I don't want to sound condescending or patronizing, but please read up on Ukraine - Russia history before talking about them as brotherly nations. At best it is 400 years of mutual pain and suffering, at its worst it is a metropoly (Russia) - colony (Ukraine) relation with multiple tragic twists.

"Brotherly" Russia involved itself enough already: Annexation of Crimea and insurgency in Donbas. All those tanks, AA weapons, combat vehicles and artillery wasn't stationed there (as in there was no military bases to capture them from) before 2014 and Russia is providing all of it, including instructors and occasional combat help, when it deems fit.
It hasn't committed fully, that's true - there have been no big missile strikes or aircraft attack runs, but the reason for that is much more simple - what will Russia do with captured territory if it invades and wins? It can't even fund Crimea, after all.

On military-industrial complex (Now under the hat of "UkrOboronProm" and i may refer to it that way, when it makes sense to generalize) is a much more defunct now. Not really surprising considering that till 2014, Ukraine took steps to destroy it's own army. As a result there were no real orders from government, and most of these factories barely survived. If the rumours are true, most of them are emerging from post-soviet limbo and finally receive at least some orders for new things. "Yuzhnoye" will again be building guided missiles, now for tactical level. MotorSich with its engines expertise was critical to russian helicopters and Navy, so it survived in much better condition. It seems it will find its customers on the global markets, "Kharkiv tank plant" is refurbishing those old T-64s and builds new T-84s oplot. Mykolaiv shipyards will again be building ships, maybe not the missile and aircraft cruisers of old, but after Crimean annexation, Ukraine is rebuilding its navy from almost scratch.

Most of this soviet heritage equipment you are talking about - the more functional part of it was sold over the years. What few useful items that weren't sold are now pressed into service and the last part, is, i guess, at useful scrap level. I've seen pics of tank and IFV conservation facilities near Kyiv - only rusted hulls remain of most of them. 5%-15% is the best that you can hope when going over of what is left (It may be slightly better in Russia, but i hear the best country to preserve soviet tech was Belarus).
Yes what part of it that could be saved is of great help, but most of military-industrial complex are busy repairing or sometimes rebuilding all those T-64 and T-72 tanks, migs-29, Su-27, Hinds and so on. It can't be used straight from conservation without a serious investment of all three kinds of resources - time, money and skilled craftsmen who have to be hired and trained. And money is a very crucial resource at the moment.
Do you know how big is Ukraine's military funding? About 2 billion dollars, and out of those only about 10% goes to buying new and repairing old military equipment. So all those tanks and other vehicles that could be repaired are capped by funding.
If you are following the fighting in Donbas, you know that it is very much a World War 1 - lots of fortifications and reinforced lines and an artillery war. And for all this artillery you need lots and lots of rounds and rockets. Well, AFAIK even in soviet times there were no factories that manufactured all those rounds and rockets in Ukraine. So at least some of them are bought from stocks of other countries: Poland, Czech republic, Slovakia and others from Warsaw pact. Some military factories that were in Luhansk and Donetsklike radar-electronics making "Topaz" or Luhansk gunpowder factory, have been stolen to Russia. Yep, just like USSR did in Germany after WW2.

It may sound huge on paper, but its actual state only makes you cringe or fills with anger at how poorly it was managed. As the old saying goes - "You can't read ukrainian history or newspapers without a sedative".

Yes, I've heard about what was going on after 1991. But that was just what I said. About 10 % of the weapons. You said 5-15. Those figures are pretty close to each other.
And what T-84 "Oplot" actually is? Is it a modernized version of T-64 or later variants (T-72, T-80 etc) or a new design?
Could we compare it to Yugoslav/Serbian M-84 or Soviet/Russian T-90?
And what could "Yuzhnoye" do that could ever match their importance from Soviet times?
And to which countries could Ukraine sell it's helicopter engines on a scale it did to Russia?
The problem with your (Ukrainian) MIC is that it was designed as a part of an intricate and massive Soviet MIC. Now when the entire system disintegrated, what market could Ukraine win? Especially considering the decline which lasted for 25 years now. And it's unlikely that it will stop any time soon. What will happen when even the current expertise is lost due to new designs etc? Ukraine has some impressive military technology, but it's getting old and as I said, it was a part of one body. You can't just refit the entire industry for someone else overnight. Who will import weapons from Ukraine, if Ukraine itself is forced to import new weapons from elsewhere?

T-84 is an upgrade of T-80 obviously. There are some important differences, but i think they are somewhere on level of T-72 and T-90. How good T-84 is not for me to say.

The soviet system disintegrated 25 years ago, so it isn't a part of one body any longer. Afaik (on a level of an enthusiast) the decline has reached its low point in 2014. After that, a slow improvement can be seen. Some new things are already appearing in the field, mostly related to squad level UAVs and tactical networking.

What kind of weapons are imported to Ukraine you heard about?
On the heli and ship engines - It's not so much about selling what they have (though it is interesting too) as being a platform for development and production of new things too.
On "Yuzhnoye" - if you view things in terms of big and pointless weapons like SS-18 than yes, i don't think there will be a return to that. But from what press-releases they did, they are interested in making what appears to be a decent modern-day 500 km range guided missile. Ukrainian anti-air is in need of revival, both plane-wise and ground-wise. And ground-wise it's missiles, so i guess that will "Yuzhnoye" too.

Quite a lot of stuff will be internal (for ukrainian military) for a while. If it is good or at least decent it will find its customers. Whatever is exported atm will be to the markets of Africa, Asia and South America, i would guess. just like those An-132 Antonov does for Saudi Arabia.
If there will be anything interesting, i am pretty sure it will be post-worthy.

I really like the design of those rifles. They look really sexy- specifically the Zastava M21 and the Zastava PAP series- I really like the look of those, aesthetically.

As for the war in Ukraine... that makes a helluva a lot of sense. I reckon that in the shortage of ammo and with various military forces running amuck, strongholding is what became the rue of the day to secure territory and to dig in and make fortified bastions. Which would probably limit direct means of raiding an opponent as you got a collection of fortified positions, not big loose supply lines.

Whose winning then? I can't imagine the Ukrainian nationalists doing well against the Russians, who got a far more stable arms manufacturing industry. Or has the Ukrainian nationalists been supplied by outsiders?

But just look at the numbers. Ukraine was among top 5 weapons exporters in the world, just until 2-3 years ago.
I meant to say that one body (Soviet MIC) disintegrated 25 years ago, but only formally. De facto speaking, it continued to work, even during Yushchenko's years, in a somewhat different way, but with the same results. That kept the Ukrainian MIC afloat, which was and still is a huge chunk of Ukrainian economy. When things fell apart, exports to it's main market (Russia), were cut. It's like there are two factories, which both make crucial parts for a great car, but then things go bad and the entire process is disrupted. If we say, metaphorically speaking, that Russia is making the engine of that great car, and Ukraine is making the transmission system, so when it all happens, Russia decides to make it's own transmission, where does that leave Ukraine? It has a great transmission, but what it can do with it?
Also, I wouldn't call SS-18 useless. Along with the rest of the ICBMs, it's the only thing standing between us and a freaken World War. And it provided lots of jobs in the process of designing and producing it.
I'm not trying to insult your country, but I just think that UAVs etc won't really save Ukraine's MIC (and thus a big part of your economy). Why would anyone buy a Ukrainian UAV, if they can by an American, Israeli or European one? Also, who in the West or Western-aligned country will need products designed for the Russian market? Especially considering Ukraine's current political orientation. You also can't sell technological informations forever. It will run dry at some point. You're stuck. That's the problem. You don't want to go "back", but you can't go "forward". I won't argue whether it's the problem for the country, but it definitely is a huge problem for the military industry.


I think you can even get some weapons from the PAP series. I don't know about Canada, but civilian PAPs were designed specifically for the US and other Western markets.
As for whose winning, the answer has always been the same for every war that ever happened. Whoever sells the weapons.

I would consider getting the rifles if I didn't own a FN FAL already; which does everything I could ever need gun wise for hunting and other stuff. Plus I fucking love the FAL as a rifle and I lack money atm for another weapon.

FAL? That thing is a beast. Lucky you. No-one should be messin' around with you.

I've already suggested most likely regions of future sales and the answer to your question is "Those who can't afford USA, Israeli or whoever else". After all, Ukraine is pretty cheap in terms of prices on arms and equipment.
Russia was around 30% of ukrainian military related exports so obviously it hurts the companies to lose it, still the companies are pretty big and Russia is not the only CIS country, though the most important one, so some customers may come from other CIS countries - whether to make money on buying ukrainian equipment and selling it back to Russia or just for their own use.
On the topic of russian capacity to make the required equipment themselves - Can you read russian? I would like to direct you to certain articles on that. Because from the looks of official statements at the moment RF companies experience huge difficulties with that, especially navy-related and certain sensor/guidance equipment.
On the topic of ukrainian military production and exports - i've spent some time reading up SIPRI reports, but they end at 2014. Data for 2015 isn't in yet, and i think it is critical to the discussion to know how things have been actually going for ukrainian and russian companies. In 2014 Ukraine was 9th in military exports at 2.6 percent of the market. I think it will fall from that position below the 10th as much is directed into ukrainian army first i.e less exports, more for internal use and more importantly losses from Russia.
If we are talking about short term and mid-term development, most of ukrainian military production will be for internal purposes first with expansion of available arms groups - i think new entries will be AA, rocketry, gun artillery, UAVs, radars and other electronics equipment to fill in gaps in ukrainian military logistics. If we are talking long term - i don't know how it will go, that depends too much on what will happen during next 5 years in Ukraine. The possible scenarios vary a lot - from collapse to restoration of borders and relative economic uprise.
And last thing - why exactly you think Ukraine or its military production can't go forward?

I'm working with an MD 964 FAL boys (5,56x45mm NATO) . I can say that the rifle is wonderful and well fulfills its mission; easy maintenance and high reliability.

Serbian is a Cyrilic script language and a Slavic language, so yes, I can read Russian. I even have small Russian dictionary at home. Sure, send me the links. You can PM me, as well.
I agree that Ukraine has the tech, but as I said, it was all created as a part of one big system. A big chunk of Ukraine's products simply don't fit many other military doctrines, besides Soviet/Russian. When it comes to weapons the big money is in the West, China, Russia and India. You can't sell weapons to the West (because they already have indigenous hi-tech MIC) and you can't compete with Russia in supplying China and India. And you lost the Russian market. Other CIS countries just can't cover the losses. As you said, Ukraine fell to the 10th place on arms exports (it's likely to go even more down) and just 3-4 years ago it was in the top 5. Also, internal expansion of the arms market doesn't helps your MIC in the way that export does. It can sustain jobs, but the money will have to be directed from other parts of the economy (which is experiencing serious difficulties to say the least).
As for going "forward", you should know what kind of meaning it will get overtime in your country. First, your government will tell you they're getting "aid" from IMF and World Bank (translated into common language, it means say goodbye to your economic independence). You'll get loans which will give a false feeling of financial security. If you want, PM me because the subject is too sensitive.

Yeah. The Belgian FN has a long history of quality products. Hope you never had to use it on duty.

At the very least if he had to use it on duty, its a solid as balls rifle that he can count on. And likely better than whatever the hell his opponents would be using.

I also hope that I never need to use it in a real situation.

Unfortunately when you have to use the FN is because crime is using similar weapons, they have AK47, M16, M4, and FN too, and some criminals are former army soldiers, then have technical knowledge about the FN (standard armament of the infantry of Brazilian and Argentine army).

Yesterday, another day of service in the nearby town (Cascavel); I was in support of the police of there:





Organized crime promotes urban terrorism as attacks on security forces and public transport as a way of demonstrating power.

As a kid, I've seen things that were far worse, but still, I have to say, damn. You're having a tough time out there. And I suppose that's one of the better days.

In fact this was an atypical day, but is increasingly common days so. The crime has gained power and become more efficient; even with half a million military police officers in Brazil is difficult to counter the crime.

Yeah. Heard about the Brazillian gang warfare and urban crime rates being pretty bad.

I also heard though that Brazillian military is trained rather well (which sometimes as you said contributes to the problem, ex servicemen enlisting into the ranks of well organized gangs) and able to put up a decent fight.

I don't think that even with a top of the line police force that that problem would vanish though. Columbia is basically next door and having been there myself its a shoddy situation there too (I was there for perfectly legal purposes, just some welding back in the day but y'know, you get a grips of a place if you are there for at least 2 months) and honestly I think the only way I'd do it, and mind im no cop or military guy at all and compared to a dude who actually serves there? Don't take this as advice whatsoever, just me being a hypothesizing goof, but if I were to have to come up with a strategy it'd be increased surveillance and focusing on increasing the response time, and maybe conducting more espionage. Getting inside and infiltrating the groups, a slow but steady process to strike down their main infrastructure without doing a crapload of damage. The problems of that is the inherit violation of privacy and the fact you would need ballsy men brave enough to put their life on the line as agents to risk themselves that much, and with a political environment that has seen military coups and other stuff like back in the 70's? I dunno. Not an easy task, I don't envy the police/military of Brazil at all. Definitely one of the harder fronts of law enforcement.

Your analysis is absolutely correct.

In Brazil, the police service has difficulties similar to "occupation forces" of the USA in Afghanistan for example. The officer is inserted in a hostile land, where one party of population suspects of the state and the other party tends to be complicit with the crime for convenience, then this composition stimulates the violence from both sides.

Lately I've been working more for my ego than for an ideal, I think I'm getting a little tired of it and I'm only five years in the profession, I look to some colleagues who are 30 years in the streets and I do not think I want it to me, is a very great physical and emotional stress, but at the same time is addictive because you get used to the constant adrenaline.

I plan to work in another area of the public sector in the future, not for a financial issue, but for my quality of life, but it's still hard to leave the uniform and say "is enough..."

Your situation is definitely hard. My country had wars, but in peace time, it's like you're in Denmark. Nothing ever happens. You'd never think we had a bloody conflict just 20-25 years ago.
I don't think there's any violent way of ending Brazil's troubles. Income inequality, segregation etc will always halt any progress you make by destroying various gangs. They'll just get replaced by new ones. The problem is that you have ultramodern cities, but you also have many favelas and shanty towns surrounding them, scattered all over the area. You can't control that. The process will be extremely slow. Unfortunately, the only thing that can be done for now is to try to hold back the gangs from safer areas. Brazil is getting nowhere by risking the lives of people like yourself in trying to get people living in the favelas to integrate in the society. A slow and gradual dismantlement of those areas is the only way. It will require a lot of money and resources, but when done, it could make Brazil an even more incredible country than it already is.

We all know just how effective and high-quality was the German equipment during the WWII. This article (and the video on page 3) shows it.

Reminds me of a similar story some years ago where they pulled a T-34 out of a bog and seemingly managed to restore it to working condition as well.

Yeah. One of the best tanks of the War. Not even the Germans had an adequate response to it, until Tigers and Panthers came.

Well, it was good because it was cheap to make and repair. German tanks still beat them by a long shot, a Panzer 4 would easily destroy a T-34 most of the time, especially earlier in the war prior to upgrades made for the T-34. Its just that the Russians had production output and far more effective means of repairing their tanks than the Germans did, where as German engineering was far more technical and prevented feasible field repairs.

Yes, but you should keep in mind that advanced Tigers and Panthers came in numbers only in 1943. Even then, there was too few of them to make a difference. Germans used some of the most advanced, futuristic (at that time) weapons, but that was just a small part of their army. T-34 is by far the best tank designed in the 30s. Both Tigers and Panthers came as a response to T-34. Russians were preparing their own response to those heavy tanks, but the war was already ending by the time they got in service.

In 1941 the T-34 was much better than the short barrel pz4 or the 50mm pz3. And the German improvements in armor and gun for the pz4 ended up with a tank with overweight in the frontal part. The Pz4 had a better gun, but it was worse than the t-34/76 in speed and armor. Once the t-34 was upgraded with the 85mm and the new turret, it was superior to the pz4. The panther is a completely different story, beign complex superior to the t-34 and not as expensive as the others German heavy tanks

Excellent analysis, 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

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"

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

Sounds perfectly as it's supposed to to me.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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?

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

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.

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."

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.

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

^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.

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.

@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.

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).

@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.

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).