Armata soon to be in service.

[Vanir Ausf B]

This is all true, but what good is a cost-effective military that can be destroyed in a couple of days by a Western force?

I don't think Russia assumes that the only scenario in which it faces Western equipment is world war 3. NATO countries sell their stuff to non-NATO countries too. And speaking of which, competition in the export market may be as much a reason for Armata as competition on the battlefield.

[Battlefront.com]

Battle of Grozny: http://forums.airbase.ru/2010/11/t73561--belogrud-poteri-tankov-v-groznom.html

Attachment to first message. Author provides data for every lost tank with crew fate known.

 

Actually, 30 tanks are not all lost tanks, but tanks with known crew fate.

 

2nd Lebanon War: http://www.waronline.org/IDF/Articles/history/2nd-lebanon-war/acv-losses/#3

 

Both sources are in Russian. I can translate some pieces if you want.

It's not really possible to compare the two battles against each other in a way that is meaningful to establish which vehicle set is "better". The only thing that can be stated, I think, is that neither the Russians nor the Israelis were adequately prepared for the fight they encountered. Bad tactics and poorly thought out strategies tend to lead to bad results

If you are simply trying to compare crew survivability, then that is theoretically possible. However, one must take into consideration the weapons being used to defeat the AFVs. Crew survivability in a vehicle knocked out by grenade fire is not necessarily comparable to crew survivability when hit by a large ATGM warhead. A comparative analysis that does not reasonably take incoming fire into account has no value.

CMBS is a great platform for putting what I just said to the test

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Your exact words were:

Yup, and in this context "Russian" = people who live in and are considered to be subjects of the Russian state. I did not mean "Russian" = the government of Russia. As I just explained.

 

Hype is not the same as official claims regarding exact vehicle specs that turned out to be false. Did they ever trick anyone into buying something that turned out to be not working at manufacturer's stated specs? Hype is just a dirty marketing, but I do not remember hearing about them actually lying. Lying means making an official statement that turned out to be false. And so far, there were no official statements regarding new generation of vehicles. If you've seen anything like that, please do provide.

I don't understand what this has to do with what I said. Again, refer back to my previous post where I explained my position. Russians (i.e. individual people) have a track record of over-hyping Russian equipment capabilities. Westerners (i.e. individual people) have a track record of being skeptical of such claims because they turn out to come up short. Therefore, Russians (i.e. individual people) who feel Westerners (i.e. individual people) skepticism is unwarranted have a tough case to make.

 

What I have seen in this thread is how western people laugh at some fan made pictures and 3d models as if they were from Putin himself, and how they are laughing at "Russian claims" that are in fact rumors and not official statements, or misinterpreted official statements.

I've never argued that, and I honestly don't think anybody in this thread has either.

 

I don't think Russia assumes that the only scenario in which it faces Western equipment is world war 3. NATO countries sell their stuff to non-NATO countries too. And speaking of which, competition in the export market may be as much a reason for Armata as competition on the battlefield.

Absolutely. Russia gets a lot of money and "soft power" from selling arms abroad. Gone are the days when Russia (or the Soviet Union before it) can afford to give the stuff away as it once did. If a country doesn't perceive value in what Russia has to offer, then it will not purchase Russian equipment. The increasing gap between Russian and Western equipment must be countered or the lucrative arms trade and the power that comes with it will suffer.

Still, Russia does wish to have the option to go to war against the West and at least not lose. I don't know if the military minds in Russia have secretly concluded that isn't feasible no matter what, or if they think that it is still possible to do. The real success of Armata and other military reform products must be judged based on that. If Russia has no intention of fighting a direct confrontation with the West then the bar set for Armata goes down considerably. The inverse is also true.

Steve

[Alexey K]

Before jumping into numbers, I must ask a simple question - do you really want to argue about Soviet designs being bad at protecting crew and passengers at all cost? BMP-2 with worthless side armor that can't help against HMGs, which had to be increased in Afghanistan in 1981 at the cost of it's amphibious ability, but never actually been upgraded this way in large numbers at home, because they value amphibious capability more than lives of the passengers? Cramped BMP-2, with unprotected fuel tanks in doors. BMP-3 with 100mm rounds in the middle of passenger compartment? BTRs that can protect only against small arms and also have crazy designed doors? There's a reason why these are called "Братская могила пехоты". There's a reason why people started riding on top of them, and not inside. So, do you really want to challenge that opinion?

 

Actually, I don't want to argue due to two reasons:

1. Forum arguments are mostly pointless. You don't see me much invovled in them  

2. I'am not a specialist in question being discussed.

 

Instead of starting an argument I suggest a session of problem solving. 

I have three pieces of data:

1. Russian armour is considered very lethal to it's crew.

2. Merkava series tanks are considered very safe for it's crew.

3. Numbers I've got my hands on imply that they are quite the same.

Problem presented is that these pieces of data being put together make no sense at all.

 

So, let's try and explore range of possible explanations of this contradiction while trying not to stick to particular one of them regardless of your personal preferences

[L0ckAndL0ad]

I don't understand what this has to do with what I said. Again, refer back to my previous post where I explained my position. Russians (i.e. individual people) have a track record of over-hyping Russian equipment capabilities. Westerners (i.e. individual people) have a track record of being skeptical of such claims because they turn out to come up short. Therefore, Russians (i.e. individual people) who feel Westerners (i.e. individual people) skepticism is unwarranted have a tough case to make.

 

Your exact words were:

 

I feel the same way about Soviet and Russian military developments. National pride and fanciful specifications are the norm, hard evidence is not. At times it got pretty silly when things like Black Eagle and T-95 were each touted as "the best tank in the world" before the first prototype was even built. And then, amazingly, "the best tank in the world" never got made and the existing ones have not measured up to expectations.

 

Military developments = a work between MoD and manufacturers. These are the official figures that can claim specifications. But then you say "fanciful specifications", which are not backed by hard evidence. So I am asking you, where did you see something like that? And then you say "best tank in the world". Are you still talking about official claims, or about fan's claims?

[Djiaux]

Given the fact that we have given our opinion and it will probably not change I will just make a final statement of my opinion.

 

This is all true, but what good is a cost-effective military that can be destroyed in a couple of days by a Western force?

 

That's exactly the point but not the way you put it. Irak had to face the most modern western military equipment with outdated soviet military equipment and in inferiority in command, infantry, armor and air (most of all air). Cualifying soviet war machines by that war would be like saying that the T-34 was crap because German forces owned its face in 1941.

 

I think the idea is that in a war with the best equipment the west and the east could bring the west would crush the east but would suffer heavy casualties, if the war went on eastern equipment could keep coming to the front faster than western equipment... this doesn't make sense, let's say I talk just about armor in general, you get the point... and in the end outlast the western forces. I think that was the idea the soviets had for WW3.

 

This is only possible if eastern armor is not that bad, just worse than western armor, I think this is the case and I think that as citizens from the west we tend to think that the weapons our armies use are just incredibly better. Well I look at WW2 weapons and I just love many soviet weapons, nice small arms, great armor and good aviation. I listen to people talking about how good western equipment was and maybe we can discuss it if we talk US armor/German armor vs soviet armor but british armor in WW2 agains soviet armor? Please...

 

And the fact that Russia is updating its army and making it more western-like. I think it's totally true but I think that in our days wars are again more 'cabinet wars' were you send your best troops and equipment to overwhelm a weaker force far from home, both Russia and China were in inferiority of equipment for this and I think both are trying to change that.

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

I will respond in time but am currently trying to get my retinas to reattach after catastrophic eye roll from the merkava comparison.

[Thewood1]

One point about Iraq.  They had similar issues with its armor in the Iran war.  That was against some outdated western and Soviet hardware.

[Alexey K]

It's not really possible to compare the two battles against each other in a way that is meaningful to establish which vehicle set is "better". The only thing that can be stated, I think, is that neither the Russians nor the Israelis were adequately prepared for the fight they encountered. Bad tactics and poorly thought out strategies tend to lead to bad results

If you are simply trying to compare crew survivability, then that is theoretically possible. However, one must take into consideration the weapons being used to defeat the AFVs. Crew survivability in a vehicle knocked out by grenade fire is not necessarily comparable to crew survivability when hit by a large ATGM warhead. A comparative analysis that does not reasonably take incoming fire into account has no value.

CMBS is a great platform for putting what I just said to the test

Steve

 

Very good point ideed.

 

Both engagements have something in common and something setting them apart. Both represent asymmetric forms of warfare. On one side is regular army (IDF of Russian Ground Forces), on other - irregulars eploying guerilla-type warfare. 

 

Differences:

1. IDF in 2006 was in MUCH better shape than RGF in 1994.

2. AFAIK, no rolling-thunder type operation was performed by IDF like storming of Grozny.

 

Some drill-down data from my sources (on per-casualty basis):

IDF loses :

25 men KIA due to ATGM and/or RPG hits (can't derive more accurate data from source right now).

5 men KIA due to IEDs (but there is strong evidence that some of ammunition explosions were mistaken as IEDs).

 

RGF loses:

<grumbling>

In editor mode table was inserted perfectly!

</grumbling>

 

 

Type of Damage|Tanks lost |KIA

Artillery                 1                 3

ATGM                   2                 2

RPG                     22               15

AT GUN               1                  3

Unknown              4                  8

 

Interesting fact: one T-80BV is said to be lost due to shot from chechen-driven T-72A. No crew was lost in this particular case.

 

P.S. Give US Merkavas to test

Edited April 1, 2015 by Alexey K

[akd]

One point about Iraq.  They had similar issues with its armor in the Iran war.  That was against some outdated western and Soviet hardware.

 

Iraq hasn't exactly been putting up a stellar performance with Abrams, Humvees, ASVs, etc. lately either.

Edited April 1, 2015 by akd

[Alexey K]

I will respond in time but am currently trying to get my retinas to reattach after catastrophic eye roll from the merkava comparison.

 

Please, accept my sincere apologies.

Your eye injury was unintented... er... collateral damage

[A Canadian Cat]

Well nija'ed by Alexey with some of that data even - cool - shooda refreshed before hitting the post button. Left here to preserve the record in case various people are tearing me a new one even as I edit this

3. Numbers I've got my hands on imply that they are quite the same.

Problem presented is that these pieces of data being put together make no sense at all.

So, let's try and explore range of possible explanations of this contradiction while trying not to stick to particular one of them regardless of your personal preferences

Actually, it might be more efficient to answer some of Steve's questions about your data and find some additional data sources. After all given two AFVs that have the same crew casualty rate but are being destroyed by varying amounts of force you can still make an assessment on which vehicle has better crew protection features.

 

For example (I am using a deliberately exaggerated scenario to illustrate my point not to asses any named, existing or fantasy tank's capabilities), if we have data for Tank Type A and Tank Type B from two separate hypothetical conflicts that show the same crew casualty rate but Tank A suffered, on average, a destruction of much larger force we could conclude that Tank type A does in fact offer better crew protection.  So lets say that Tank type A was equally likely to be destroyed by a modern RPG or a large calibre main tank round while the Tank type B (in the other conflict) was equally likely to be destroyed by an improvised gasoline based molatov cocktail or a small hand grenade the conclusion would be obvious. Then there would be no need to wax on philosophically about points #1 and #2.

Edited April 1, 2015 by IanL

[Alexey K]

Actually, it might be more efficient to answer some of Steve's questions about your data and find some additional data sources. After all given two AFVs that have the same crew casualty rate but are being destroyed by varying amounts of force you can still make an assessment on which vehicle has better crew protection features.

 

For example (I am using a deliberately exaggerated scenario to illustrate my point not to asses any named, existing or fantasy tank's capabilities), if we have data for Tank Type A and Tank Type B from two separate hypothetical conflicts that show the same crew casualty rate but Tank A suffered, on average, a destruction of much larger force we could conclude that Tank type A does in fact offer better crew protection.  So lets say that Tank type A was equally likely to be destroyed by a modern RPG or a large calibre main tank round while the Tank type B (in the other conflict) was equally likely to be destroyed by an improvised gasoline based molatov cocktail or a small hand grenade the conclusion would be obvious. Then there would be no need to wax on philosophically about points #1 and #2.

 

I've provided some details in #434.

There is as much as I can povide right now. IDF loses are somewhat not so detailed, but to aggregate that data I need to read out large amount of text,

It is not something I can do right now. 

 

P.S. Actually, these source are the only I've manage to find on that matter (crew survivability).

I would be happy to find some more.

Edited April 1, 2015 by Alexey K

[A Canadian Cat]

Some drill-down data from my sources (on per-casualty basis):

IDF loses :

25 men KIA due to ATGM and/or RPG hits (can't derive more accurate data from source right now).

5 men KIA due to IEDs (but there is strong evidence that some of ammunition explosions were mistaken as IEDs).

 

How many tanks was that from?

[A Canadian Cat]

Thank you Alexey - cross posting with you again...

[Alexey K]

How many tanks was that from?

 

AFAIK:

Totally 29 tank lost.

 

Of that number 13 tanks were lost with loss of life.

 

Of which:

11 tanks were destroyed by ATGM and/or RPG fire.

2 tanks were hit by IEDs.

[ikalugin]

The reason why classical (orifinal) IFVs such as the BMP1 (and BMP2 that uses a derived hull) have low (compared to tanks) level of protection yet still are required to carry infantry into the battle (rather than to dismount it safely out of the enemy fire) is because the battle field was expected to be nuclear in late 60s, with the complete suppression of enemy defenses by tactical nuclear means (down to company sized strong points).

BMP3 and other late cold war designs tried to adress the change towards more conventional scenarios, yet the complete suppression of the enemy defense was still considered to be a normal battlefield situation due to MFZ (It was harder to achieve but was considered possible) and other means.

The BMP3 itself selected a proactive strategy in that regard - with 100mm gun capable of reliably engaging ATGWs at long range. Still there was research into IFVs and tank support vehicles with a simmilar level of protection to the MBTs.

In my opinion however all classical IFV designs are conceptually obsolete, as they do not allow dismounting troops close to the enemy positions without massive supression efforts.

While Israili efforts to desighn well protected (against CQ AT weapons) APCs, I think that only Armata would bring us the true new generation IFV concept built for the non nuclear war from the get go.

US also appears to have some projects moving into a simmilar direction.

Edited April 1, 2015 by ikalugin

[ikalugin]

And so the modeling begins.

[John Kettler]

LOckAndLOad,

 

Things may be different now, I simply don't know, but that's not how they were during the Cold War. this was reflected in both CLASSIFIED and UNCLASSIFIED intel pubs.

 

In 1980, DIA put out THE SOVIET TANK COMPANY (U). There, it clearly and unambiguously described the Russian practice of using only one or two tanks at a time in a given Tank Company for training. That's a la Russe, as I put it. It said that the tanks had short service lives, which this practice was intended to protect, and that only a couple of times a year did the whole Tank Company take to the field, generally as the successive levels of formations geared up for the large scale combat exercises which culminated the training cycle before the next batch of conscripts arrived. Suvorov/Rezun, who commanded a T-55 Tank Company, says much the same and goes into great and gory detail regarding the workup to Operation Dneiper, where he describes how the training was first done with everyone walking the ground to learn where to be and when. This included the chopper guys and the jet jockeys whizzing through. Later, it was a tank per company, then a platoon and so forth. He explicitly states that the "peep show" effectively gutted Russian strength in tanks, BMPs, BTRs and many other areas, because the vehicles were heavily operated to the point of being good for little else but scrap. I can't read this (in Russian) T-55 tank manual, but I'm pretty sure within it you'll find the service intervals. My recollection from what Suvorov/Rezun said in The "Liberators" is they were shockingly short. I don't have it handy, but there were many similar stories by former Russian soldiers regarding the true operational status of the military equipment they worked on. Terrible. Their accounts appear in Cockburn's The Threat.

 

Lee_Vincent,

 

That's the same infographic (if you can call it that) we've already been dissecting. Scathingly.

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

Edited April 1, 2015 by John Kettler

[Battlefront.com]

Your exact words were:

 

 

Military developments = a work between MoD and manufacturers. These are the official figures that can claim specifications. But then you say "fanciful specifications", which are not backed by hard evidence. So I am asking you, where did you see something like that? And then you say "best tank in the world". Are you still talking about official claims, or about fan's claims?

You can keep twisting my words and ignoring my detailed explanations, or you can accept my detailed explanations. I am, and always have been, talking about "fan's claims".

That being said, I doubt any official Soviet or Russian literature has ever made the claim that "we have the best 2nd rate tanks in the world!". But I do not expect that from any government. Nobody wants to admit that their products are inferior to the enemy's, cost too much for what they deliver, are dependent upon foreign parts, are expensive to maintain, etc. All nations engage in carefully cultivating their image, and none cultivate an image of inferiority.

Steve

[ikalugin]

John, during which years did Rezun command a tank company?

[Battlefront.com]

That's exactly the point but not the way you put it. Irak had to face the most modern western military equipment with outdated soviet military equipment and in inferiority in command, infantry, armor and air (most of all air). Cualifying soviet war machines by that war would be like saying that the T-34 was crap because German forces owned its face in 1941.

Oh, I'd never say that The Germans lost significant forces and had tactical and even one operational defeat in 1941 due to the T-34. The fact that Germany didn't get it's butt handed to them on a larger scale was due to other factors such as untrained crews, incompetent leadership, superior German tactical experience, etc.

Still, it is extremely difficult to compare any two wars together. The fact is the Soviet Union wanted to fight, Iraq didn't. That makes a huge difference. However, when Iraq did decide to fight they did almost no damage to the Western forces.

 

I think the idea is that in a war with the best equipment the west and the east could bring the west would crush the east but would suffer heavy casualties, if the war went on eastern equipment could keep coming to the front faster than western equipment... this doesn't make sense, let's say I talk just about armor in general, you get the point... and in the end outlast the western forces. I think that was the idea the soviets had for WW3.

This is where Russia is now significantly weaker than it was when it was the Soviet Union. It doesn't have those sorts of numbers. The West could win a war of attrition against Russia quite easily if the will existed to fight one.

 

This is only possible if eastern armor is not that bad, just worse than western armor, I think this is the case and I think that as citizens from the west we tend to think that the weapons our armies use are just incredibly better. Well I look at WW2 weapons and I just love many soviet weapons, nice small arms, great armor and good aviation. I listen to people talking about how good western equipment was and maybe we can discuss it if we talk US armor/German armor vs soviet armor but british armor in WW2 agains soviet armor? Please...

Combined arms is a big part of warfare, obviously. Do note, however, that Soviet tankers thought favorably of some British and US tanks that were part of Lend Lease. Matilda and Shermans in particular.

 

And the fact that Russia is updating its army and making it more western-like. I think it's totally true but I think that in our days wars are again more 'cabinet wars' were you send your best troops and equipment to overwhelm a weaker force far from home, both Russia and China were in inferiority of equipment for this and I think both are trying to change that.

Absolutely both are trying to change their capabilities. However, it has yet to be seen if they can. And let's hope we don't have to find out

 

 

Iraq hasn't exactly been putting up a stellar performance with Abrams, Humvees, ASVs, etc. lately either.

 

Absolutely. And the terrain is certainly more favorable to US equipment than Soviet due to the censors and range advantages that are optimal in desert terrain.

Actually, it might be more efficient to answer some of Steve's questions about your data and find some additional data sources. After all given two AFVs that have the same crew casualty rate but are being destroyed by varying amounts of force you can still make an assessment on which vehicle has better crew protection features.

 

For example (I am using a deliberately exaggerated scenario to illustrate my point not to asses any named, existing or fantasy tank's capabilities), if we have data for Tank Type A and Tank Type B from two separate hypothetical conflicts that show the same crew casualty rate but Tank A suffered, on average, a destruction of much larger force we could conclude that Tank type A does in fact offer better crew protection.  So lets say that Tank type A was equally likely to be destroyed by a modern RPG or a large calibre main tank round while the Tank type B (in the other conflict) was equally likely to be destroyed by an improvised gasoline based molatov cocktail or a small hand grenade the conclusion would be obvious. Then there would be no need to wax on philosophically about points #1 and #2.

Yes, large sample sizes are good. If one side lost 100 tanks and had casualties in 30, that's different than a side losing 30 tanks and having casualties in 30. Again, cause of destruction needs to be taken into consideration.

BTW, I think it is generally agreed that the overall IDF performance against Hezbollah was unexpectedly poor.

Steve

[L0ckAndL0ad]

You can keep twisting my words and ignoring my detailed explanations, or you can accept my detailed explanations. I am, and always have been, talking about "fan's claims".

That being said, I doubt any official Soviet or Russian literature has ever made the claim that "we have the best 2nd rate tanks in the world!". But I do not expect that from any government. Nobody wants to admit that their products are inferior to the enemy's, cost too much for what they deliver, are dependent upon foreign parts, are expensive to maintain, etc. All nations engage in carefully cultivating their image, and none cultivate an image of inferiority.

Steve

 

I wasn't twisting anything, I was clarifying your rather vague initial statement which did not specify whose claims you were referring to.

 

I get your point now, and yeah, you're right, Russian military fanboys are very unfortunate and unlucky in this regard, being led down all these years.

 

In 1980

-skip-

T-55

 

Ouch. This actually brings up a point that "cost-effective" tanks were not so "cost effective" to use and train with in the first place. Unless they've considered that there's not much training needed if the crews will just blow up in 24 hours of conflict (or what was their lifeframe again? don't remember). Like, why bother with training much at all?

Edited April 1, 2015 by L0ckAndL0ad

[ikalugin]

I don't think that the war of attrition is a plausible scenario anymore (after WW2) because:

- nukes.

- war ending before sizable strategic reserves arrive.

Edited April 1, 2015 by ikalugin

[L0ckAndL0ad]

While Israili efforts to desighn well protected (against CQ AT weapons) APCs, I think that only Armata would bring us the true new generation IFV concept built for the non nuclear war from the get go.

 

This is the kind of claims that creates stereotypes about Russians.

 

But being constructive and all, the only difference between Namer APC and T-15 IFV (given information currently known) I see is weapon systems. Even more, Namer can be made an IFV by mounting 30mm AC and ATGM launcher. So how exactly do you see them different concept-wise?