Military talks, 2010 + Options

[Pepo]

Soviet guns of the time fired much slower shells than Western Allied or German guns. Indeed, the T-34/85's D-5T had inferior Penetration to the German kwk-42 and the American 76mm M1 guns.

Beyond that, the T-34's "Hard' stats were quite good, that is true. What it failed to take into account was that there were supposed to be people in the damn thing, especially the pre-85 model, was truly appalling in terms of ergonomic design.

There was no seperate commander, who had to double as the loader (or gunner, I'm not quite clear on that), (Which may or may not** be a result of communist ideology, Glorious Motherland's Commanders are not lazy bourgeois sitting there shouting orders. They are true members of the prolateriat people and do manual labor.*) The Cupola was literally nonexistant in the early models, only command tanks had radios, the Tank itself was cramped, especially when the men inside often had to wear thick jackets due to General Winter's nasty habit of friendly fire. The T-34 was also quite the tinderbox. Another flaw was the lack of a turret basket. While the Gunner was lucky enough to just sit on a seat, the loader had to move with the turret while also loading the gun. Add in a gearbox that often needed a hammer to operate (As in you hit the damn thing to change gears), which made it all but impossible to reach 3rd gear, limiting it's mobility.

And then we get to it's visibility problems. Lets just say that they were a crapshoot in this regard. Not to mention the Christie suspension (Which was a dead-end design), the inconsistent metallurgy (which can be waived as not a problem with the design as much as the situation in which the tanks were built), overlly hard, brittle armor that made it extremely vulnerable to spalling, and appalling crew survival rates.

*Read this section in stupidly overdone russian accent
** Probably not, this joke's too good to pass up

Oh, and on the subject of Ukraine.

Don't get so political would hate to see this thread go (even if it's a bit chest-thumpy at times)

I didn't say that it was perfect, only that it was better than the Pz4. The production problems you mention happen until 1943. The t-34/85 had a generally good finish and solved a lot of the original design disadvantages . the original design and the minor modifications (versions 1942 and 1943) had problems, but were still better than the German equivalents, which obtained favorable kill ratios due to the far better crews and better tactics use

[Serialkillerwhal...]

Production wasn't the problem The ergonomic failures and poor stability/visibility were. That and the damn thing had an aluminum engine for god knows what reason, which made it far more expensive than it's reputation would suggest. The overly brittle armor was by design (Harder armor, it was reasoned, was better).

The T-34's flaws relative to the Panzerkampfwagen (God that name sounds like "Panzer Camping Wagon") IV and M4 were largely issues of the designer forgetting people were supposed to be driving them, and focusing on "AS MUCH ARMER IN A SMALL SPES"

[3rdShockArmy]

Panzer - Armor(ed)
Kampf - Battle, Fight(ing), (ever heard of "Mein Kampf"?)
Wagen - vehicle

Sounds perfectly as it's supposed to to me.

[Serialkillerwhal...]

True, it's an actually just german for AFV, but it still sounds like "Campwagon" doesn't it?

[Pepo]

Production wasn't the problem The ergonomic failures and poor stability/visibility were. That and the damn thing had an aluminum engine for god knows what reason, which made it far more expensive than it's reputation would suggest. The overly brittle armor was by design (Harder armor, it was reasoned, was better).

The T-34's flaws relative to the Panzerkampfwagen (God that name sounds like "Panzer Camping Wagon") IV and M4 were largely issues of the designer forgetting people were supposed to be driving them, and focusing on "AS MUCH ARMER IN A SMALL SPES"

I suppose that you are picking your ideas from that article about the t-34 not being the best tank in the war (and which basically put it as if it was shit). Soviet stell wasn't the best of the world, but the armor didn't fail for that reason. First, a lot of German tanks in 1942 and allmost all tanks in 1943 had guns or ammo to pierce the t-34 frontal plate. The upgraded 75mm gun on the pz4 was better than the 76 soviet one (as I said before, the pz4 variants ended up being overweigthed and the design was outdated ). The armor was vulnerable against heat shells that caused spelling, but most heat shells will penetrate the armor anyways.

The ergonomics were bad, but they are overstated. Sure, it is better that the crew is comfortable , but the end result isn't that big unless they are force to figth for very long times without rest. Even on the meat grinder aka the eastern front it was uncommon for crews to have very long fights during many days in a row. It still a flaw, but one that isn't as serious as it is usually portrayed

And about the optics, they weren't that bad. Sure they were probably inferior to German ones, but the myth of them being very bad is false. What hurted the most the Russian tanks were the bad gunnery skills of the crews, and not the optics that did their job


And about the engine, i 'am not sure that being made of aluminum was a disadvantages. Cost for the USSR wasn't as important as man hours for the product, and being made of aluminum doesn't change that much time to be make. That's if it is actually made of aluminum, because I can't find any source about the material employ

[3rdShockArmy]

True, it's an actually just german for AFV, but it still sounds like "Campwagon" doesn't it?

Well, not to me. I had mandatory German in high-school, so that's probably why it sounds normal to me. German isn't nearly as hard as it's portrayed in the MSM. It's a bit rusty now, because I haven't used in years.

This post has been edited by 3rdShockArmy: 18 May 2016, 23:32

[Serialkillerwhal...]

The importance of ergonomics cannot be overstated, especially on the loader, the early T-34/76 models lacked a turret basket, meaning that the loader had to clamber around on a floor that consisted of ammo boxes (which he had to open after the ready rounds were expended and load from, while the turret traversed. And he's the commander......or was it the gunner? Eh, gunner or loader had to double as commander. Indeed, even the soviets themselves were aware of the impact of the ergonomic issues, they just didn't prioritize it properly.

And it's not just a matter of optics, but of missing a cupola altogether. The T-34's Commander had only a little slit in the front of the tank for vision. The lack of a cupola severed impacted situational awareness. /76 model T-34s were blind as a bat, and the /85 was still notably inferior to Aust-J and E8 Tanks.

And HEAT isn't the issue with spalling, High Explosive, and that quaint british squash shell were. HE rounds rarely, if ever, penetrated anything (Except Japanese tanks, which at the time were so hillariously under-armored that Shermans had to load HE, the AP shells were flying straight through them). Shock waves from an HE shell cause the interior armor of the tank to turn into shrapnel and shred stuff inside it (such as people), nasty stuff.

As for cannon, I must admit I made a mistake. The kwk-42 was the longer gun on the panther, not the PzIV. Still, the Kwk-40 and the D-5T had comparable AP firepower (The larger caliber obviously meant higher HE power, but that's a different story), meaning, as it turns out, it's the Sherman that outguns both of them and compares directly with the Panther in terms of firepower. Aluminum was, at the time, relatively rare. Basically everyone else at the time had dismissed using aluminum engines as cost-prohibitive, esp as it was the best material for making aircraft. So, despite the sheer numbers made and corners cut, it was still quite expensive in practice. The soviets just had more resources than the germans.

And yes, the "T34 myth" blog is an excellently researched piece, but I do check it against other sources.

All in all, the T-34 really wasn't that impressive from a design standpoint. It does, however, pass the only "Real" test that matters.
"Was it enough?" And given that the soviets had a glut of resources and a large population, yes, it was enough. And even if they weren't exactly perfect, and replacing them with Shermans would have been an upgrade (Which, come to think of it, is exactly what the guard divisions did), it still worked. But, looking from an empirical and purely design-oriented standpoint, it was still inferior to the PzIV and M4.

This post has been edited by Serialkillerwhale: 19 May 2016, 7:23

[Pepo]

No , the Sherman doesn't compare to the panther in firepower. Compare these three and you find that the KWK 42 was superior to the 76mm and the 85 mm: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/7.5_cm_KwK_42. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/76_mm_gun_M1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/85_mm_air_d...un_M1939_(52-K)

Also the Hesh shells were used after we2, starting with the centurion tank. So apart from Korea (which the t-34 was already outdated compare to the t-55, centurion tank or the M-47/48) the t-34 didn't face tanks with that shell.

And not, the Sherman wasn't a clear improvement over the t-34. The 75mm M4 were slightly better than the T-34, but that doesn't justify changing the production lines. The T-34/85 was comparable to the 76mm M4, having fixed most of the previous problems like having a three man turret and having much better finish in general. Meanwhile the Pz4 was a design that was outdate once they start improving it. The first model with the KWK 40 had only 50 mm of frontal armor. The H and J versions, with 80 mm of frontal armor (insufficient against the 76mm and the 85mm) had the mobility so constraint that it only reached 16km/h off road. I can understand the argument that the M4 is superior to the T-34 (the original M4 is superior to the T-34 mod 1942) . however the pz 4 wasn't a better tank than the t-34, specifically during operation Barbarossa and after the T 34/85 was introduce. The T-34 wasn't a perfect tank, but it was good. The t-34 myth blog try a lot to make the T-34 looks like rubbish for whatever reason, but the t-34 wasn't inferior to the Pz4

[Serialkillerwhal...]

At most ranges, the difference was about 10%, quite comparable, especially in comparison to the D-5T or Kwk-40.

On the topic of Hesh, yes, it was a post-war design. I was using HESH as an example of a shell designed explicitly to cause spalling. Any HE shell does it, HESH is just optimized for that purpose. Most nations lowered the hardness of their armor later in the war, the Soviets didn't, which contributed to the appalling survival rates shown by the T-34's crews. (That and the fact that they were cramped as heck and difficult to bail out of relative to the PzIV and M4).

The Easy Eight out-gunned the /85, was more mobile in practical battlefield conditions, and had superior reliability, survivalbility, etc etc. The practical problems with reverse-engineering the M4, as well as the need to get out more tanks do take precedence, yes, but why, if not for the superior capability of the Sherman, would the soviets issue all their lend-lease Shermans to Guard Divisions?

[3rdShockArmy]

I guess that this story isn't far fetched as it may seem at first.

Using low-cost aircraft to the same effect as those much costlier in an environment where the enemy lacks anything but the most basic AA might be a good alternative.
For example, Russia is using advanced Prezident-S (aka Goliath ) equipped gunships (Havocs, Hinds, Hokums) in Syria.

This post has been edited by 3rdShockArmy: 12 Jun 2016, 20:28

[__CrUsHeR]

I guess that this story isn't far fetched as it may seem at first.

Using low-cost aircraft to the same effect as those much costlier in an environment where the enemy lacks anything but the most basic AA might be a good alternative.
For example, Russia is using advanced Prezident-S (aka Goliath ) equipped gunships (Havocs, Hinds, Hokums) in Syria.

I read this article a while ago, it seems to be something logical analyzing by a "cost/benefit" point of view.

Most terrorist targets in Syria do not compensate the logistical and operational investment of a conventional attack using sophisticated apparatus, perhaps just in a first moment as a kind of propaganda weapon to demoralize the enemy (the case of the Russian campaign in Syria) however as the war has been extending must put into practice viable alternatives to fighting, and low-cost aircrafts are one of these options. Another option would be the use of combat drones, however no force involved in the conflict is willing to escalate the tension with drone of this type (just see the consequences of American drone captured by Iran years ago).

In Afghanistan the USA apparently is right by equipping security forces with new Super Tucano aircraft: Super Tucano Effective in Fighting Insurgency

[3rdShockArmy]

That thing is probably one of the best counter-insurgency CAS aircraft in the world.
I think that even drones are not as cost-effective against terrorists/rebels, due to the limited payload. Plus, advanced drones have pretty expensive avionics and are not so cheap to maintain.
Helicopters and planes like A-29 might be a better alternative. The payload and systems like Russian Prezident-S make them somewhat better than drones, at least at the moment, IMHO.

[__CrUsHeR]

Another problem that is beyond the financial issue is the risk of employing pilots on missions against insurgency/terrorism; was demoralizing to Russia for example losing a fighter plane and having one of its pilots shot down by terrorists (though apparently has been something necessary for that moment); if it were a drone, or cruise missile, etc. and not a manned plane the political and moral consequences would have been different and the escalation of the conflict. Anyway as you rightly said there are certain missions that can not be carried out by drones for various reasons, then are used expensive equipment such as cruise missiles, submarines, fighter planes and bombers, but should take into account the variables of such options as the cost of extended missions, necessary logistics, and the political/moral/ethical risks and costs of it; this seems to been the biggest dilemma of the great powers in recent years in the fight against terror (and proxy wars around the world), "as compromise without compromise."

[3rdShockArmy]

Another problem that is beyond the financial issue is the risk of employing pilots on missions against insurgency/terrorism; was demoralizing to Russia for example losing a fighter plane to terrorist-supporters and having one of its pilots shot down by terrorists (though apparently has been something necessary for that moment); if it were a drone, or cruise missile, etc. and not a manned plane the political and moral consequences would have been different and the escalation of the conflict. Anyway as you rightly said there are certain missions that can not be carried out by drones for various reasons, then are used expensive equipment such as cruise missiles, submarines, fighter planes and bombers, but should take into account the variables of such options as the cost of extended missions, necessary logistics, and the political/moral/ethical risks and costs of it; this seems to been the biggest dilemma of the great powers in recent years in the fight against terror (and proxy wars around the world), "as compromise without compromise."

Nicely said. I guess the superpowers and regional powers are realizing that it's quite possible to use older aircraft (which are cheap and crude) and have a relatively low-cost campaigns. For example, Russia's help to Syria is so low-cost (in millions of USD, rather than billions) that it was listed under the yearly military drills, and older aircraft bore the brunt of the work (Su-24 did most of the bombing runs). It would have been quite easy if it wasn't for the cowardly terrorist supporters.
Maybe these tactics could even be used for fighting cartels and large-scale criminal organizations, like the ones you may encounter in Parana or any other part of Brazil you may get deployed to.

[__CrUsHeR]

Nicely said. I guess the superpowers and regional powers are realizing that it's quite possible to use older aircraft (which are cheap and crude) and have a relatively low-cost campaigns. For example, Russia's help to Syria is so low-cost (in millions of USD, rather than billions) that it was listed under the yearly military drills, and older aircraft bore the brunt of the work (Su-24 did most of the bombing runs). It would have been quite easy if it wasn't for the cowardly terrorist supporters.
Maybe these tactics could even be used for fighting cartels and large-scale criminal organizations, like the ones you may encounter in Parana or any other part of Brazil you may get deployed to.

In fact the Russian campaign in Syria is billionaire, you must take into account the high investments in advertising, diplomacy, intelligence and counter-intelligence involved in the Russian actions (like never before Russia did); there are still millions in expenses of cruisers, submarines and tactical bombers, anti-air defence, base defences, in addition to the use of various non-conventional weapons such as guided missiles, smart bombs, etc. This all caused tremendous surprise to the West, but is too expensive for Russia to afford to keep this campaign in this way; so the announcement of the partial withdrawal of some strategic weapons from Syria (to avoid further spending and an unprecedented escalation in a delicate front).

The use of the Su-24 was a risky tactic that had a consequence, demonstrated the fragility of russia strategy and a certain vulnerability to NATO in a campaign that until then was impeccable, had a negative moral impact on the country's image and Putin was forced to retreat for the first time since he took office (although the Russian media have made a great job to minimize the impact of this defeat). If Russia had not risked so much and maybe spent a little more could not have missed the aircraft and consequently did not suffer the consequences. This is the question, sometimes, depending on the situation, you can not rely on low-cost operations and economic equipment (such as the case of the Su-24) because the consequences of a non-successful action can bring big losses affecting geopolitical as a whole. Putin understands now that he can not play with fire in the airspace of NATO and near the border, if it does so will have to pay a price.

The US began using a tactic of "minimization risks" in recent years to employ drones in missions and equip rebel/terrorist forces to fight, as well as often being cheaper is something that does not expose the country's image, by example, the death of an Afghan soldier using American uniform not will have the same impact than the death of a legitimate American using the same uniform; It is a proxy war carefully studied, to a lesser extent and intensity but with greater effectiveness (of a medium/long-term perspective).

The trend is that low-cost equipment manned are used by armies in war zones where the economic and geopolitical risks are low (usually cheaper equipments), as in war zones where there are big risks both political as economic between the parties trend is that non-conventional wars are waged, involving electronic warfare, drones, espionage and counter-espionage, or strategical equipment (usually more expensive).

In Brazil you can not face the urban guerrillas with war equipment like the Super Tucano why there is no clear definition of enemy, nor a clearly defined acting area (the same scenario in which Brazil operates in Haiti UN peacekeepers mission, the United States in Afghanistan currently, Russia in Caucasian region currently), then it is necessary the use of specific weapons (usually less lethal - for reasons related to the political effects of a possible error). The Super Tucano was designed to operate in border regions where you need to destroy and liquidate small clusters of enemies in low-risk missions where the enemy does not have proper support for anti-aerial defense for example.

This post has been edited by __CrUsHeR: 13 Jun 2016, 21:32

[Pepo]

The use of the Su-24 was a risky tactic that had a consequence, demonstrated the fragility of russia strategy and a certain vulnerability to NATO in a campaign that until then was impeccable, had a negative moral impact on the country's image and Putin was forced to retreat for the first time since he took office (although the Russian media have made a great job to minimize the impact of this defeat). If Russia had not risked so much and maybe spent a little more could not have missed the aircraft and consequently did not suffer the consequences. This is the question, sometimes, depending on the situation, you can not rely on low-cost operations and economic equipment (such as the case of the Su-24) because the consequences of a non-successful action can bring big losses affecting geopolitical as a whole. Putin understands now that he can not play with fire in the airspace of NATO and near the border, if it does so will have to pay a price.

The SU-24 isn't cheap to operate to start with. Second, Russia has been sending Su-35 and Su-34 which are even more expensive to operate to Syria, so they weren't using cheap equipment at all. Third, Russia didn't retreat because the financial burden or the Su-24 being shut down, but because they manage to turn the Syrian war in Al-assad favor. And they still carry strikes , so it wasn't a full retreat but a scale down on the operations. Fourth, it didn't matter if the Russians would had spent more, the F-16 would had destroy any other ground attack plane avatible. Speaking about Turkey, the idea of destroying a Su-24 after crossing their frontier for 17 seconds is irresponsible and stupid at best. Finally, low cost equipment is something that should be used against groups with minimal to none ground to air capabilities. Why are you going to use an F-22 when you can use a Trainer with some bombs at 1/10 of the price. Wars are also fougth financially, and lowering the cost is usually a good idea as long at it isn't a risk for the crew. Against a conventional enemy, this lower cost planes are a waste of lives; but against guerrilla forces they are a good idea

[(USA)Bruce]

^Erm have you watched the russian economey plummet with the oil prices? Theres progress made for assad but nothing huge.

Anyways I got a question thats unrelated to all this,

Now first of all: I am not a tank man, I dont really find them appealing, they are sardine cans on tracks with an artilary cannon.Unlike in generals, you need the cordinated will of a few guys to operate it.Like I said I dont find them THAT appealing.

That being said, why did the line of light and deployable tanks starting from the sheridan and then to the transition of stingrays and M8's fail?
Like I heard people say that the sheridan was the idea of "air mobility" to silly extents because they used aluminum in the hull and the viets just upgraded to AP ammo.That made it all worthless....

But the US doctrine being on response or rapid deployment, why is it not used that much? Like If we had say another libya event or any other that could've used ground troops....Why not throw in a few light expandable tanks you could just destroy on your way out?
Like In libya the most the insurgents had was RPG's and heavy MG's on technicals, aside from the RPG's (Im not up to date, but the arena/trophy system counterpart in the US arsenal exists right? Something to neutralize them)
Such a weapon sounds pretty damn usefull, more then an ac-130 (which people when speaking about libya say it could've been there and it would've been a godsend)
Personally I dont think using an AC-130 will win us any of the locals favor...Is this post too political?I dont want to get off track



Like sure we got our main tanks and Im not here to make it a dicksword fight contest over the euros leo and our tanks vs the russians....Im asking why did the light airmobility breed die out? I mean In ROTR I can airdrop Acoytle tanks to kill AA and let my air assets take over Why is real life not so easy? (Not in a heavy scale conflict between US vs russia but smaller stuff)

This post has been edited by (USA)Bruce: 14 Jun 2016, 18:35

[Planardweller]

^Erm have you watched the russian economey plummet with the oil prices? Theres progress made for assad but nothing huge.

Anyways I got a question thats unrelated to all this,

Now first of all: I am not a tank man, I dont really find them appealing, they are sardine cans on tracks with an artilary cannon.Unlike in generals, you need the cordinated will of a few guys to operate it.Like I said I dont find them THAT appealing.

That being said, why did the line of light and deployable tanks starting from the sheridan and then to the transition of stingrays and M8's fail?
Like I heard people say that the sheridan was the idea of "air mobility" to silly extents because they used aluminum in the hull and the viets just upgraded to AP ammo.That made it all worthless....

But the US doctrine being on response or rapid deployment, why is it not used that much? Like If we had say another libya event or any other that could've used ground troops....Why not throw in a few light expandable tanks you could just destroy on your way out?
Like In libya the most the insurgents had was RPG's and heavy MG's on technicals, aside from the RPG's (Im not up to date, but the arena/trophy system counterpart in the US arsenal exists right? Something to neutralize them)
Such a weapon sounds pretty damn usefull, more then an ac-130 (which people when speaking about libya say it could've been there and it would've been a godsend)
Personally I dont think using an AC-130 will win us any of the locals favor...Is this post too political?I dont want to get off track



Like sure we got our main tanks and Im not here to make it a dicksword fight contest over the euros leo and our tanks vs the russians....Im asking why did the light airmobility breed die out? I mean In ROTR I can airdrop Acoytle tanks to kill AA and let my air assets take over Why is real life not so easy? (Not in a heavy scale conflict between US vs russia but smaller stuff)

Answer to that is at least two part:
Tank crews want smth survivable - in a game it works because balance. In IRL you would be paying for equipment, maintenance, parts, training and everything about it and then do what? Discard a 2-3 mln per tank on the field?

Supposedly strikers with the gun configuration is what you are asking for. But US military has never been as keen on airdropping vehicles as soviets did. And frankly, i kinda understand them - why airdrop things into battle (which costs a lot, especially including fuel and everything for that C-130 and the airbase that the plane and tanks would be based on), when you can carefully deploy them from nearby Wasp-class vessel and in 72-hours, if not sooner you'll have a full M1A1 rolling on the ground and that Striker too. Still from what i hear the US Army branch still has one or two projects for vehicles you're asking about and looks for ways enabling 24 hour deployment anywhere in the world.

[Cobretti]

From what I recall the reason for the M8 AGS being cancelled was financial; the US Army couldn't afford to get airborne tanks back in the late 1990s and they had already phased out the mediocre Sheridans. Every so often you'll hear for calls to put the M8 into production though.

[3rdShockArmy]

@Crusher
@Pepo
Good points. Both of ya guys.

As for the airdropable armor, I don't see what's so wrong with it. Sure, you can always just bomb the area back to the Stone Age, but when the ground troops move in, they'll encounter a very angry population (at best) which will want a revenge. But if you use Orlov-style force with some airdropable armor (probably using some form of active protection), you'll look more badass (and intimidate the potential adversary) and secure the region with a relatively minimal collateral damage and spare human lives.

[__CrUsHeR]

The SU-24 isn't cheap to operate to start with. Second, Russia has been sending Su-35 and Su-34 which are even more expensive to operate to Syria, so they weren't using cheap equipment at all. Third, Russia didn't retreat because the financial burden or the Su-24 being shut down, but because they manage to turn the Syrian war in Al-assad favor. And they still carry strikes , so it wasn't a full retreat but a scale down on the operations. Fourth, it didn't matter if the Russians would had spent more, the F-16 would had destroy any other ground attack plane avatible. Speaking about Turkey, the idea of destroying a Su-24 after crossing their frontier for 17 seconds is irresponsible and stupid at best. Finally, low cost equipment is something that should be used against groups with minimal to none ground to air capabilities. Why are you going to use an F-22 when you can use a Trainer with some bombs at 1/10 of the price. Wars are also fougth financially, and lowering the cost is usually a good idea as long at it isn't a risk for the crew. Against a conventional enemy, this lower cost planes are a waste of lives; but against guerrilla forces they are a good idea

The Su-24 is more econonic than some similar aircraft in the West, within the Russian options is one of the most economic (not the most economical).

In fact the goal of making favorable war to Assad has been achieved, but the main goal of Russia was to test NATO and the West, test the responsiveness of the Turks and demonstrate strength by applying a different military doctrine which the West was used to observe. The Russia again used the unpredictability in Syria as an asymmetric weapon, but was discouraged by the NATO initiative, finally served as a test, but at the same time had consequences that took Russia by surprise (did not expect this outcome to the Su- 24). It was not going into the merits to consider whether it was right or wrong of a moralizing point of view. Politically/economically it was bad for Russia and bad for Turkey, but for Russia was worse because the Turkey was an important trading partner and a bridge to the West.

Notice I did not say it would be possible to prevent the destruction of an aircraft (or maybe it was though unlikely), but Russia could have decreased the risks using a drone or a more modern aircraft; the first option the consequences of the destruction of the drone would be lower, in the second perhaps Turkey had felt intimidated working in a deterrent way (which Russia proceeded to do after the shot down of the Su-24).

This post has been edited by __CrUsHeR: 15 Jun 2016, 1:38

[Pepo]

@crusher : yes a drone would probably be the best option. However Russia as been unable to build an UCAV, being a technology that the URSS largely ignore except for surveillance (probably due to having worse electronics than the west). And although Syria was a show of force (using TU-95 isn't justify in any cost effective way) I still think that the main aim was to save bashar al-assad. And still ,the downing of the Su-24 didn't deter Russia, because although they wish to minimize the casualties, that event make a very bad portray of the Turkish regime

@ Bruce the US has stop using light tanks for to reasons: effectiveness and a change of doctrine. The first one is obvious , as a light tank is less capable than a MBT , and in any engagement the normal tank will probably win. The second was moving away from paratroopers to air mobile brigade. Paratroopers has always being a controversial group , because they usually succeed in small operations but get rekt in bigger ones (Crete or Market Garden). With the creation of brigade build around helicopters, not only you get a lot more mobility but also combat helicopters provide a lot more firepower than a LT. If the US manage to secure a beach or an airport, they can bring the M1A2 , which leave the LT obsolete. For comparison, Russia still believe that paratroopers in big deployments are useful, and design vehicles such as the Sprut (it is a LT, not a fire support vehicle) to provide the paratroopers some firpower

[__CrUsHeR]

@crusher : yes a drone would probably be the best option. However Russia as been unable to build an UCAV, being a technology that the URSS largely ignore except for surveillance (probably due to having worse electronics than the west). And although Syria was a show of force (using TU-95 isn't justify in any cost effective way) I still think that the main aim was to save bashar al-assad. And still ,the downing of the Su-24 didn't deter Russia, because although they wish to minimize the casualties, that event make a very bad portray of the Turkish regime

@ Bruce the US has stop using light tanks for to reasons: effectiveness and a change of doctrine. The first one is obvious , as a light tank is less capable than a MBT , and in any engagement the normal tank will probably win. The second was moving away from paratroopers to air mobile brigade. Paratroopers has always being a controversial group , because they usually succeed in small operations but get rekt in bigger ones (Crete or Market Garden). With the creation of brigade build around helicopters, not only you get a lot more mobility but also combat helicopters provide a lot more firepower than a LT. If the US manage to secure a beach or an airport, they can bring the M1A2 , which leave the LT obsolete. For comparison, Russia still believe that paratroopers in big deployments are useful, and design vehicles such as the Sprut (it is a LT, not a fire support vehicle) to provide the paratroopers some firpower

Yes, Russia is light years behind the West (especially the USA) in UCAVs, but has invested in ground drones with success, indicating that the country should provide new conflicts in the coming years in areas where the use of it is required (for situations where should "compromise without compromise"), imagine new scenarios similar to the Crimea or Syria, where robots can be used in order not to expose Russian soldiers (instead of mass "green man" as the occupation of Crimea for example).
------

In fact the new doctrine of the USA based on the heavy M1A2 should change at some point, the War of Iraq and Afghanistan have demonstrated to the US military that they distance themselves much in recent decades of universality of war with a vision very "westernized" of the mechanized conflict (focusing on war scenarios in Europe for example). A heavy tank as the M1A2 can be ideal for European geography (regions with good bridges, roads in good condition, a logistics "NATO standard" consolidated to support these tanks etc), but bad for a scenario in Africa or Asia, or more to Eastern Europe, where there is no the same support, and we must attack (invade) and not to defend an urban area (the US military and analysts did not like the M1A2 performance in urban battles, because the tank is too large to maneuver, does not fit in the narrow streets and becomes a very easy target for insurgent groups for example, also has no effective means of counter-measure a guided missile for example, besides it is a very expensive tank to be produced and maintained.

Already the Russians are constantly improving his cavalry to attack scenarios, particularly for urban areas, for this reason there are so many videos on obsolete tanks like the T-72 using GoPros in the conflict in Syria for example (are urban combat records for purposes of the Russian military expertise in order to study ways to improve the performance of these vehicles in conflicts in urban areas). Based on these data the T-72 has been modernized (a relatively light tank suitable for universally scenarios and urban warfare capable, with modern defense and attack equipments). For a most western front there are the T-90 and now Armata (for geography of Europe, therefore heavier, but able to withstand the impact of large-caliber weapons).

One country member of NATO which seems to me to have this same doctrine and dimensionality of "cavalry escalation" is Turkey; It has a large amount of M-60 A3 and M-48 (relatively obsolete vehicles, but suitable for the middle east geography), while having a mid-large amount of tanks as Leopard 2 for a front against Russia for example (a more heavy tank for a European operating theater). The USA should do the same in a near future, or by reactivating an old tank model, or by creating a more appropriate design.

This post has been edited by __CrUsHeR: 15 Jun 2016, 12:53

[3rdShockArmy]

The most powerful weapon in the history of man is getting replaced, with something that exceeds even the "doomsday device" designation. This new thing is both smaller and more powerful than the more than menacing "Satan".

Enter "Sarmat" (Russian for Sarmatian). Does any other country has anything similar? I know that the Yanks are developing new nukes, but what about heavy ICBMs?

This post has been edited by 3rdShockArmy: 23 Jun 2016, 21:11

[__CrUsHeR]

The most powerful weapon in the history of man is getting replaced, with something that exceeds even the "doomsday device" designation. This new thing is both smaller and more powerful than the more than menacing "Satan".

Enter "Sarmat" (Russian for Sarmatian). Does any other country has anything similar? I know that the Yanks are developing new nukes, but what about heavy ICBMs?

The United States and NATO in recent years has sought to improve their weapons use a new doctrine: more compact, operational and directed weapons; for such effort the United States is improving its inventory of nuclear weapons stationed in Germany for miniaturized versions named B61-12 (at odds with the START signed with Russia), such bombs have as vector conventional fighter-bombers which makes the missions more cheaper and easily to carry. Also try to convey the idea of a more localized nuclear war (with Russia, and not a global war); as Russia tries to apply the douctrine of "global nuclear war" (for this is replaced the Satam by Sarmat), but also invest in symmetrical way on the same concept of NATO with land mobile vectors like the medium range missile launcher Skander equipped with warheads SS-26 Stone.

In fact the two powers have nuclear weapons to almost any type of operation and situation at different levels, are just improving the ability of employment (reducing the time to activation and use, improving the range and capabilities of missile/bomb defense, etc.); at the end the Sarmat is only a propaganda, Russia can extinguish humanity alone with the current nuclear arsenal (and hardly NATO can do something to prevent this from occurring if the war take nuclear proportions).

This post has been edited by __CrUsHeR: 23 Jun 2016, 22:47