Tanks function at least in theory as an apex predator for vehicles, nothing really wants to fight them head to head, even if they are equipped for it. Its the reason why that footage of a T-90M being bullied by Bradleys was so insane, that is an situation any IFV wants to avoid at all costs. Certainly can imagine what a Sabot or even heat round can do to a Brad. Its fortunate that the Bradley crews reacted as well as they did, and the Russian tankers ballsed up what should be a straight murder session. 

Tanks also by nature are simply more heavily protected, we see even now with tanks not at all really suitable for this war at least being able to shrug off hits that would more easily destroy more lightly armed vehicles. That level of protection is very valuable, especially with anti vehicle options ever more frequent. 

The problem with relying on other means to get firing solutions is then you become little more than short ranged artillery, at that point you might as well use a howitzer. Part of the reason tanks have their role is that they can perform their role without too much reliance on others. They can see, acquire, engage and level the target quickly and efficiently (though having someone spot for you helps a lot!)

Its that high tech sensor package that makes tanks so deadly on the battlefield with regards to thermals and the like, or the fact they can do all of that while moving a top speed. 

There are a host of ways to make tanks cheaper, from going with an autoloader (one less person means less training costs for a crew and a more space efficient design. Smaller size means less costs to protect the thing properly) to keeping to a core feature focus. This is partly why I am not sure making tanks EWAR platforms might be viable, its a lot of extra cost on something that should be focussed on shooting things. Tanks should not be platforms capable of 'doing it all' so to speak. 

South Korea has proven that modern tanks can be made in pretty sizable numbers, its not just about unit cost but having the streamlined production capability to do so. I think that is why Western tanks struggle a bit with production numbers due to the strangling of domestic tank industries (And vehicles in general) for the most part. In essence we need to learn how to build vehicles in sizable quantities again outside of America. 

Though its failed in the past, a multinational Euro tank project might be the solution to cut costs, something akin to F-35 but for an AFV. In theory provided everyone can agree on what the thing is supposed to be, it cuts costs dramatically while also being so much better logistically than everyone having their own unique MBT, especially when its increasingly non viable to do so cost wise. Its an area where NATO could really do more to push for having less unnecessary diversity in vehicles. Though that relies on a lot of military procurement groups agreeing which might happen when pigs fly. 

Accuse others of what you are guilty of really does ring true here. 

I recall Chieftain talking about BONUS type shells and saying that as a tanker nothing scared him more as an idea. Certainly tells me that mobility will be key to avoid such munitions. How expensive are such shells in comparison to others? I imagine they are probably up there, though we know based on the few clips of them in action in Ukraine that they seem to work well. 

Sadly there are lot of people that ought to see the inside of a prison cell forever, b ut probably won't
In the short to medium term I think smart fires are going to move away from GPS. Either laser designation from drones. Or smart submunitions with infrared sensors like the Smart/Bonus rounds.
This type of submunition is going to get put on ATACMS, HIMARS, and similar as well. There is also no reason you couldn't do a fragmentation version for infantry and light vehicles.

I'm a little hesitant with regards to smart fires being a given thing, given we know that the Ukrainians are reporting some issues with Excalibur due to jamming and have largely moved elsewhere with regards to munitions from their NATO guns. (Is this something that can be compensated for? Does AI correction even exist for artillery rounds? GPS clearly cannot be relied on) Regular NATO 155 is not exactly inaccurate but its still a case of needing several rounds on target, less so if cluster is used. 

Most attacks from what I see flounder in minefields  before sighted arty lands on the columns and drones begin picking things off. There is a fair amount going on before the drones and arty start destroying the vehicles. I should have mentioned in my previous post that mines remain an issue that I am not exactly sure what to suggest as a solution. Clearly current gen technology is not enough even against soviet era anti tank mines from the 60s laid in enough depth. 

With regards to the light tank idea, we know from previous attempts that light tanks simply lack the protection that makes tanks durable on the field. I suspect we will head towards the 40-60 tonne range on MBTs going forward however. Modularity could work but it can also complicate a project. (Armata project for example)

Overall agreed though that tanks will be lighter, lower profile and probably more mobile. Certainly a greater emphasis on avoiding detection and getting out of trouble fast, while still being survivable at least for a while in the closer field. 

I feel like the idea of Europe really working on linking up their tank industries together would be the long time solution for NATO, there is a lot of potential with reasonable industrial capacity in the UK, Germany, Sweden and France alone for a decent project to be formed. Adopting the south Korean principle of sharing the technology actively within NATO would also mean other nations can build modest but compatible industry to support the same type of tank overall. If only companies like RM were not so damn protective...

I have to agree.  As nodes one does not need to concentrate them in larger units.  1-3 could be the center of a cloud that can cover the area a Battalion used to. One consistent trend is the area of effect vs force size.  I also think there is definitely a role for tanks as intermediate indirect fires, particularly if we develop a precision over the horizon tank round.  Imagine tanks firing from 10kms out and having the round guided in by a UAS.
I would agree with you except for this war.  We have seen infantry dismounting kms back and walking in because current vehicles are too vulnerable.  We have read, seen and heard reports of the effectiveness of artillery, well wighted on armor and IFVs.  More often the vehicles suffer mobility or system kills but the image of tanks rolling through dense sighted artillery fires has been challenged.
I also think we are going to see more and more smart precision munitions, the offset are just to great to ignore.  We have watched Russia firing WW1 levels of dumb area fires and getting nowhere.  Smart fires are the future.  Future tanks will need to be low profile, dispersed, mobile, more logistically independent and able to support longer range fires.  Not to mention sensors and C2 nodes.  I think we may be heading for some sort of light-tankish beast here.  A chassis that can have a bunch of things bolted onto it, modular.
Range is a must. Concentration of fires over the horizon is becoming definitive in almost every domain.  Street fights will still happen, but they are likely to become the finishing move not the main effort.  Find, fix and finish from 10+ kms at a rate an opponent cannot sustain. Collapse their cloud and then go in and clean up, manoeuvre to the next position.

I just want to throw out there that mines are still an unsolved problem, too. And people have been beating their brains out on at least parts of that problem for twenty plus years with very limited success. And now we see them exert a massive influence on the battlefield in Ukraine. It is not remotely sustainable to lose thirty million dollar tanks to thirty dollar antitank mines.

The problem with relying on other means to get firing solutions is then you become little more than short ranged artillery, at that point you might as well use a howitzer. Part of the reason tanks have their role is that they can perform their role without too much reliance on others. They can see, acquire, engage and level the target quickly and efficiently (though having someone spot for you helps a lot!)

Its that high tech sensor package that makes tanks so deadly on the battlefield with regards to thermals and the like, or the fact they can do all of that while moving a top speed. 

There are a host of ways to make tanks cheaper, from going with an autoloader (one less person means less training costs for a crew and a more space efficient design. Smaller size means less costs to protect the thing properly) to keeping to a core feature focus. This is partly why I am not sure making tanks EWAR platforms might be viable, its a lot of extra cost on something that should be focussed on shooting things. Tanks should not be platforms capable of 'doing it all' so to speak. 

South Korea has proven that modern tanks can be made in pretty sizable numbers, its not just about unit cost but having the streamlined production capability to do so. I think that is why Western tanks struggle a bit with production numbers due to the strangling of domestic tank industries (And vehicles in general) for the most part. In essence we need to learn how to build vehicles in sizable quantities again outside of America. 

Though its failed in the past, a multinational Euro tank project might be the solution to cut costs, something akin to F-35 but for an AFV. In theory provided everyone can agree on what the thing is supposed to be, it cuts costs dramatically while also being so much better logistically than everyone having their own unique MBT, especially when its increasingly non viable to do so cost wise. Its an area where NATO could really do more to push for having less unnecessary diversity in vehicles. Though that relies on a lot of military procurement groups agreeing which might happen when pigs fly. 

Accuse others of what you are guilty of really does ring true here. 

Accuse others of what you are guilty of really does ring true here. 

The question should not be what can we do to the tank but what can the tank do for you. High end Jets are expensive, logistics heavy and not exactly quick off the assembly line, but they offer capability that nothing else can currently match or provide (yet). The same in theory applies to tanks, with nothing being able to able offer their versatile blend of direct fire capability with protection and mobility. As long as militaries have that requirement (And there is no signs of that changing outside of maybe some UGV melding) then we have a need for tanks, though obviously that requirement now has new design considerations that must be accounted for. 

I would say these are better thought out, at least they can move!

Why cant it be a combination of all of those factors?

We know the Russian BTGs had issues with lack of dismounted infantry, especially once they pushed ever deeper and took objectives requiring them to parcel out the finite amount of infantry to secure before moving on.

We know that the Russians decided not to turn on half of their air defence after it had rolled into Ukraine, which is why TB-2s were able to bomb them in those first few days. How is this not a monumental cockup that should belong on an wall somewhere for sheer incompetence?

We know the VKS were only really able to hit static targets, and the majority of UA air defences had been relocated days or hours beforehand. We have subsequent reports of CAS missions from the VKS being slow and prone to friendly fire. (There is a harrowing recording somewhere of a Russian officer trying to call of friendly helicopters attacking his own soldiers somewhere after he had requested air support)

We know that Russian communications and coordination were a crapshow due to their own jamming and faulty equipment. Half of their men were equipped with cheap and unsecured Baofeng radios for petes sake. 


I mentioned it before but seeing Russian units resorting to unsecured mobile phones to simply talk to each other was that moment for me that 'something is horribly wrong' that you mentioned. If your communications systems are not working properly not even a day into your invasion, that's a product of poor planning and incompetence in my view. 

Russian failures in all the aforementioned points is the reason Ukraine was able to coordinate effectively. How do you even begin to isolate hostile resistance when you dont even know what / where or how your friendly units in an AO are doing? 

Why cant it be a combination of all of those factors?

We know the Russian BTGs had issues with lack of dismounted infantry, especially once they pushed ever deeper and took objectives requiring them to parcel out the finite amount of infantry to secure before moving on.

We know that the Russians decided not to turn on half of their air defence after it had rolled into Ukraine, which is why TB-2s were able to bomb them in those first few days. How is this not a monumental cockup that should belong on an wall somewhere for sheer incompetence?

We know the VKS were only really able to hit static targets, and the majority of UA air defences had been relocated days or hours beforehand. We have subsequent reports of CAS missions from the VKS being slow and prone to friendly fire. (There is a harrowing recording somewhere of a Russian officer trying to call of friendly helicopters attacking his own soldiers somewhere after he had requested air support)

We know that Russian communications and coordination were a crapshow due to their own jamming and faulty equipment. Half of their men were equipped with cheap and unsecured Baofeng radios for petes sake. 


I mentioned it before but seeing Russian units resorting to unsecured mobile phones to simply talk to each other was that moment for me that 'something is horribly wrong' that you mentioned. If your communications systems are not working properly not even a day into your invasion, that's a product of poor planning and incompetence in my view. 

Russian failures in all the aforementioned points is the reason Ukraine was able to coordinate effectively. How do you even begin to isolate hostile resistance when you dont even know what / where or how your friendly units in an AO are doing? 

I think there was / is a genuine attempt to field a new tank, but much like a lot of potentially promising tank projects like Black eagle or T-95, the Russians simply ran into too many hurdles. It was a -very- ambitious project packed with a lot of features that while not new, had only been really attempted on testbeds and prototypes elsewhere before. Coupled with some truly bizarre decisions like the whole engine debacle (Why on earth did they switch to a radically different engine), or the fact that the thing appears to be a black hole when it comes to space efficiency then its little wonder that the inefficient and corrupt Russian state messed it up so badly. The fact that there is still no factory in Russia able to build Armatas suggest to me the project wont be going anywhere. 

It is a real vehicle though, at least based on the APS test footage, gun trials and the odd propaganda video showing the internals of the capsule (alongside the hilarious tendency for the Russians to show the thing revolving its turret constantly like its larping as a helicopter)

Seriously, how do you design a capsule based tank with an unmanned turret with autoloader and have the damn thing be bigger than almost every other MBT around (Despite being a lot lighter, which means protection is evidently inferior) There is some serious space inefficiency at work here and I legit cannot figure out just why the thing is so damn big. 

I think there was / is a genuine attempt to field a new tank, but much like a lot of potentially promising tank projects like Black eagle or T-95, the Russians simply ran into too many hurdles. It was a -very- ambitious project packed with a lot of features that while not new, had only been really attempted on testbeds and prototypes elsewhere before. Coupled with some truly bizarre decisions like the whole engine debacle (Why on earth did they switch to a radically different engine), or the fact that the thing appears to be a black hole when it comes to space efficiency then its little wonder that the inefficient and corrupt Russian state messed it up so badly. The fact that there is still no factory in Russia able to build Armatas suggest to me the project wont be going anywhere. 

It is a real vehicle though, at least based on the APS test footage, gun trials and the odd propaganda video showing the internals of the capsule (alongside the hilarious tendency for the Russians to show the thing revolving its turret constantly like its larping as a helicopter)

Seriously, how do you design a capsule based tank with an unmanned turret with autoloader and have the damn thing be bigger than almost every other MBT around (Despite being a lot lighter, which means protection is evidently inferior) There is some serious space inefficiency at work here and I legit cannot figure out just why the thing is so damn big. 

How many times do I have to say that poor performance from the VKS is down to a multitude of factors that happen to include them being poorly suited to the task at hand and suffering from corruption. Its. Not. The. Sole. Reason. 
USVs had nothing to do with the Mosvka sinking. Russian naval activity has had no clear objective outside of flinging missiles at targets of opportunity and has been beset by equipment and training problems. This is literally well documented. 
Again, this is getting pretty tiring. I have repeatedly said incompetence and corruption plays a PART of the reason the Russians have lacked success. Please actually read what I am saying and stop assuming I am just going 'Russians suck'. Its genuinely getting irritating at this point. 
 
I welcome rethinks and relooks, but I find you readily dismiss technologies which are both practical and in use right now. I literally keep saying that many of your points are valid, my problem is with the notion that throw everything else into the bin on a whim. I personally think its better to pursue all areas of possibility. Why not develop more loitering munitions while also seeking out APS for instance. We really should be covering all angles. 
 
I specifically said western firms created the idea of FPV drones and that recently western firms have made smaller drones. Stop putting words in my mouth please. The west has at least ensured a ready supply of components make its way to Ukraine, though much of the building effort remains reliant on fund raising, something that probably could do with looking at. Though at least some Western countries are waking up to this:

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-to-supply-more-than-10000-drones-to-ukraine

In terms of smaller drones, there are literally dozens. Black Hornet, ScanEagle, Puma, Dragoneye, Aladin, Aeryon, InstantEye Mk-2 Gen3, Wasp AE and Drone40 to name just a few that have been developed and fielded though not a lot have obviously gone to Ukraine. 
 

Again, I apologise if my argument is getting incoherent, I'm just a little worn down by this point. I meant to say the US was not exactly looking for an FPV munition capability due to being more or less satisfied by their current capability. That's not to say they were thus not seeking to innovate at all, its just an explanation to why it was not seriously pursued despite the technology being there.  As for the rest, fair point. I'm kind of out of juice at this point.
 
 
Honestly? Fair enough. I misread on my sources and it looks like most of the attempt reforms were post Chechen war. Though I would point out that Russian military reforms post 2008 failed to address problems that are now biting them hard in Ukraine. 



Honestly probably going to drop out of this line of discussion overall as its clear we have a difference of opinion that's getting increasingly hostile, at least I feel it is. I'm happy to leave it at wait and see. I thank you both for the discussion, but maybe work on being a little less...abrasive with your assertions. You two acting like you know better than literally dozens of countries and their military apparatuses is...quite something, even if you bring up some very good points. Maybe you are both right and all those people are wrong, in which case my god were doomed. 

I think there was / is a genuine attempt to field a new tank, but much like a lot of potentially promising tank projects like Black eagle or T-95, the Russians simply ran into too many hurdles. It was a -very- ambitious project packed with a lot of features that while not new, had only been really attempted on testbeds and prototypes elsewhere before. Coupled with some truly bizarre decisions like the whole engine debacle (Why on earth did they switch to a radically different engine), or the fact that the thing appears to be a black hole when it comes to space efficiency then its little wonder that the inefficient and corrupt Russian state messed it up so badly. The fact that there is still no factory in Russia able to build Armatas suggest to me the project wont be going anywhere. 

It is a real vehicle though, at least based on the APS test footage, gun trials and the odd propaganda video showing the internals of the capsule (alongside the hilarious tendency for the Russians to show the thing revolving its turret constantly like its larping as a helicopter)

Seriously, how do you design a capsule based tank with an unmanned turret with autoloader and have the damn thing be bigger than almost every other MBT around (Despite being a lot lighter, which means protection is evidently inferior) There is some serious space inefficiency at work here and I legit cannot figure out just why the thing is so damn big. 

They literally did though, a slew of smaller drones were developed in that time space by numerous defence companies. The whole concept of FPV was largely spearheaded by western defence companies in the first place. The innovation Ukraine did was taking off the shelf civilian drones and strapping RPG warheads to them. 
 
While an individual prediction about the war and its outcome may have been accurate, the multifaceted nature of international relations and the constraints faced by policymakers often result in a more complex reality. The assertion that the West "chose" not to be prepared oversimplifies the situation and ignores the nuanced decision-making processes and constraints involved in such matters. The complexity of international relations and the unpredictability of state actors (Especially Russia) make definitive predictions challenging, even for experts. You did predict something correctly, that doesn't mean it was perhaps the obvious outcome to expect. 
 
The US had no operational need to develop something like an FPV to address a gap in its capability because it did not have one, it has / had everything it needed. Like most militaries, it had its own innovation priorities. US companies also did largely develop the systems in drones so widely used in the first place as well. The innovation is very much there.
I literally specified that counter CUAS and denial of ISR is a priority that needs to be addressed, IE constraining the ability of the enemy to see your concentration or logistics. There are a plethora of ideas tabled to address logistical vulnerability, from drone dropped supply missions to simply having redundancy in the system. This is something that is literally being actively talked about right now.
 
Why are we concluding that modern airpower is constrained based on this war? Ukraine has / is flying essentially 80s jets and the Russian VKS is a **** show that has very little actual capability beyond bomb tossing and stand off. This is not comparable in the slightest to the terrifying ability of NATO airpower, which literally features thousands of airframes with a wide amount of capability, including that of proficient SEAD ops, not to mention highly trained pilots. If the Ukrainians can hit Russian AD with HARM missiles fired on their least effective setting, what do you imagine a dedicated SEAD campaign featuring purpose built wild weasels craft can do, all to deploy numerous strike packages onto target? If you replaced the VKS with not even 20% of NATOs airpower capability you would see profound differences and a probably collapse of UA defences. Given the hilariously poor performance of Russian AD so far, NATO airpower would simply slaughter them and they know it.

As for the navy...do I really need to address this? Its been the highlight of Russian incompetency and corruption. We did see the leaked documents showing the readiness level of the Moskva before it was sunk here right? The challenges faced by Russia in projecting both air and naval power conflict are not due to a "forgetting" of military principles but rather the result of effective Ukrainian defences, geographical constraints, and the inherent complexity of modern multidomain warfare combined with the poor state of both branches. The VKS wishes it could do even a shred of what NATO based airpower can do. 
 
I literally said the same sort of thing about how its going to take some time to unpack everything. My assertions are simply theoretical as explanations based on what we know, it may not be the full picture but I would wager its pretty close. Point I am trying to make is that the Russians were having major difficulties before the plethora of FPVs as an example. I am just as curious as you are to see just what has been doing the most 'damage' for lack of a better word. 

To conclude, I do agree with you on a number of points, but I simply believe that wiping the slate clean is a bad idea. 

After a bit of sleep and reflection, I will largely stand by most of my argument though I admit I made several statements poorly. I'm going to keep it buried though because I was actively losing my sanity over it, even if I might have been swayed on certain points. I again thank Steve and Capt for mostly good discussion though. Its certainly food for thought and I genuinely believe they are onto something, especially in certain areas. They provided a great read on a lot of stuff so kudos for them for providing that. 

On the topic of something I can more readily debate and talk about, the sorry saga of the T-14 continues. I find RedEffect is pretty biased towards Russian / Soviet systems, so for him to find this a little baffling says a lot really. Another case of a Russian wunderwaffe being a disappointment (though I think this one has been anticipated) 

Even with me being a tank buff, I can happily admit that Armata has been a great case of what not to do for a tank design, right at a time where tanks need to be designed in new ways to deal with the reality of combat. This was a badly designed vehicle from the onset and its already aged poorly just as much as legacy Soviet tank platforms. 
 
 

How many times do I have to say that poor performance from the VKS is down to a multitude of factors that happen to include them being poorly suited to the task at hand and suffering from corruption. Its. Not. The. Sole. Reason. 
USVs had nothing to do with the Mosvka sinking. Russian naval activity has had no clear objective outside of flinging missiles at targets of opportunity and has been beset by equipment and training problems. This is literally well documented. 
Again, this is getting pretty tiring. I have repeatedly said incompetence and corruption plays a PART of the reason the Russians have lacked success. Please actually read what I am saying and stop assuming I am just going 'Russians suck'. Its genuinely getting irritating at this point. 
 
I welcome rethinks and relooks, but I find you readily dismiss technologies which are both practical and in use right now. I literally keep saying that many of your points are valid, my problem is with the notion that throw everything else into the bin on a whim. I personally think its better to pursue all areas of possibility. Why not develop more loitering munitions while also seeking out APS for instance. We really should be covering all angles. 
 
I specifically said western firms created the idea of FPV drones and that recently western firms have made smaller drones. Stop putting words in my mouth please. The west has at least ensured a ready supply of components make its way to Ukraine, though much of the building effort remains reliant on fund raising, something that probably could do with looking at. Though at least some Western countries are waking up to this:

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-to-supply-more-than-10000-drones-to-ukraine

In terms of smaller drones, there are literally dozens. Black Hornet, ScanEagle, Puma, Dragoneye, Aladin, Aeryon, InstantEye Mk-2 Gen3, Wasp AE and Drone40 to name just a few that have been developed and fielded though not a lot have obviously gone to Ukraine. 
 

Again, I apologise if my argument is getting incoherent, I'm just a little worn down by this point. I meant to say the US was not exactly looking for an FPV munition capability due to being more or less satisfied by their current capability. That's not to say they were thus not seeking to innovate at all, its just an explanation to why it was not seriously pursued despite the technology being there.  As for the rest, fair point. I'm kind of out of juice at this point.
 
 
Honestly? Fair enough. I misread on my sources and it looks like most of the attempt reforms were post Chechen war. Though I would point out that Russian military reforms post 2008 failed to address problems that are now biting them hard in Ukraine. 



Honestly probably going to drop out of this line of discussion overall as its clear we have a difference of opinion that's getting increasingly hostile, at least I feel it is. I'm happy to leave it at wait and see. I thank you both for the discussion, but maybe work on being a little less...abrasive with your assertions. You two acting like you know better than literally dozens of countries and their military apparatuses is...quite something, even if you bring up some very good points. Maybe you are both right and all those people are wrong, in which case my god were doomed.