Russian WW2 parade: A tank-spotter's guide
bbc.com
bbc.com
Admittedly, the Tank looks usable, but the question of the value of a completely new MBT is a really urgent one. Especially as the worth of armor diminishes more and more, as it already did once in the 60s. Modern ATGM are capable of smashing every modern MBT at the first hit, and the only protection are active protection systems as fitted to modern Israeli Merkavas. As long as the russians don't equip this Tank with one of those, its as big a casket as an old T-54.
The reality is that long-range power projection, automation/comm/logistics, long range targeting, advanced arms, drones/UAVs/unmanned, air superiority, quick carrier group deployments, etc decide modern war outcomes. Russia struggles with this level of sophistication, hell, they are trying to get the French to build carriers for them and are woefully behind in several critical key measures. Pretending its still WWII and bulking up in armor, especially ones without counters to modern ATGM's, makes as much sense as building another Maginot line. Russian reactive armor leaves a lot to be desired. ATGM tech usually outstrips armor tech quickly and NATO's current offerings are pretty impressive. Not to mention the cost of reactive armor raises the cost, per tank, anywhere between 300-500k, which makes it economically infeasible to retro-arm older tanks frequently.
Russia's tank force is mostly a 1970s relic, the T-72. Constant retrofitting is still lipstick on a pig and to NATO forces. Older DU based munitions like the M829A3's and others punch through these things with ease. Fifth generation M829E4's take out the best Russian armor today. A $10,000 NATO round punches through $500,000 tank armor. Tank armor is a fool's errand at best, as munitions catch up too fast and armor development takes too long/tank lifespan is too long/tank retrofitting is too expensive. The Russians know this, but lack the sophistication to modernize in other ways, so they double-down on tanks, which will probably have a long service life on the usual parade route, but not be effective in combat. Especially now that Putin has rebranded himself anti-NATO, anti-West, anti-Democracy, pro-Autocracy, pro-Annexation, pro-Assad, pro-Jong-Un, etc. He's not partnering up with NATO for some peace mission, he's pointing his guns at them and compared to NATO he's at a massive disadvantage militarily with these tanks, which just become very expensive coffins for Russian tank crews.
I agree with your second point, but not with the first.
Armor is useful for claiming and holding territory, especially in the face of infantry. Yes, AT armament has come a long way; I've personally observed the effect of Western arms against Soviet-made armor.
But not every opponent will have air supremacy to fly ground attack assets with impunity. And not every soldier equipped with an AT weapon will fire it successfully. And some tanks will be equipped with reactive armor that will work as intended.
Armor is not yet at the stage of horse-mounted cavalry, and will likely always have some role in modern military forces. Consider the switch to carrier-based forces the U.S. Navy underwent in WW2: it was a paradigm shift that led to inevitable retirement of the battleship class, but it has yet to eliminate the need for heavy guns or armored ships.
And concerning Ukraine: I think in their interest (that is to stop the EU and NATO from expanding) they acted pretty smart. They took a part of the country, that the West will not get back. They know, that the EU only accepts countries without questioned borders, by destabilizing Ukraine they prevented that for a very long time. NATO is not keen on including Ukraine either.
Once he is tired of the sanctions, he can stop supporting the rebels or force them to negotiate while keeping the Krim. Meanwhile he can act like a conquerer, protecter and ultimately peacemaker to his own people, which has weakend the rising opposition dramatically.
If the West truly wants to weaken Russia, it needs to tighten bonds with China, Turkey and some other countries. But then again, Russia is already pretty poor economically …
for example Futzing with the guidance of a fragile missile or using point defence and at some point in the future Lazers.
By all reports it stalled, and later drove away under its own power.
As for how it would turn out today, I think about the same. Point defense systems to intercept ATGMs are still relatively new and have only been tested in the field by Israel against Hamas during their 2014 war. They were supposedly very successful with intercepting RPGs and Metis-Ms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9K115-2_Metis-M). I'm unconvinced drones like the Predator or Reaper would be effective in an extended conflict. The real power of drones lies in their ability to loiter in area for an incredibly long amount of time and wait for a target to present itself. In a modern battlefield where the sky is constantly being illuminated by radar, a loitering craft in the area of battle is not going to be there for long.
Tanks are first 50 seconds, then it moves on to modern stuff.
We're coming up to almost a hundred years of tanks, aren't we?
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Downvotes of substantive comments often get corrected by other users before the paint dries. But complaints about downvotes remain forever off-topic.
I don't really mean to sound caustic but you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. There are two big mistakes which are commonly made these days: 1) technology is overrated (vs nature) 2) as humans we think we are in control and only first hand experience would teach us otherwise.
Pull out a phone at -40, it won't even switch on. Circuitry won't work, batteries won't last. Russia is a harsh country, with harsh people which has first hand experience of a territory where western technology wouldn't simply stand a chance.
Same can be said about a human being.
Edit: I'm being downvoted, so let me explain. Drones _can_ be made to function in temperatures way below -40; but humans are at their limit there. My point is: those who are discounting drones overestimate the capability of humans to operate in that temperature.
You defeat Russia before the war begins, by keeping them impoverished as they are today. So long as they retain their current system, they will remain that way perpetually. Putin was bailed out by the dollar induced boom in the price of commodities from 2002-2014, specifically oil; that party is over. He has no second trick up his sleeve, which is why he is now turning to invading his neighbors.
Today Russia's economy is 1/9th the size of the US economy. In just 15 years, the Russian economy will fall to 1/12th the size of the US economy.
When you are so far behind economically, and showing absolutely zero potential for progress, the long-term military threat you can pose (outside of nukes), becomes proportionally restrained. Russia is now a regional power, barely able to maintain its own mass, much less project power against something like NATO.
Russia's ability to project force outside of its borders, is dramatically lower than it was during Soviet times, and it's going to remain that way. There's no need to fight inside of Russia, when they can't fight outside of Russia.
http://nationalinterest.org/feature/could-chinas-renminbi-ri...
>Russia is a harsh country, with harsh people which has first hand experience of a territory
man, i'm a Russian.
> where western technology wouldn't simply stand a chance.
yes. Tell this to millions of USSR soldiers who was squashed by German tanks and aviation until USSR was finally able to ramp up the production of comparable technology in comparable numbers.
Before WWII the USSR's military doctrine (if one can call it that) was to respond to an aggression/invasion with a swift counter-strike using mostly cavalry and a bit of light fast tanks and kick the enemy back where it came from and deal with the enemy there, on their territory... The foundation of that "doctrine" was "glorious" (for the winners) days of Revolution 20 years earlier where such swift cavalry attacks were a powerful tool.
The same way today - manned tanks and aviation is going the way of cavalry 80 years ago. Manned tanks and aviation worked great in the WWII and for decades after that. And Russia today, like 80 years before, bets on the technology that worked in the previous victories (while not paying that much attention to the wars which were lost). With Afghan war that 20th century weaponry started to show it limitations for modern war - the war there there is no concentrated battle groups and fortified front lines, the war where a small relatively cheap, yet precise, weapon like Stinger easily takes out a valuable asset.
The drones will quickly become much better, much smarter and much cheaper. A one old "dinosaur" like F-15 or Su-27/35 (or even F-22) when faced simultaneously with 10-20 stealth drones able to go transonic or even supersonic with computer speed of reaction, able to continuously pull 10g+ without blood leaving the brain/retina/etc... and each firing an air-to-air missile almost simultaneously in choreographed attack pattern - should we make bets whether the pilot of the attacked plane would be able to execute all the necessary anti-missile maneuvers successfully ? :)
Good for you, hope you didn't take it personally. It wasn't supposed to be an insult, it's just the way it is. That's my personal point of view, of an italian who has spent years in Russia and lived in Magadan, Tomsk, Novosibirsk, Nojabersk, Irkutsk.
> yes. Tell this to millions of USSR soldiers who was squashed by German tanks and aviation until USSR was finally able to ramp up the production of comparable technology in comparable numbers.
This never happened. The USSR was never able to "ramp-up". They "made it" just moving whatever they could east and wait for winter. And thats where no german aviation/tank could keep up with the battle, isolated, without fuel, without supplies.
> The same way today - manned tanks and aviation is going the way of cavalry 80 years ago.
This is the point I heavily criticise. Our current technology isn't that great and we are VERY far from the point where an unmanned vehicle will keep up the fight with any manned one. No matter what. Drones are slow and laggy, GPS and network are unreliable, robots (in general) can't deal with harsh conditions - where the "human machine" actually shines showing the results of million of years in evolution. I guess ours are just different point of views.
> The drones will quickly become much better, much smarter and much cheaper. A one old "dinosaur" like F-15 or Su-27/35 (or even F-22) when faced simultaneously with 10-20 stealth drones able to go transonic or even supersonic with computer speed of reaction, able to continuously pull 10g+ without blood leaving the brain/retina/etc... and each firing an air-to-air missile almost simultaneously in choreographed attack pattern - should we make bets whether the pilot of the attacked plane would be able to execute all the necessary anti-missile maneuvers successfully ? :)
This sounds a lot like out of a movie.
imagine yourself in 1917 as a German soldier in trenches with 500 of this
http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/12_01/tankDM0212_468x3...
coming toward your positions in formation (http://forums.canadiancontent.net/history/69756-how-worlds-f...) - it wasn't like movie, it were Martians straight out of the "War of the Worlds".