Military reform a formidable task for Russia

[CaptMorgan68]

Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin chaired a special meeting in Voronezh, southern Russia, to review the procurement of modern weapons for the Russian Armed Forces.

The meeting focused on the delivery of state of the art automated troop-control systems.

Telecommunications and automated control systems remain a weak spot in the Russian Armed Forces, which still rely on obsolete Soviet-era systems. In 2000, the Voronezh-based Sozvezdiye Company became the lead contractor in the development of new tactical-level control systems.

Although military units have already received the first systems, some sources claim they are unreliable and difficult to operate. However, these initial drawbacks may be eliminated in the future.

The current financing for new-systems purchases makes it impossible to re-equip more than one brigade a year out of the 80-plus operational Army brigades. This is unacceptable.

It is hard to overestimate the role played by modern electronic systems in combat operations, especially today when virtually all industrialized nations, including Russia, are working hard to develop network based warfare, now commonly called network-centric operations, a new military doctrine or theory of war.

The new doctrine calls for creating a combined control system facilitating online target acquisition, information exchange, target allocation and command communication. The proposed system would also monitor the state of military units and their equipment.

Such control systems reduce the time needed to issue orders, including those for individual soldiers, ten-fold and provide a considerable advantage against enemy forces lacking such equipment. This is a vital pre-condition of modern warfare.

Russia lags behind other countries in the development of such equipment. This may create a permanent and even aggravated gap in terms of equipment levels compared with the armed forces of leading NATO countries and some other states.

Russia started developing automated troop-control systems in the 1980s when the Manyovr (Maneuver) control system was tested and won acclaim from the military and the defense industry.

However, the break-up of the Soviet Union and subsequent developments made it impossible to complete this project which had to be resumed from scratch in the early 2000s.

Although the government realizes the importance of this problem, the development of new troop-control systems has not been duly managed and coordinated to date.

Vladimir Putin said in Voronezh that a general designer responsible for developing automated control systems had not yet been appointed, and that an integrated agency to chart and implement a joint science-and-technical policy in this area had not thus far been established. In addition, a comprehensive program making it possible to concentrate resources, to coordinate budgetary spending and to make it more cost-effective was lacking.

Consequently, the Armed Forces’ organizational changes are not facilitated by modern equipment. This could impair the effective troop control of the new units and their combat efficiency.

The problem-ridden development of new control systems points to an all-out crisis that has plagued the Russian defense industry for the past 20 years.

Hi-tech sectors requiring the coordinated work of dozens or even hundreds of companies and considerable investment are the hardest hit.

Apart from control systems, the Armed Forces are also having trouble developing and testing the Bulava submarine-launched ballistic missile, building new diesel-electric submarines, creating air-defense systems, the Global Navigation Satellite System (GLONASS) and other types of military equipment.

It is still unclear how this crisis will be overcome, and standard financial-support measures are not enough. The state which wants to enhance the combat capability of its Armed Forces must oversee the invention of key defensive systems and intervene more actively in those cases when existing managerial bodies are either incompetent or reluctant to accomplish their objectives. Otherwise the lag may pass a critical point.

http://www.military-technologies.net/2010/01/22/military-update-a-formidable-task-for-russia/

[Ordie]

Regardless of the new weapons systems, breaking the old military culture will always be a challenge.

Apart from the Mistral warships, perhaps France could open slots at St. Cyr for prospective Russian military officers.

[rocinante]

You got the cart in front of the horse. It isn't weapons that win wars, it MEN. Weapons are just tools. That said, there is nothing wrong with having the best tools. It doesn't matter what the job is.
Russia should concentrate on recruiting and building a real army. Right now they have just a mob of conscripts. They also have the time needed to do this. Nobody is going to attack Russia. Not even if the Once mighty Red Army is reduced to a platoon of cooks an bakers. Commanded by 40,000 Generals. Nobody WANTS to. All Russia has is OIL, which it sells for less then it would cost to steal.
Retire the Generals, release the conscripts. Hire some retired British Sargents to find and train NCO's. Keep no officer higher then a Major. Start with a clean sheet of paper and design a 22nd century army from the ground up.
I don't say this to upset you, but as a simple fact. NONE of the Russian weapons systems are worth keeping. Russia makes good small arms, but that is it. Russian tanks are targets. So are their aircraft, artillery and ships. Put the money you save into buying almost modern weapons from the Euros, or the Joooos. It would be a lot cheaper then doing the research and rebuilding the factories to produce modern weapons.
This will never happen, of course but you asked.

[CaptMorgan68]

I don't say this to upset you, but as a simple fact. NONE of the Russian weapons systems are worth keeping. Russia makes good small arms, but that is it. Russian tanks are targets. So are their aircraft, artillery and ships.

^^^ please elaborate on the Russian tanks being targets or how NONE of the Russian weapon systems are worth being kept)))

I'm gonna go grab popcorn while u r at it since this is gonna get interesting FAST

[IcyHot]

You got the cart in front of the horse. It isn't weapons that win wars, it MEN. Weapons are just tools. That said, there is nothing wrong with having the best tools. It doesn't matter what the job is.
Russia should concentrate on recruiting and building a real army. Right now they have just a mob of conscripts. They also have the time needed to do this. Nobody is going to attack Russia. Not even if the Once mighty Red Army is reduced to a platoon of cooks an bakers. Commanded by 40,000 Generals. Nobody WANTS to. All Russia has is OIL, which it sells for less then it would cost to steal.
Retire the Generals, release the conscripts. Hire some retired British Sargents to find and train NCO's. Keep no officer higher then a Major. Start with a clean sheet of paper and design a 22nd century army from the ground up.
I don't say this to upset you, but as a simple fact. NONE of the Russian weapons systems are worth keeping. Russia makes good small arms, but that is it. Russian tanks are targets. So are their aircraft, artillery and ships. Put the money you save into buying almost modern weapons from the Euros, or the Joooos. It would be a lot cheaper then doing the research and rebuilding the factories to produce modern weapons.
This will never happen, of course but you asked.

I could not agree more !

Russian army realy looks like some homeless beggar.

[Sousuke]

888.

All I'm gonna say.

Army =/= fashion show.


I don't say this to upset you, but as a simple fact. NONE of the Russian weapons systems are worth keeping. Russia makes good small arms, but that is it. Russian tanks are targets. So are their aircraft, artillery and ships.

I loled.

[rocinante]

Russia is left with old Soviet designs that never worked on the battlefield. That was because the Soviets designed weapons SYSTEMS from a political standpoint. A weapons SYSTEM is more then just a weapon.
A rock is a weapon. Put it on a stck and you have a weapons system. Throw it with a strip of leather (sling) and you have a weapons system. Granted, spear, clubs and sling are early weapons systems, but the principal remains pretty much the same. Weapons systems require integration, The components have to work together and with other systems. That leads to a whole that is greater then the sum of it's parts.
Take MBT's for which the Soviets took great pride in during the Great Patriotic war. The T-34 was a good tank. It was perfect for what it was designed to do, which was lead Armored spearheads across the trackless wastes of the Soviet Union of WW2. None of the parts were novel or exceptional but the whole was greater then the sum of those parts. A British naval gun mounted on a American Chassis powered by a French Engine. Cheap to build, it was produced in quanity sufficiant to do the job. The T-34 ruled the Steppes of Russia. If the Soviets had kept going in '45, they would have quickly found out how unsuited the T-34 was for mechanized warfare in Western Europe. Given roads to travel on, the Sherman was superior to the T-34.
Soviet tanks were built to fight off road. That design trend continued into the Cold War. Why not? It worked well in WW2.
The west, on the other hand did studies of tank on tank combat in WW2 and found that several factors led to victory. First was crew comfort. It seems that tank on tank shootouts were won 80% of the time by the tank that shot first. 100% of the time by the tank that HIT first. While tank on tank wasn't all that common, it was the LCD (lowest common denominator) of armored combat.
Getting that first shot off and haveng it hit was entirely a function of crew comfort. The more comfortable and rested the crew is, the better it performs. So a tall MBT with room for the crew will outperform a MBT that is low and cramps the crew. This was proven many times during the cold war as handfuls of Western MBT's destroyed hordes of Soviet MBT's.
That is just one factor, there are many other failings with Soviet Tank design. I won't get into auto loaders yet.
The real lesson from WW2 was the absolute rule of air power. The side that controlled the airspace over the battlefield NEVER lost. They didn't alwys win, but they never lost. If you never lose, winning is inevitable. The only question is time.
The Soviets were slow to understand the worth of airpower and never really put the effort into it they needed. A lot of that can be laid at the feet of Stalin, who wanted quality, not quanity. Plus the key to air power is the fighter plane. The Soviets intentionally built underpowered fighter planes because they were cheaper. It never dawned on any of the Soviet Power structure that the air is almost without limit and if you cannot catch your enemy, it matters not how badly you outnumber them.
German mostly used the Bf-109 in the east because it has a better altitude then any of the Soviet fighters (or the FW) and was faster in war trim ( weapons and ammo aboard). So the Nazi's would get above the Soviets, dive down, kill and use their superior speed to flee (boom and zoom in technical terms). That is how the German fighter pilots racked such high kill numbers. It got so bad that the Soviets were giving out medals for pilots that rammed German aircraft. After WW2 the Soviets reverse enginered a British engine, fitted it to a German design and had the MiG-15, which was superior to any western fighter. It managed to break even against the F-86 Sabre.
I know, the US Air Force claims a superior kill ration of around 10 to 1 but that claim is bogus. It is based on counting everything shot down by an F-86 against only F-86's shot down by MiG's. If you count just MiG vs Sabre kills, it's about even with the MiG having a slight edge.
The reason the Sabre was able to hold it's own against a much superior fighter was the pilots. Remember, its a weapon SYSTEM and the pilot is an essential part of that syatem. The Sabre had a clear canopy that gave a 360 upper hemisphere view and about 200 degrees of lower hemisphere view. That allowed the Sabre pilots, who where mostly long hours combat vets from WW2, to see the MiG's first and take advantage of the MiG's blind spots. The early MiG's had a cockpit that was buried in the fuselage with extremely limited visibility to the rear and down. The experienced US pilots knew that in the air, the goal is to sneak up on your opponent, shoot him in the back, then go look for another target. The Sabre allowed them to do that.

The ultimate weapon is surprise. It doesn't matter how well armed your opponent is if you can kill him before he knows you are there.

The modern expression of that principal of warfare ( Surprise as the ultimate weapon) is the US Military. The purpose of Stealth and netcentric warfare is killing your enemy before they know you were there. Night vision, PGM's, knowing where your team mates are and where the enemy is are all part of using surprise as a weapon.
Go to Youtube and watch some of the stir-fry postings. See the terr digging a hole for an IED ( which is a low tech means of using surprise) . Watch him get turned into body parts by the M-2 sitting on a hill 2 Km's away. So who gets the surprise? This time. Tomorrow, it might be the Bradley.
Russian (Soviet) weapons were designed without consideration of what actually happens on the battlefield. Without consideration of the MEN that crew those weapons. So of course they are doomed to fail. Put a screen door in a submarine and it will cause problems. Put an autoloader on a stabalized gun in a small turret and you are going to get crew members that spend more time keeping from getting caught in the machinery then they do crewing the MBT. That makes them tired and less observant. So the enemy sees them first and with a higher turret is able to shoot and hit them before they know they are targets. And it turns out a low silhouette doesn't matter with IR.
Detection range on a B-2 is about 10 to 12 Km's. Or rumor has it. Actual range is classified, but unimportant. It is unimportant because the stand-off range for the weapons carried by that B-2 are over 100 Km's. So that Radar is dead LONG before the B-2 gets into detection range.
Modern Warfare is conducted by the same principals our ancestors used when they lived in cave and hunted each other. Sneak up on them and hit them when they aren't looking. Same principals, different tools.

[Atlantic Friend]

More than the merits of Russian systems (vs US systems vs European systems vs Israeli systems vs Alpha Centauri systems) it's rather a question of whether they're suited to the mission given the Russian army these days.

[TakeIt]

Russia is left with old Soviet designs that never worked on the battlefield. /rest of delirious rant skipped/. Ignorant BS is ignorant.

[Snoshi]

There is nothing wrong with a conscription army per se. The problem in Russia's case is that the military service is extreamly unpopular and most young men are doing everything in their power to avoid conscription.

[CMGC]

Ignorant BS is ignorant.

I wouldn't say that he is particularly ignorant, just locked into a US/Western perspective. I would urge him to study the Soviet way of war and the very different mindset of the Soviet commander before studying some of the conflicts in which the Soviets were actually involved in rather than 3rd world countries with hopeless training regimes and worse morale (As he says - its the men, not the machines).

The average Soviet conscript was competent and would do the job expected of him. Junior officers were a bit shaky due to the massive task they were given but the Soviet senior leadership consistently proved itself to be excellent. Given adequate equipment (and it was just that - cheap and does the job it was designed for perfectly) the Soviet troops would perform very well.

[Mordoror]

I wouldn't say that he is particularly ignorant, just locked into a US/Western perspective. I would urge him to study the Soviet way of war and the very different mindset of the Soviet commander before studying some of the conflicts in which the Soviets were actually involved in rather than 3rd world countries with hopeless training regimes and worse morale (As he says - its the men, not the machines).

The average Soviet conscript was competent and would do the job expected of him. Junior officers were a bit shaky due to the massive task they were given but the Soviet senior leadership consistently proved itself to be excellent. Given adequate equipment (and it was just that - cheap and does the job it was designed for perfectly) the Soviet troops would perform very well.

well the guy use stereotypes
that make his whole blabla pointless and useless for any serious analysis

as for the second point i beg to disagree
conscripts will do the job inside national borders for defending the motherland
after all some 15 years ago almost all european armies were conscript and nobody whined about their unefficiency
the problem is that the russian forces were/are/would in a near future act like an expeditionnary force either in the nearby vicissinity of the "empire" or as part of peace keepin units or in the worst case far away from the supply lines of the motherland

in that case you cannot only rely on conscripts : they are less efficient than true professional troops (less adaptable, need more support and NCO/Officers control) and they are a mediatic/political weakness (if a professional soldier dies almost nobody cares, if a conscript dies you have the civilian society at your door....)
if russia wants to play a bigger part in worldwide events it need a professional army

some corps/units are already professional but the number and coherence of organization needs to be improved
of course by that you lose manpower for border defence
if that's what fears the russian brasses let's make territorial guard (something like the national guard in USA or territorial defense in Swizterland/Sweden/Finland) and keep the professional units for rapid reaction forces or projections

[TakeIt]

I wouldn't say that he is particularly ignorant, just locked into a US/Western perspective. No. You simply have to look at the completely empty and egotistic text to understand that it was written rather for the essay contest than a military forum.

Also, given the size of the country and possible adversaries around, RF should never abolish conscription or transform it into a kind of pre-service training, available to anybody or even implemented on the school level, like "Zarnica"/"Orlyonok".

[CMGC]

I have seen the idea of professionalising the VDV and using them as a more conventional 'firefighting force' equipped with BTRs and ready for rapid deployment into trouble spots. The rest of the army would stay largely conscript and not be expected to do much fighting.

It might solve Russia's problem of using conscripts to fight expeditionary warfare but I'm not sure the generals would approve of them losing airdrop capability. To be honest I am happy as a spectator in this one - the politics and problems of the Russian army will probably continue for at least a decade and even then I don't think there is a 'correct' solution. Russias problems are unique and the large country/small budget problem isnt going to go away.

[SmoothieX12]

Russia is left with old Soviet designs that never worked on the battlefield. That was because the Soviets designed weapons SYSTEMS from a political standpoint.

What an utter rubbish. Sir, if You would be even remotely acquainted with the Soviet system of officer training and what it took to become one You would not be making here a sweeping generalizations on the issue which is "learned" (quite obviously) from the broadcasts of the Military and Discovery (with partial fusion of History) Channels. As for highlighted in red--my suggestion for You will be to open (for starters) some basic books on military science, i.e. "The Defense Policies Of Nations. Comparative Study", edited by Douglas J. Murray and Paul Viotti, John Hopkins University Press, and read on page 185 in the Arthur J. Alexander's "Decision Making In Soviet Weapons Procurement" HOW and WHY soviet weapon's systems (as well as of other nations) have been designed and what it took to do so. There is even a table on proportions of factors which influenced that. As for the more detailed and vast review of how "political" was this Soviet design--no better document exists than huge article in Proceedings Naval Review 1982 by Captain James W. Kehoe, Kenneth Brower and Herbert Meier "US and Soviet Ship Design Practices, 1950-1980". There is so much "political standpoint" there that one begins to wonder why even attend military academies and schools, what a waste of time;-)

P.S. Love your nick--Cervantes is one of my favorite writers.

[rocinante]

More than the merits of Russian systems (vs US systems vs European systems vs Israeli systems vs Alpha Centauri systems) it's rather a question of whether they're suited to the mission given the Russian army these days.

What you are really saying is that the Russians will be fine, SO LONG AS THEIR OPPONENT COOPERATES.
Whooppie! I could say the same thing about the girl scouts. Joking aside, The Russians have the time now to rebuild their military. They have no external threats, other then what their paranoia provides. In another 20 or 30 years that could change. I doubt it, since the days of large military operations are mostly behind humanity.
Since the Russians have no mission, no opponent to protect Rodina from, Why not scrap the 20th century junk and start on a real military?

[rocinante]

Ignorant BS is ignorant.

Then educate me. Provide me with evidence to support your BS.
First you can PROVE that Russian conscripts are better then those from Iraq, Egypt, Or any other 3rd world nation where Soviet Weapons failed on the battle field. I won't accept 'Just because' as evidence. Being drafted in Russia doesn't make one any smarter, stronger, braver or better looking then being drafted in Algeria, France, China or the USA. That is why serious militaries stopped taking conscripts. ALL humans are more or less equal before training. The word in American English for thinking that people are superior because of where they are born is 'racist'. There is NO scientific basis to support the theory of racism. None, Nada, Zip.
Show me some evidence. If it is real I will change my mind. Just calling me names won't cut it and reflects more on yourself.

[sepheronx]

What you are really saying is that the Russians will be fine, SO LONG AS THEIR OPPONENT COOPERATES.
Whooppie! I could say the same thing about the girl scouts. Joking aside, The Russians have the time now to rebuild their military. They have no external threats, other then what their paranoia provides. In another 20 or 30 years that could change. I doubt it, since the days of large military operations are mostly behind humanity.
Since the Russians have no mission, no opponent to protect Rodina from, Why not scrap the 20th century junk and start on a real military?

And uh, what KIND of military equipment is needed for a real army?

Let me guess..... American?


Then educate me. Provide me with evidence to support your BS.
First you can PROVE that Russian conscripts are better then those from Iraq, Egypt, Or any other 3rd world nation where Soviet Weapons failed on the battle field. I won't accept 'Just because' as evidence. Being drafted in Russia doesn't make one any smarter, stronger, braver or better looking then being drafted in Algeria, France, China or the USA. That is why serious militaries stopped taking conscripts. ALL humans are more or less equal before training. The word in American English for thinking that people are superior because of where they are born is 'racist'. There is NO scientific basis to support the theory of racism. None, Nada, Zip.
Show me some evidence. If it is real I will change my mind. Just calling me names won't cut it and reflects more on yourself.

Well, for one, foreign military equipment where monkey models compared to the Soviet variant. Same goes for today as well.

[Ordie]

Pre-positioning of equipment and a string of 'skeleton' bases at strategic areas may be called for in order for a division to be flown in from anywhere in Russia.
The idea is to fly men to the equipment and deploy to the affected areas.

[Skutatos]

Regardless of everything else being discussed in here, the AK-200 was disappointing. Issue rails for AKs, fine, but don't call it a new ****ing rifle. I was hoping they would finally improve ergonomics, put the cocking handle on the left side, a more modern saftey etc...

[TakeIt]

Then educate me. Not gonna happen. To continue any at least meaningfull discussion you have to learn why tracks are being put on tanks.


First you can PROVE that Russian conscripts are better then those from Iraq, Egypt, Or any other 3rd world nation where Soviet Weapons failed on the battle field. Why do i have to do this in the first place?


I won't accept And you are.. ?


The word in American English for thinking that people are superior because of where they are born is 'racist'. There is NO scientific basis to support the theory of racism. None, Nada, Zip. ZOMG, how come racism suddenly appear in this thread?


Just calling me names won't cut it and reflects more on yourself. :) Funny. Really. Go easy on pills, buddy.

[CMGC]

How depressing. I genuinely thought we had someone eager to learn and it turns out he's a know it all because he watches a lot of the history channel.

rocinante, while you think you are sounding like an expert on the subject you don't realise that there are people on this thread who have heard it all a thousand times before and it just sounds ignorant. Go and do some research (from books, not the tv)

I'll try one more time to get you thinking about the subject before I bail out of this thread and return to lurking:


First you can PROVE that Russian conscripts are better then those from Iraq, Egypt, Or any other 3rd world nation where Soviet Weapons failed on the battle field.

As Sousuke said near the beginning, read up on the Georgian conflict. The Georgians were relatively well trained (they even briefly had American trainers) and well equipped (certainly equal to the Russians) and defending mountainous terrain and yet the outnumbered Russian army sweeps them aside with little problem. They didn't even have full air superiority until the very end - unheard of in a western type invasion.
If that doesn't satisfy you, try the invasion of Afghanistan in 1979. In a brilliant series of manoeuvres and deception, the Soviet Army takes over the entire country with minimal resistance.

Thankfully we never had a direct comparison of NATO/Soviet Forces but it would be unwise to underestimate what the Soviets were capable of.

[Atlantic Friend]

What you are really saying is that the Russians will be fine, SO LONG AS THEIR OPPONENT COOPERATES.

Er....no. What I am really saying is that the question, as it appears to me, revolves around whether the Russian Army's current equipment fits the mission of the Russian Army, and not about whether's Russian-made stuff is more L33T than American-made stuff.

Had I wanted to say otherwise, I'd have used that nifty keyboard thing to make it known (though probably not in capital letters).


Whooppie! I could say the same thing about the girl scouts.

Careful, man, Girl scouts fight nasty in bars and even under water (little movie reference here)


Since the Russians have no mission, no opponent to protect Rodina from, Why not scrap the 20th century junk and start on a real military?

No mission and no potential enemy? I kinda doubt that.

[julesak]

Russian armed forces has lot of problems for sure (personal, in organization, in weaponry...) but the solution is certainly not in firing all officers with higher rank as major, or hiring retired non-russian speaking sergeants. :roll:

Saying that russian hardware never worked on the battlefield, sorry but this is just woot

[rocinante]

Being a FNG and having trouble mastering this interface, I'm going to try and answer several arguments with one post. Since most of those arguments have the same roots, here goes.

The Soviet Union did one thing very well. Better then any other society. That was propaganda. The Soviets were world class at propaganda. They were so good that most of their big lies have outlasted the Soviet Union.
The two big lies that factor here are the "New Soviet Man", and the "Monkey model".
There is no scientific basis for the claim that when a soviet man and a soviet woman make the two backed beast a superior human is the result. Think about it. The Monkey Model propaganda is an attempt to explain the poor results of Soviet weapons on the battlefield. It is a claim that the Soviets sold equipment to the third world that had inferior sub-systems. If that is true, then show me. Point out those weapons systems. The Soviet Union exported thousands of weapons systems, most of which are still around. Find one that has substandard equipment on it. The CIA never did. They looked.
Now it is time for a thought experiment.
In October of 1973, Israel fought Syria on the Golan Heights. It was mostly an armored battle, with the IDF having around 150 MBT's. A mix of Centurions and Pattons. They faced 5 Soviet style divisions. 2 Armored, 3 mechanized. That is about 1400 armored vehicles, 800 or so MBT's (T-55's and T-82's).
Despite being outnumbered almost 6 to 1 in MBT's, the IDF stopped the Syrians cold.
So here is the thought experiment; If the IDF had the T-55's and T-62's and the Syrians had the Pattons and Centurions, would the IDF have been able to stop the Syrians?
I don't think so, for 2 reasons. First and foremost is that the Soviet MBT's would not have been able to fire from hull down positions because their guns could only depress 3 degrees, which isn't enough to sit behind the military crest and be hull down. Second is Soviet MBT's had smaller ammo allotments. The IDF MBT's had 40 or 50 plus rounds on board. The Soviet MBT's typically carried 30 to 40 rounds.

So, if you want to do something besides hurl insults, show me the science behind the Soviet claims of genetic superority. Find me pictures of a "Monkey Model"

And for those of you claiming the Jews are genetically better at armored warfare, think about this. Jew and Arabs have been interbreeding for the last 5,000 years or so. It is not beyond imagination that those Jews and Syrians killing each other in the Golan Heights shared ancestors. A hard **** knows not of politics, religion or race.

So the better results by the IDF can only be attributed to training. Syria was using Soviet gear, Soviet tactics, Soviet training. They got their arse kicked. So logic says that either it was the gear, the tactics, or the training. You pays your money and takes your choice.

[rocinante]

How depressing. I genuinely thought we had someone eager to learn and it turns out he's a know it all because he watches a lot of the history channel.

rocinante, while you think you are sounding like an expert on the subject you don't realise that there are people on this thread who have heard it all a thousand times before and it just sounds ignorant. Go and do some research (from books, not the tv)

I'll try one more time to get you thinking about the subject before I bail out of this thread and return to lurking:



As Sousuke said near the beginning, read up on the Georgian conflict. The Georgians were relatively well trained (they even briefly had American trainers) and well equipped (certainly equal to the Russians) and defending mountainous terrain and yet the outnumbered Russian army sweeps them aside with little problem. They didn't even have full air superiority until the very end - unheard of in a western type invasion.
If that doesn't satisfy you, try the invasion of Afghanistan in 1979. In a brilliant series of manoeuvres and deception, the Soviet Army takes over the entire country with minimal resistance.

Thankfully we never had a direct comparison of NATO/Soviet Forces but it would be unwise to underestimate what the Soviets were capable of.

Sir, it is you that reads to much propaganda. It will be another decade before all the facts behind the brutal Russian assault on Georgia come to light, but the most basic of your misinformation is that the Russians were out numbered.

http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-65820

The Russians put forth a massive propaganda offensive about their unwarranted invasion of Georgia. Not my fault you believed it.

What is the history channel?
I am currently working on a history of the Soviet Union. I'm thinking of calling it "Smoke and Mirrors, Blood and Agony"

[julesak]

Find one that has substandard equipment on it. The CIA never did. They looked.
Now it is time for a thought experiment.


The monkey model politics is alive even today (E-suffix models). Typical cold war monkey models are T-72M or Mig-29B or Projekt 877E/EKM (Kilo) submarines.

PS: typical higher class cold war models are T-64 or T-80.

[sepheronx]

Sir, it is you that reads to much propaganda. It will be another decade before all the facts behind the brutal Russian assault on Georgia come to light, but the most basic of your misinformation is that the Russians were out numbered.

http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-65820

The Russians put forth a massive propaganda offensive about their unwarranted invasion of Georgia. Not my fault you believed it.

What is the history channel?
I am currently working on a history of the Soviet Union. I'm thinking of calling it "Smoke and Mirrors, Blood and Agony"

Russia was indeed outnumbered in Georgian territory, while South Ossetian and Abkhazian troops stayed within the confines of their territory as a defense measure.

You can work on the history of the Soviet Union. Problem is, I doubt you know anything about the Soviet Union. well, reading on what you mentioned earlier, it seems that way.

[Arbody]

"Well the basic outline is in this great article by a top Russian military analyst Pavel Felgenhauer: " ouch http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-65820

[Arbody]

The Russians put forth a massive propaganda offensive about their unwarranted invasion of Georgia. Not my fault you believed it.


Sir me thinks that your propaganda about ours propaganda is muche better ;) . Stay cool

[Robert.V]

The monkey model politics is alive even today (E-suffix models). Typical cold war monkey models are T-72M or Mig-29B or Projekt 877E/EKM (Kilo) submarines.

or mig 23's Mx models or well pretty much every weapons system they ever exported.


Not even Americans down graded their export models that severely except if i recall the first export models of f16's.


Edit



and seriously any country that made a beast like the T-64 which was heads and tales above anything out at that time. Knows how to ****ing build tanks.

[CMGC]

What is your obsession with genetics? You are the only person to have brought it up!

Firstly you claim that conflict is about the man and not the machine, then you claim that all Soviet equipment is inferior and that it is a major cause of the defeat of Soviet equipped armies.

You then claim that all conscript armies are inferior with the implication that no conscript army can ever put in a good performance on the battlefield. You then cite the Arab Israeli conflict of '73 in which both armies were made of conscripts and yet one army of conscripts decisively defeated the other army of conscripts even with inferior numbers and equipment.

You have a position in your head (Soviet equipment/training/doctrine/politics/TV/body odour) is crap and then randomly cherry pick facts without bothering to present a coherent narrative. You still have yet to cite an actual conflict in which the Soviet Union was involved.

If you want another mindless thought experiment lets go to Vietnam in 1975. Seeing as the communists clearly won, surely that means that American forces couldn't fight? Because the ARVN forces were clearly equal to their American counterparts right? I mean they had American training, American equipment and American support.
I know! Its genetics! It must be something to do with genetics...

PS:Pavel Felgenhauer :cantbeli: At the start of the war he claimed the Russians would be massacred because the lumbering conscripts would get torn apart by a western trained army rofl

[Sousuke]

Don't feed the troll.

We have seen enough of his kind here, he wont last long. It is useless to try and explain simple logic to someone like him.

Russian tank/plane/ship/sub suck! American arbrams murder t72 of iraq! I seen in Call Of Duty 4!1!11 Yessssssss!!1 U no tell me, i kno beter tha yu!

[AKS]

rocinante sounds like a smart fellow, but I think he is just horribly one sided.


What made me really laugh was his statement that Soviets were good at propaganda.

Oh really thats why people made fun of it?!


Soviet propaganda was blatant and very non subtle, thus extremely ineffective (and counter productive) for the majority of the modern Soviet population

[Russianlynxy]

Soviet propaganda was blatant and very non subtle, thus extremely ineffective (and counter productive) for the majority of the modern Soviet population

X2 I think the US is the leader when it comes to informational warfare, across the board. Although Russia has been getting better.

[Jippo]

Soviet MBT's would not have been able to fire from hull down positions because their guns could only depress 3 degrees, which isn't enough to sit behind the military crest and be hull down.

Just FYI.

Having ability to depress gun xx degrees has nothing on being able to go a hull down position. A tank might be hull down and need to fire the gun at +10 elevation.

And in any case, T-55 gun's arc of motion in vertical is +18 to -5, and T-62's is +16 to -6 (not -3 as you say).

[rocinante]

Just FYI.

Having ability to depress gun xx degrees has nothing on being able to go a hull down position. A tank might be hull down and need to fire the gun at +10 elevation.

And in any case, T-55 gun's arc of motion in vertical is +18 to -5, and T-62's is +16 to -6 (not -3 as you say).

Actually, the accepted definition of hull down is having the hull of the MBT behind a crest line (military crest) with just the turret showing. That means any potential targets are BELOW the hull down tank, so the tube has to be able to depress enough to bear on the target while staying below the cest.
You are speaking(typing?) of being behind a barrier of some sort, such as a wall or another vehicle. That was called in cover, back in the day. While the definition might have changed, or it could be different in other nations, I am using the Definistions developed during WW2 by the German, British and American Armies. They considered it important enough to be a design consideration. The Soviets saw a lot of combat in the steppes, where a fold in the terrain ( or dry watercourse) was used as cover because there wasn't much else.
The term in general usage for that is 'defiled' or something like that. It is a french term and seldom used in America.
I'll double check my 3 degrees. What is your source? Sources?

http://www.russianwarrior.com/STMMain.htm?1947vehicle_t55history.htm&1
{snipped}
"But like all things the tanks had several limitations. The one most people notice is that it is not a roomy vehicle. The crew spend most of their time working in incredibly cramped working conditions. The tank also had a slower rate of fire than its Western counterparts. Another problem was that there were so many differing models of T-54/55 produced over the years that they all didn't share the same features or modifications. The main gun also had poor gun depression, and very simple fire control systems."

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/t62tank.htm
{snipped}
"The T-62 has all the limitations of the T-55: cramped crew compartment, thin armor, crude gun control equipment (on most models), limited depression of main gun, and vulnerable fuel and ammunition storage areas. "

http://tripatlas.com/T-72
The above article is better, IMHO. It offers a plausible explanation behind the 'monkey model' myth.
{snipped}
"The Iraqi T-72s were downgraded export versions that had not been significantly upgraded over time and were firing inferior ammunition (often with steel penetrators and half-charges of propellant)."

I admit that it never occurred to me that the Soviets would sell ammo with 1/2 the powder and a normal steel penetrator. Pretty tricksy of them. And they whine about the Chi-coms stealing!

If you want 6 degrees depression, fine. I don't think the exact number matters. Western MBT have twice that, IIRC. With a Patton or a Leo, you can depress the tube and walk the MBT up until the tube just clears the crest, leaving very little of the turret exposed and none of the hull. Soviet tanks could not do that. It is a major advantage when using hunter-killer tactics. Moreso then a low profile.

"After clashes in Lebanon in 1982, both the Israelis and the Syria (http://tripatlas.com/Syria)ns claimed their main tank's superiority, but in one case a Merkava Mk. 1 was able to engage a Syrian T-72 (Syrian 73rd Brigade) from a long range, the T-72 was hit on the “impenetrable” front side, and immediately caught fire."

What do you want to bet the Jew was hull down?

[rocinante]

Straying back on topic, the Russians have an excellent opportunity here. "Pax Americina" means nobody is going to invade Russia. None of the Europeans want to. They don't have the population base to kill off for one thing. Europeans are mostly old and those young guys that war burns up are needed to keep the welfare state going. So no attack from the West.
China is even more fooked up then Russia. Plus China is looking to do the US thing and conquer through economics not war. Besides, if the Russians stop selling the Chinese jet engines, there will be no Chinese Peoples Liberation Army Air Force and no Chinese threats.
The USA? Why would we bother? If the USA wanted to mess around with Russia, we would have bombed that tunnel full of Russians invading Georgia. As bad as the US economy is today, it's still better then the rest.
A rational rebuilding plan for Russia would be to make nice to the USA and buy Stealth fighters from Northrop. Northrop lost the competition with Lockheed to produce the Stealth Fighter. The YF-23 ( Northrop) was just as good as the YF-22 (Lockheed). Lockheed just did a better hob of bribing Congressmen then Northrop.

http://www.belowtopsecret.com/thread36217/pg1

Not sure how believable any of the sites are. There is such a wide range of figures that one could use random draws from an old hat.
The Clincher is the YF-23 was named the 'Black Widow", which would make it a suitable fit for the Black Eagle. Obama would go for the idea. No co-production. Cash on the counter and when one breaks, you get a replacement. No 'spares' laying around. The Russians won't be able to do a Chinese on us.

[Mordoror]

rocinante
how to put it in a gentleman way : are you trolling or are you just unformed ? (or maybe both)

you quote articles about T55 and T62
should i remind that at that time the bulk of the western armored forces were also equiped with "thin armor, cramped crew compartiment" and others design drawbacks (take a look at a M48 or M60) tanks ?

and you quote an article about the saddam'T72 making fun of half propelled shells and normal steel penetrators
what you don't say is that these T72 "like" mongrels (not other definition) were produced locally with bad steel and bad industrial process, didn't had the reactive armor that was originally intended to be used on T72, have exhausted the life time of their guns, had no night control systems (because Saddam wanted cheap armor) and that the ammo was early 80s leftover shells because the stockpiles were never replenished
not talking about crew training

it's like if the USArmy had encountered M1A1 produced and taken to battle by Togo under that country industrial standards

what is funny is that in your example you never talk about the T72 east german that were NEVER penetrated by M891 sabot on the front (either turret or glacis) part
or the same T72 tested on several western tanks with up to date (in 1991) shells that penetrated and often exited the poor hulks (main example is the Swedish S tank even after reinforcement of the frontal area with a dozzer plate)

and it is the same about all the other stuff
just a reminder but the Germans in 1942-45 had the best tanks and the best crews but none of them enough to confront the onslaught of inferior shermans or T34
the philosophy of the T62 and T72 were the same : produce a mass of cheap tanks
that's obivous with the quick production end of the T64 (more advanced but also more complicated to produce and more expensive that the two listed above)
and that's the same philosophy witha lot of things in the soviet battle order : they had plenty of simple to produce, simple to operate middle class stuff (like the Mig23) but to fill the quality gap they had alsomore expensive and more efficient thungs to operate (like the Mig25 or the Mig29 or Su27)
that was a choice and never meant that the soviet were not able to produce equipment on the same level than what was produced in the west

[julesak]

that's obivous with the quick production end of the T64
T-64 was in production for circa 20 years...

PS: But truth is that Soviets intentionally produced lower quality equipment both for their own use and for export.

[Mordoror]

T-64 was in production for circa 20 years...

my bad i rather wanted to emphasize that it was less produced than other soviet MBTs (aside the T80 which is more recent and had to go through the soviet collapse and credit shortage though)

[Jippo]

Actually, the accepted definition of hull down is having the hull of the MBT behind a crest line (military crest) with just the turret showing.

Tank can be hull down anywhere where it is able to position itself so that only the turret can be fired at. Also in US terminology.

It makes no difference as to what material is used hide the hull.



The term in general usage for that is 'defiled' or something like that.

In US terminology defilade is synonymous to hull down. Turret down is another position for where it could be used: tank is turret down when only the commander or commanders optics can be seen. Also in US terminology.



Soviet tanks could not do that. It is a major advantage when using hunter-killer tactics. Moreso then a low profile.

"After clashes in Lebanon in 1982, both the Israelis and the Syria (http://tripatlas.com/Syria)ns claimed their main tank's superiority, but in one case a Merkava Mk. 1 was able to engage a Syrian T-72 (Syrian 73rd Brigade) from a long range, the T-72 was hit on the “impenetrable” front side, and immediately caught fire."

What do you want to bet the Jew was hull down?

I used to command a T-72 of my own, and I can assure you I hadn't problems finding hull down positions in hilly terrain for it.

In fact I could dump the tank in an average size ditch and the tank would be hull down due to it's low profile.

Hull down:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v355/Jippo01/Tanks/tank11.jpg

Hull down on a hill:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v355/Jippo01/Tanks/defensive3.jpg

What do you want to bet I know what I talk about.

[rocinante]

Obviously 'hull down' means something different in Russian.

Meanwhile, History shows that Hundreds of Soviet MBT's have been destroyed by Western MBT's firing from a hull down position. What we are debating is WHY?
The Soviets claim it is because the crew of those destroyed MBT's were inferior, that if they had been Russian crews, they would not have been destroyed. Poppycock.
I say that those Soviet MBT's were destroyed because they were inferior machines, and it doesn't matter who is crewing an MBT when a 120mm Sabot hits the frontal armor. It doesn't matter what model sight was mounted or what the range finder was. Crews, ballistic computer, range finder, projectile desigb, matter BEFORE the sabot hits, not after.
Lets compare two modern battles;
Here is a write up of the "thunder run " where less then 1,000 Americans with 88 vehicles ( 30 Abrams) captured a city of 5 million

http://www.tankmastergunner.com/thunder%20run.htm

Compare that to the Battle of Grozny;
http://netwar.wordpress.com/2007/06/23/battle-of-grozny/

How does the comparison of these two battles fit your theory of Soviet supermen in uberpanzers?
I realize that the Chechen terrorists were much more motivated then the Iraqi army, but they were also outnumbered.

[Damian90]

what is funny is that in your example you never talk about the T72 east german that were NEVER penetrated by M891 sabot on the front (either turret or glacis) part

What the hell is M891?!:|

It is true that US made tests with T-72M1 equipped with Kontakt-5 Heavy ERA and M829 APFSDS don't perforate armor but, this is only M829, a very old round from the family, not used any more for combat, heh even M829A1 is not used, currently as standard used are M829A2 and M829A3, both designed to be less vurnabale to heavy ERA and have greater penetration levels.


PS: But truth is that Soviets intentionally produced lower quality equipment both for their own use and for export.

Not true, many types of equipment designed in SU was more complex than western equipment. Simple example, from pure technical point of view, even export variant of T-72A a T-72M or T-72M1, is a more complex vehicle than modern western tanks. Why then popular belive is opposite? Because people often misunderstand that advanced technology doesen't need to be complex.

But of course, to day Russians and Ukrainians, still are making advanced and competetive weapon systems.


just a reminder but the Germans in 1942-45 had the best tanks and the best crews but none of them enough to confront the onslaught of inferior shermans or T34

Ohh, I would rather say that in some terms M4 Sherman was more advanced than PzKpfw. VI Ausf. E.

Sherman got gun stabilisation, something that Germans never dreamed of in these times, and late Shermans with wet ammo storage will safer than any other tank of that period. So I would be very carefoul with such a statements of inferiority of something.

[Jippo]

Roscinante: put it anyway you like it. Your comments only reflect lack of knowledge on the issue, as they do not bring anything new, or infact anything to the table. Reasoning seems to be futile. You have read something in the net, you think you know it all and you are not receptive on feedback. Trust me, many people know better.

I don't know your age, but every now and then we get young lads talking **** like you here. People get tired of explaining. I doubt that you will get your argumentation crushed down piece by piece, even though it does deserve that.

Btw. I do appreciate you referring me as an Russian which I am not. I also do not appreciate your skipping through the text I wrote so fast, that you didn't even notice that I was constantly talking about US terminology for your convenience. But sure, do not take my word for it:

"In modern armoured warfare, hull-down is a position taken up by an armoured fighting vehicle (AFV) such that its hull (the main part of the vehicle) is behind a crest or other raised ground, but its turret (or a superstructure or roof-mounted weapon) is exposed. This allows it to observe and fire upon the ground ahead, while the hull is protected from enemy fire behind hard cover. A hull-down AFV is said to be in defilade. Taking advantage of hull-down positions is an element of tactical movement.


Front view of a tank in turret-down and hull-down positions. A vehicle in a position with a background is more difficult to observe than one which is sky-lined.Turret-down is the position in which the vehicle's crew can observe forward from roof hatches, but the vehicle is completely hidden (usually a few metres further back from a hull-down position). This can also apply to vehicles without turrets.

In flat or gently rolling terrain, a hull-down position is difficult to find. The actual protecting rise of ground may be hundreds of metres long. In steep or abrupt terrain cover is plentiful, but it may be difficult to find covered positions from which the vehicle's main gun can fire upon terrain ahead (see tank design, below).

In preparing defensive works, a hull-down position can be created or improved by digging shallow "tank scrapes". Tank units usually have one or two tanks with 'dozer' blades attached for this purpose, and some tank models have a built-in blade. Combat engineering vehicles often accompany armoured vehicles as they manoeuvre to dig tank scrapes, as they can accomplish the task more quickly."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hull-down

And mind you: rest of the stuff you write is similar mess. Like the Shermans winning tank war in the west because there are more roads. :) Seriously, nobody will bother. Did you know that before the introduction of DM33 NATO forces had only a very small chance to penetrate the front turret of the monkey model of a second line Russian tank?

Reading is good, I suggest you keep on it, but I would also suggest broadening your scope a bit. And I would also try to remember that reading is no substitute for actually doing stuff.

[CaptMorgan68]

good post Jippo... quite informative

[Jippo]

It is true that US made tests with T-72M1 equipped with Kontakt-5 Heavy ERA and M829 APFSDS don't perforate armor but, this is only M829, a very old round from the family, not used any more for combat, heh even M829A1 is not used, currently as standard used are M829A2 and M829A3, both designed to be less vurnabale to heavy ERA and have greater penetration levels.

Mind you, M829 might not be in service anymore, but neither is T-72A (T-72M1 is an export model of "A"). Production of T-72A ended 25 years ago. T-72B with Kontakt-5 has equivalent armor thickness roughly 2,5-3 times that of an basic A.



Simple example, from pure technical point of view, even export variant of T-72A a T-72M or T-72M1, is a more complex vehicle than modern western tanks. Why then popular belive is opposite? Because people often misunderstand that advanced technology doesen't need to be complex.

You have got to be kidding to even think about such thing. Farm hand with a screwdriver and wrench can fix 98% of systems on such a Russian tank. Think about old Lada, compare it to a BMW with onboard computers.

[Damian90]

Mind you, M829 might not be in service anymore, but neither is T-72A (T-72M1 is an export model of "A"). Production of T-72A ended 25 years ago.

Of course, I just put that as an example. But don't forget that more modern versions are more capabale, and were tested probably against buyed more modern ex-SU tanks by the US.


You have got to be kidding to even think about such thing. Farm hand with a screwdriver and wrench can fix 98% of systems on such a Russian tank. Think about old Lada, compare it to a BMW with onboard computers.

You misunderstanded me.

From pure technical point of vew, russian tanks are more complex than at least some western ones.

Look the mechanical loading system, many moving parts, more complex than a man.

But I must say, yes only some western tanks will be really simpler thant a T-72 for example. But only from that, one certain point of view, and this doesen't mean that they are simpler to repair or something. It is a very complex issue, and generalization is not good.

[Mordoror]

What the hell is M891?
it is a ....typop-)


this is only M829, a very old round from the family, not used any more for combat, heh even M829A1 is not used, currently as standard used are M829A2 and M829A3, both designed to be less vurnabale to heavy ERA and have greater penetration levels

yes but it was used at the time of the test
the fact that it is not used anymoer just prove that it was seen as not efficient enough against the T72 on which it was tested
hence the following series that are obvious improvment

of course, as Jippo said the armor of the target (T72) was improved also
the eternal sword/shield race in instance

the efficiency of the M829A2 and A3 on nowadays T72 and T80 are not known or not public
we 'll be able to discuss the efficiency of these ammo on their intended target just after public releasep-)

but my example was just intended for our troll friend "rocinante" who smells the USA strong team:roll:

[Mordoror]

Obviously 'hull down' means something different in Russian.

Meanwhile, History shows that Hundreds of Soviet MBT's have been destroyed by Western MBT's firing from a hull down position. What we are debating is WHY?
The Soviets claim it is because the crew of those destroyed MBT's were inferior, that if they had been Russian crews, they would not have been destroyed. Poppycock.
I say that those Soviet MBT's were destroyed because they were inferior machines, and it doesn't matter who is crewing an MBT when a 120mm Sabot hits the frontal armor. It doesn't matter what model sight was mounted or what the range finder was. Crews, ballistic computer, range finder, projectile desigb, matter BEFORE the sabot hits, not after.
Lets compare two modern battles;
Here is a write up of the "thunder run " where less then 1,000 Americans with 88 vehicles ( 30 Abrams) captured a city of 5 million

http://www.tankmastergunner.com/thunder%20run.htm

Compare that to the Battle of Grozny;
http://netwar.wordpress.com/2007/06/23/battle-of-grozny/

How does the comparison of these two battles fit your theory of Soviet supermen in uberpanzers?
I realize that the Chechen terrorists were much more motivated then the Iraqi army, but they were also outnumbered.

i have my answer you are defintively trolling

just FYI the thunder run was made against decayed Asad Babyl (inferiory built, equiped, and crewed T72M1 models)
and the first Chechen war tanks losses were because the tank crews were badly trained (leading to poor tactics, exposing the machines in a concrete jungle against well prepared positions) and the ERA bricks were empty

as for the rest of your post it smells the teenager playing too much videos games
i suggest you to follow closely Jippo's advice, you'll be able to make something of your life

PS : as for the fact "it doesn't matter who is crewing the machines, this is the funniest thing that i have ever read around here ... i bet that a lot of tankists on this board will disagree
and i remember somewhere around here on this board a funny story about a US tankist being an OpFor crew team that asskicked in old design tank some newbies with the top notch new fancy stuff
you should check it it is very informative

[Damian90]

and i remember somewhere around here on this board a funny story about a US tankist being an OpFor crew team that asskicked in old design tank some newbies with the top notch new fancy stuff

I remember it, it was an M1A1's from the NTC and brand new M1A2's. But the problem was also not the young not experienced crews but also a software bugs in IVIS C2 system installed on M1A2's that not helped tank commanders. IRCC they even not installed system on all M1A2's and waited when the bugs were be sorted out... well they never get IVIS again, it was thrown off and much better FBCB2 replaced it.

[Spezz]

lol he compared Grozny to Iraq, there's so much wrong with that, that I don't even want to bother explaining. Not to mention why this is relevant at all in his bs rant about Russian vs Western tanks. Or did the Chechens have some M1's we don't know about.
Pathetic little troll.

[Damian90]

Well in the second Chechen war T-72B's perforemd very well. And in the first war the main problem were poor tactics, not performance of tanks and other AFV's.

[Jippo]

In general discussion about details of tanks like front turret thicknesses is meaningless, simply because it doesn't solve battles. Everything in military is aimed in fighting unfairly, also known as good tactics. :) Of course it is nice to have a better tank than the opponent, I'm sure everyone can appreciate that. And it is good to know that you can exchange fire with the enemy at 2km in relative safety of your superior armor.

But in the end everything military does is aiming in hitting the enemy when he is unprepared, in disadvantage, with lesser numbers, etc... and these are the things that win battles. Ending up in fair fight between tanks exchanging slugs from 2km is a **** up from your superior officers, if I may exaggarate it a bit. Best tank battle is the one where you get to slaughter defenseless soft parts of the enemy like logistics and support units. If one must fight enemy tanks, then it should be done with superior numbers(no matter how locally) from flanks and rear, not head on.

Tankers might think they are Gods of the battlefield, but in the end their life depends on the HQ officers getting them in to right place in the right time. There is so little one can do when put in a ****ed up situation outnumbered.

[rocinante]

lol he compared Grozny to Iraq, there's so much wrong with that, that I don't even want to bother explaining. Not to mention why this is relevant at all in his bs rant about Russian vs Western tanks. Or did the Chechens have some M1's we don't know about.
Pathetic little troll.

When a debate is reduced to personal attacks, the person making those attacks has lost the debate.

As far as terminology goes;

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/army/docs/fm101-5-1/f545-h.htm

There is the URL for the official U.S. Army manual. I think the communication problem is that what some people call 'hull-down' is what I would call a "hide". In a hull down position the only thing showing is the muzzle and a small part of the turret. That position is taken from a turret down position, which is where the MBT is far enough down the reverse slope so that only the TC can see over the crest. Parking in a depression or behind a wall IS NOT HULL DOWN. no matter what wikipedia says.
Meanwhile, I am obviously upsetting the children so I will go. If anyone has any EVIDENCE, I'll be more then happy to listen to it.
Insulting me is pretty much a waste of time. After retiring from the US Navy, I took up selling cars. I assure you there is no way you can surpass some of the insults that have come my way in the car business.
My favorite was when a Paki wished that my little sister would be raped by a herd of diseased donkeys. I asked him what he had against donkeys? He thought that was funny and bought the car. My sister, the former Gunny Sergeant thought it was funny too.

As far as the troll thangie;
http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1926079

[Jippo]

As far as terminology goes;


It actually agrees with me and Wiki.

Addition:
I found you further reading on the subject (has some illustrations too). These things are pretty universal, but this is US Army specific document.

Field Manual 17-15,
Headquarters, Department of the Army,
Washington, DC, April 3, 1996

TANK PLATOON
CHAPTER 4..... DEFENSIVE OPERATIONS
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/17-15/chp4.htm

[Mordoror]

funny how a "i know everythin because i read internet" teenager is still arguing with somebody who served as a true tankist:roll:
some got their nose slapped on that forum for far less ....

[sepheronx]

Jippo, thanks for the posts. I learned a lot today thanks to you.

[YevgenyP]

Thanks Jippo, very informative.

[Spezz]

When a debate is reduced to personal attacks, the person making those attacks has lost the debate.I am obviously upsetting the children so I will go

haha don't let the door hit your ass on your way out
you: "Thank god he called me a troll, now I can pretend to be offended and not answer when my bs nonsense has been pointed out. "

[TakeIt]

A quick picture i made for one of such threads:
http://img379.imageshack.us/img379/6505/tanks.jpg
In simple terms, lesser gun depression in reality means more carefull evaluation of terrain or more work to prepare a position.

[julesak]

Not true, many types of equipment designed in SU was more complex than western equipment. Simple example, from pure technical point of view, even export variant of T-72A a T-72M or T-72M1, is a more complex vehicle than modern western tanks. Why then popular belive is opposite? Because people often misunderstand that advanced technology doesen't need to be complex.


I wasnt talknig about technical complexity(which e.g. as far as i know was the main disadvantage of T-64 in eyes of Soviet Army), but about quality - monkey model politics (i hope we both agree that it existed in USSR, and exists in reduced level even today in RF) is about quality.

Battle of Grozny:
Russian troubles in first Chechen war were not primary in their equpment, but in overall catastrophic condition of Russian armed forces (especially Ground Troops) after dissolution of USSR. Almost no training, not enough men in batalions... Things have changed since then... (compare first and second chechen wars, and you will see the difference).

[rocinante]

"monkey model politics (i hope we both agree that it existed in USSR,"

Actually I don't fully agree. I have been shown evidence that in certain cases, the Soviets would ship weapons systems to client states that had parts that were different then what were on the similar weapons systems being shipped to the Red Army. I haven't seem anything that would translate into a more serious disadvantage on the battlefield. When the enemy is twice as good, then being only 1.5 times as good doesn't matter. Monkey Models went to Africa, as far as I can tell. China ( before they stole the designs and started building their own) India and Egypt seemed to get the "real" models.
In most cases it really didn't matter. A coincidence range finder is pretty much a coincidence range finder. The difference between one model and it's replacement isn't all that much. Not compared to a laser range finder and ballistic computer.
As far as stuff like range finders, radios, and ammunition, the Monkey Models could be and in some case were upgraded with western equipment that was superior to the Soviet versions.
So I don't consider the Monkey Model Propaganda ploy to be a valid explnation for why burning Soviet MBT's littered the battlefileds of the cold war. Iran and Iraq were good at installing French gear on their T-55's and in some cases T-72's. China did that also. IIRC, it was the T-59 and 69 types that were upgraded with a NATO 105 with a French Laser range finder and ballistic computer.

All of this is beside the point , although interesting.
The topic here is upgrading the former Soviet military. I think that is a real need and long over due. First step is figuring out why so many Soviet MBT's were killed during the cold war. Soviet propaganda was that those same armored vehicles would not get killed when they were crewed by Soviet citizens. I call that propaganda because it is.
The two big lies are that the Soviet draftee was superior to other nations draftees. I called that what it is, Racialism. Humans are pretty much the same. The differences between social systems produces different results, but the humans themselves are basically the same. So to argue that the Soviet social system was superior requires an explanation of why that superior social system collapsed and the inferior ones didn't. See my point?
If you want to look at training, the monkey models were use by normal human conscripts trained under the Soviet system so that can't explain why all those brewed up Soviet MBT's would have survived with Soviet Crews. I fail to see why a social system that failed would produce better conscripts then one that didn't fail when they were all trained using the same system.
It is important that the Russians figure it out that there are solid reasons why their military is a joke, their weapons systems little more then targets. If they don't figure out their mistake, they will repeat it.
That would be a disaster for the entire human race.
In my opinion Russia is the key to the 21st century. If the Russians can get over their national fixation on paranoia and join the family of nations as a well and wholesome member, it will be an enormous boon to humanity.
If they can't , then the 21st century will be a repeat of the 20th century only with a higher body count.
As a grandfather, I don't want my grandchildren to have to re-fight battles we already won.
Europe fought WW2 because the French and British lost the peace after WW1. It looks like the West won the Cold War but is losing the peace (cold peace?).
President Lincoln said the best way to defeat your enemy is to make him your friend. I have my doubts, but it is worth a try. If it will make Russia less paranoid to re-arm, then the USA should help them.
The first step is getting rid of the tired old ideas that didn't work the first time around.

[erebusjr]

rocinante, while you have ignored most of the the people who know far more than you especially a certain few who know far more than you..what about those interesting tests conducted against Soviet tanks in the West ? Those tanks that proved every bit as deadly as their Western counterparts ? Care to explain that ? And no propaganda please. Unless you have evidence of course :)

Also Operation Storm-333, I like to read your thoughts on that. I'd ask about other things like the August War but of course you already know Russia has been hiding dark dirty secrets regarding it's horrible unjustified invasion of Georgia with it's disproportinate use of force, right ? p-)

And comparing Iraq to Chechnya. Cool story.

[erebusjr]

Uh...also what about the NVA army that crushed the SVA in 1975? As far as I can recall, it was not Soviet MBTs that were killed all over the place. The NVA armies proved to be far superior to their South Vietnamese counterparts. In fact, if memory serves, it was a Soviet MBT that crashed into Saigon palace and it was not in flames ;)

[julesak]

To rocinante: I was writing it to Damian90, but it doesnt matter
Monkey model politics:
The level of downgrade of course differs. First export Mig-29 doesnt have IFF for example, maximal depth of export submarines Project 877EKM is 300 m, Russian Navy Project 877/877M 350 m and so on- there are many examples.

USSR produced equipment in a some levels of quality:
1. equipment for Soviet Armed forces only
2. equipment for warsaw pact countries
3. equipment for non-warsaw pact allies
4. really monkey models for dictatorships somewhere in africa and so on

1. and 2., and 2. and 3. can intersect sometimes.
Reason for monkey model politcis were :
USSR want not risk that most modern equipment fell to the hands of USA or its allies in war in some god forsaken country and on other side, soviets often sells weapons to its allies for very low prices(lower then production costs) or even for free (or on loan that will be never paid back) so there was no reason to sell them the best.

Today is the situation a litte bit different and even joint development is possible, but all military hardware (with exception of small arms i think) exported out from RF are still export variants (most common designation is E suffix) , the level of downgrade differs from almost none (for India for example) to very high (Su-27/30 for Vietnam). Its about customers money too, of course.

Soviet conscription system:
soviet/russian conscription system was created for large country and for long and large scale war, in such conditions it works really good. Smaller countires are different, so often soviet system doesnt work there well. Employee moral in other countries are different too, not only soviet, but also east german or czechoslovakian or other warsaw pact instructors had problems in middle east countries to teach locals.

Russian armed forces and its reform:
How last russian conflicts showed, russian armed forces are not a joke and their equipment are not just targets. Georgians can tell you...
Maybe you dont know, but nowadays in Russia really big and large scale military reform is in progresss, for sure biggest from the end of WWII or even from Milyutin reforms in 2nd half of 19th century. For example - transition from division-regiment based system to brigades in ground troops, only fully-manned formations - no skeleton units, from aviation regiments to airbases, establising joint commands (like american UCC), effort on net-centric warfare...

Very important is, if you want to reform your armed forces(or everything), you should look outside the world, how they proceed in other countires, and than integrate your own expereince with experience and practice from others, and not just copying foreing models - they will not work in the same way. I think that present day russian MOD and GS leadership (Serdyukov and Makarov, and others) are good for what they want - to reform russian armed forces.

[Jippo]

If you want to look at training, the monkey models were use by normal human conscripts trained under the Soviet system so that can't explain why all those brewed up Soviet MBT's would have survived with Soviet Crews. I fail to see why a social system that failed would produce better conscripts then one that didn't fail when they were all trained using the same system.

Soviet or Russian training is not on par with most western armies, but you forget that the destroyed tanks were manned by crews that were even exponentially worse. And mostly lead by equally incompetent leaders. And they were mostly facing most modern, well trained, well lead and well equipped armies on the whole planet. Switching tanks the result of Iraq war would have been the same with slightly more casualties for coalition troops.


It is important that the Russians figure it out that there are solid reasons why their military is a joke, their weapons systems little more then targets.

This comment is a joke.

Learn about what you speak here and you will learn to respect them. Russian army is not like western armies, nor does it function like one. But they are very good in their bread and butter job of conventional land warfare. Put up against even the best armies available with equal forces there would be some interesting results. Most western armies have lost their capability to wage conventional war, and this is where Russian certainly excel. Especially so at higher levels of organisation. 8.8.08 could not have been pulled of by US army formations for instance. Not in that speed and efficiency, snowballs chance in hell.

Switch to Brigade organisation army will further enhance the flexibility of the formations on tactical and strategical level. Russia will be very difficult opponent to anyone if they can get their 3C systems on better level. That is where they lack, certainly not on their fighting hardware.

You must read more. You will repeat your mistake of underestimating Russian army unless you actually learn what they do and why.Wise man would respect them for that.

[Robert.V]

Soviet or Russian training is not on par with most western armies, but you forget that the destroyed tanks were manned by crews that were even exponentially worse. And mostly lead by equally incompetent leaders. And they were mostly facing most modern, well trained, well lead and well equipped armies on the whole planet. Switching tanks the result of Iraq war would have been the same with slightly more casualties for coalition troops.




Soviet training was a mixed bag and varied from country to country within the SU ..at least that what my brother told me once.. Also a lot of conscripts already had training with various firearms, tactical exercises, practicing the rendering of first aid, orientation exercises and learned to read and use topographic maps as boys.

And some boys I know had training on tanks on how to drive them. Don't remember what tanks though, probably T-34's.


Edit

And me thinks we're wasting time on this guy ..he keeps repeating the same drivel. But thanks for your Insight though Jippo.

[julesak]

Soviet training was a mixed bag and varied from country to country within the SU

I read this for first time. Dont you mean trainig depends from unit, or unit class (A, B, V, G) respectively?
Because your origin (ethnic and social) can influence in which part of Soviet Armed Forces you can serve, but it is not related to where (it could be East Germany, Central Asia or Far East). And this (where) is important in field of level of unit trainig, in Ground forces especially, RVSN, VDV units and like have all very high standards of training, no matter where they locate.

Premilitary training in USSR:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DOSAAF

[erebusjr]

Thanks for your fascinating contributions Jippo :)

[Jippo]

Soviet training was a mixed bag and varied from country to country within the SU.

There is good training and bad training in all armies depending on who is training, what the unit is, etc. I merely meant that better training resources in terms are available in many western armies. I was training last week with FDF Kasi system (a SAAB infantry simulator) where every single soldier was tracked on gps and fights could be analysed on a map afterwards. It is easy to see what leader ****ed up, who shoot who, who used artillery support well etc... This kind of systems are extremely important for learning, and there is a lack of these in Russia as far as I know.

[Lokos]

People don't really understand just what kind of a disaster the downfall of the SU was for the armed forces of its successor states. Especially so for Russia, which sought to maintain capabilities reserved for superpowers on the budget of a third tier power. Strategic bombers, strategic nuclear forces, three separate major fleets, a land army built for fighting a high intensity war of mobility, an air arm designed to contest airspace against a coalition of the world's most powerful states, unparalleled airborne capabilities, marine infantry and the heaviest concentration of artillery and air defense forces to be found anywhere...

... all on less than a sixth (conservative estimate) of what the SU was spending throughout the 80s.

... and protecting the largest territorial expanse of any country.

No kidding that 'military reform' is a formidable task for the Russian Federation. It would be a formidable task for anyone, in this circumstance.

After all is said and done, however, it doesn't amaze me that the situation is not yet ideal. Quite the opposite. I am amazed that the Russians have achieved so much, with so little. Lest we forget, they still fly their strategic bombers, and operate their nuclear submarines and maintain an army that could put in a creditable effort in a war of any scope, against any opponent.

That's laudable.