Russia Will Not Mass-Produce T-14 Armata Main Battle Tank

beerftw said:

After the end of the cold war nato admitted if a war between the soviet union and nato occurred, all nato atgm's would be useless against soviet tanks with reactive armor, and they would have had to use other methods like ke weapons and cas aircraft.

Click to expand...

Yes, and no.

It has to be remembered, Kontakt was not really used until the ending days of the Cold War. It was first introduced in 1985 on the T-80U, which was introduced in 1985. And even by 1990, this tank ranked 5th in the Soviet main battle tank inventory. 5th, out of 5 tanks. There were 4,000 T-80U tanks, compared to over 55,000 other tanks, from the T-55 to T-72.

None of which had any kind of reactive armor at the time.

So worthless against 4k tanks out of over 60k tanks really does not mean much.

And we already had tactics to work around this. Doctrine even as early as 1983 (when I learned anti-armor warfare) was to work in volley fire, with each ATG firing at the same point on an enemy tank. The weakness of reactive armor is that once it is expended by the first hit, all you have is regular armor. 2 or 3 rounds in the same location will penetrate.

So this is actually somewhat of a misnomer. it is factual, but not really accurate. It is rather like talking about how effective the Panzer VIII Maus would have affected anti-tank warfare in WWII. Ignoring the fact that there were only 2 ever made, compared to the large number of more conventional tanks the Germans used.

Oozlefinch said:

Yes, and no.

It has to be remembered, Kontakt was not really used until the ending days of the Cold War. It was first introduced in 1985 on the T-80U, which was introduced in 1985. And even by 1990, this tank ranked 5th in the Soviet main battle tank inventory. 5th, out of 5 tanks. There were 4,000 T-80U tanks, compared to over 55,000 other tanks, from the T-55 to T-72.

None of which had any kind of reactive armor at the time.

So worthless against 4k tanks out of over 60k tanks really does not mean much.

And we already had tactics to work around this. Doctrine even as early as 1983 (when I learned anti-armor warfare) was to work in volley fire, with each ATG firing at the same point on an enemy tank. The weakness of reactive armor is that once it is expended by the first hit, all you have is regular armor. 2 or 3 rounds in the same location will penetrate.

So this is actually somewhat of a misnomer. it is factual, but not really accurate. It is rather like talking about how effective the Panzer VIII Maus would have affected anti-tank warfare in WWII. Ignoring the fact that there were only 2 ever made, compared to the large number of more conventional tanks the Germans used.

Click to expand...

You are correct that they were not in mass usage then, however I am sure their estimates would have assumes the cold war had not ended and russia would have kept upraging the t-72 and t-80 to kontakt armor. It was a brilliant design to get a medium tank to survive as well as a heavy tank, and it was cheap too, however it left one fatal flaw, even if it was placed to stop a javelin americas top atgm, the ammo hold was vulnerable, and required discipline to keep the tank safe, the only t-90 ever lost was lost from a tow missile, with an exposed ammo hatch in syria, something a disciplined operator would not do, however in war that is often impossible, as doctrine may be set aside for the shtf moment and the operator may forget the basics for that moment.

Oozlefinch said:

It has to be remembered, Kontakt was not really used until the ending days of the Cold War. It was first introduced in 1985 on the T-80U, which was introduced in 1985. And even by 1990, this tank ranked 5th in the Soviet main battle tank inventory. 5th, out of 5 tanks. There were 4,000 T-80U tanks, compared to over 55,000 other tanks, from the T-55 to T-72.

None of which had any kind of reactive armor at the time.

So worthless against 4k tanks out of over 60k tanks really does not mean much.

Click to expand...

My 1985 virtually all T-55s were relegated to category V units or in storage, so their lack of reactive armor wouldnt have mattered. By the time they were sent into battle the world wouldn't have been recognizable.

And while T-80s were only a fraction of the tank fleet as the newest model they would've been priority for Soviet echelons actually expected to conduct offensive operations, like GSFG. So even if they were few in number overall they'd would be been the principal MBT NATO would face.

Thank you Oozle, Beer and Jred for all your posts on this subject.

beerftw said:

Wel the question is will the guns fight the t90 and even the t-72 with the relikt armor? After the end of the cold war nato admitted if a war between the soviet union and nato occurred, all nato atgm's would be useless against soviet tanks with reactive armor, and they would have had to use other methods like ke weapons and cas aircraft. They then used kontact 1 and 5 armor, which was effective against kinetic energy weapons but not as much as heavy armor, but extremely effective against atgm's. The abrahms later on got the super sabot just to defeat russian kontakt armor, however they are on relikt armor, which is far more effective against ke weapons, and also against multi layer penetration atgm's(russia's konkurs can knock out single layer reactive armor, the dual layer in relikt was likely in fear their own weapons would be used against them)


If germany makes a ke weapon to go through relikt, america is likely on the way with the next cannon round as well, and russia is likely arleady making the next reactive armor to stop it, welcome to an arms race, it has never stopped just slowed down.

Click to expand...

I had to look it up cause I've been out of loop on the new or newest tank ammo specifics and protection for some considerable time, to include MBT. I keep up basically with developments such as the Army working on a new tank barrel that can angle up greater than 60-degrees. US Army wants this because urban warfare is the concentrated battle zone given all the urban battles in Iraq and Afghanistan, to include Syria. It's where we fight now and going forward. Leopard includes urban battle capabilities which is a Russian weakness in the 21st century especially. Russian tanks are for field maneuvering and are at high risk in urban environments same as everyone's standard and traditional tank.

US then the Germans then UK have developed ammunition that penetrates the Russian reactive armor on its tanks that have 'em. So no one wants the Armata T-14 to include first and foremost the Russian Army.

US first developed a new APFSDS penetrator M829A2 in 1991, that could effectively penetrate the Kontakt-5 plus the basic armor of the T-80U. In 1999 the Germans developed a sufficient penetrator round DM53 for the longer 120mm L/55 gun used by the new Leopard 2A6. And the British developed the more powerful L-27 CHARM 3 in 1999 for the Challenger II. All of these ammunitions penetrate the Kontakt-5/Relikit. US said in 2016 its systems can penetrate the Relikit which is superior to the Kontakt 5.

Given the Armata was the newest Nato moving target the Russians weren't going to make much use of it anyway due to the combination of expense and vulnerability. Kremlin had been hoping its usual tank customers would buy T-14 to use against their traditional enemies who have no prayer of penetrating the Kontakt 1-5 armor variants/Relikit. However, Russian hopes were dashed when in 2017 Islamic State fighters destroyed a Syrian manned T-90 using the the US Army TOW. This overcame the impact of a video circulated on the internet in 2015 that had shown a T-90 surviving a direct frontal turret hit by a TOW-2A. It was after that video was assigned credibility that US weapons engineers went to work on it. By late last year they'd turned the trick in the field with the TOW-2B and the TOW-2B Aero. Up, up and up we all go.


Due to the factor of post word count, my post and each of its precious words continues below. Your post I quote remains intact because it addresses the questions and issues exactly as I found hunting down the answers.

The U.S. Army uses reactive armor on its Abrams tanks as part of the TUSK (Tank Urban Survivability Kit) package and on Bradley vehicles, and the Israelis use it frequently on their American built M60 tanks. Some active protection systems, like the German AMAP-ADS or the American Iron Curtain, have explosive modules that destroy projectiles with a directed energy explosion. The composition materials of the explosive modules are not public. The American designer of the AMAP-ADS says his AMAP-ADS systems are effective against anything the Russians have in their pursuit of the pacesetters.


A major Russian problem for the Russians themselves is that the Armata is a radical departure from all of its previous tank lines. T-14 is part of a new Russian tank thingy called "The Armata Universal Combat Platform." This consists of the T-14 MBT, the T-15 heavy infantry fighting vehicle, a self-propelled artillery piece and the T-16 armored recovery vehicle. This is for openers among a small fleet of other vehicles.


From the National Interest which puts these matters in terms even a Mexican tank commander can understand ha....

The T-14 is a complete departure from previous Soviet and Russian tanks, all of which take their design cues from the lessons the Red Army learned fighting the Wehrmacht during the Second World War. Soviet tanks were relatively simple, extremely rugged and produced in mass quantities. Soviet tanks placed less emphasis on matching Western tanks one for one and more on overwhelming the adversary using sheer numbers—crew survivability was a secondary concern. Every Russian tank, including the T-90 , followed this basic design philosophy.

The T-14, from all appearances, seems to have abandoned the traditional Russian way of designing armored vehicles. Instead of a relatively simple design, the T-14 is fitted with a number of very advanced features that have never been implemented in an operational tank anywhere else in the world. Moreover, for the first time, the Russian military seems to have placed a premium on crew survivability. That could be a result of Russia’s push to professionalize its military and possibly due to the country’s declining demographics .

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/t...-vs-americas-m-1-abrams-tow-missile-who-17719


There's tons of info on these MBT and counter-weaponry but anyone who might want a good and comprehensive read on the Russian tanks and systems, to include the T-14 will get one at the link.

Tangmo said:

I had to look it up cause I've been out of loop on the new or newest tank ammo specifics and protection for some considerable time, to include MBT. I keep up basically with developments such as the Army working on a new tank barrel that can angle up greater than 60-degrees. US Army wants this because urban warfare is the concentrated battle zone given all the urban battles in Iraq and Afghanistan, to include Syria. It's where we fight now and going forward. Leopard includes urban battle capabilities which is a Russian weakness in the 21st century especially. Russian tanks are for field maneuvering and are at high risk in urban environments same as everyone's standard and traditional tank.

US then the Germans then UK have developed ammunition that penetrates the Russian reactive armor on its tanks that have 'em. So no one wants the Armata T-14 to include first and foremost the Russian Army.

US first developed a new APFSDS penetrator M829A2 in 1991, that could effectively penetrate the Kontakt-5 plus the basic armor of the T-80U. In 1999 the Germans developed a sufficient penetrator round DM53 for the longer 120mm L/55 gun used by the new Leopard 2A6. And the British developed the more powerful L-27 CHARM 3 in 1999 for the Challenger II. All of these ammunitions penetrate the Kontakt-5/Relikit. US said in 2016 its systems can penetrate the Relikit which is superior to the Kontakt 5.

Given the Armata was the newest Nato moving target the Russians weren't going to make much use of it anyway due to the combination of expense and vulnerability. Kremlin had been hoping its usual tank customers would buy T-14 to use against their traditional enemies who have no prayer of penetrating the Kontakt 1-5 armor variants/Relikit. However, Russian hopes were dashed when in 2017 Islamic State fighters destroyed a Syrian manned T-90 using the the US Army TOW. This overcame the impact of a video circulated on the internet in 2015 that had shown a T-90 surviving a direct frontal turret hit by a TOW-2A. It was after that video was assigned credibility that US weapons engineers went to work on it. By late last year they'd turned the trick in the field with the TOW-2B and the TOW-2B Aero. Up, up and up we all go.


Due to the factor of post word count, my post and each of its precious words continues below. Your post I quote remains intact because it addresses the questions and issues exactly as I found hunting down the answers.

Click to expand...

To put it simply, the t-14 yes was a radical departure however not the first one, the t-80 tried to accomplish the same but in real world combat proved horrible while the t-90 which used the t-80 improvements and turret with a t-72 frame proved to be an epic success. The reactive armor used is simply russia using a pencil while everyone else is using a high end pen, the reactive armor was cheap, and individual panels can be replaced, while hard armor requires sections to be cut out and new ones welded in to replace it, far more costly to fix a conventional tank than one with reactive armor.

The western variants of reactive armor are not comparable to russias, as the western version uses it to improve conventional armor while russia uses it to make medium tanks better armored than most heavy ones, this also fits russias doctrine where the tank will likely see service in a european war, it's small size and mobility would be a great asset, while something like a t-14 would handle poorly in such terrain due to it's size. Also even though russia has the best reactive armor, it is far from invincible, it can easilt stop atgm's, but things like the abrahms modern super sabot it is far from invincible to but rather resistant too, and of course an a-10 would wipe them out no matter what armor they used much like an su-25 would wipe out an abrahms no matter how armored it was.

When it comes down to tanks it depends on the doctrine used, and I truthfully feel the abrahms would do poorly in europe due to it's size, while the leapord 2 would perform better and be a metter match as it was designed for european combat. the same can be seen in the middle east, where the modern abrahms can usually take out russian tanks because the range they can fire at, russian tanks were meant for the average fire range in europe, usually up to 1.5 km while in open deserts engagements can happen at 2-3 km.

American said:

https://www.dsiac.org/resources/new...-14-armata-main-battle-tank?utm_source=Digest


Cost has always been important to the Russians.

Click to expand...

I am not "tanker guy" but in what world is a T-72 (even upgraded) anywhere near on a par with an M1A1 Abrams?
Can some armored types educate me if i am way off base here?

Oozlefinch said:

OK, then explain the following observations.

In all of the Arab-Israeli Wars, the Arab forces were soundly defeated. Even though they had overwhelming forces in all categories. Aircraft, Tanks, APCs, Infantry, Artillery, Rockets, the Arabs had the overwhelming numbers in all categories. Yet they lost in every single engagement.

Then there is the other little war that many tend to forget. The Iran-Iraq War. Where both sides fought each other to a bloody 10 year long stalemate. And you can not even try to claim "Arab Incompetence", because Iran is not an Arab Nation.

No, you are seriously trying to over-simplify the actual answer.

In fact, the only actual conflict where "Arab Armies" achieved overwhelming success was against another Arab Army, the Invasion of Kuwait.

No, the actual reason most Arab Armies have done relatively poorly was that they tried to use Warsaw Pact tactics. A lot of nations still try to use them, even though they have never really worked since 1945. Unless you have such an overwhelming force that it becomes hard to loose (Soviet Invasion of Germany, Iraqi Invasion of Kuwait), they have almost never worked.

Click to expand...

Funny you mention this.
Just today I was watching Greatest Tank Battles and I selected 73 Easting, about the US vs. the Iraqis.
The American commanders mention this over and over again.
They say the Iraqis use old Soviet tactics and got slaughtered by us.
At one point the Iraqi armor were in their assembly area starting up their engines and we burst through and shot them to hell.
They said they set up everything correctly if the year was 1945, but not for modern tactics.

Funny, I saw that just this morning.

beerftw said:

To put it simply, the t-14 yes was a radical departure however not the first one, the t-80 tried to accomplish the same but in real world combat proved horrible while the t-90 which used the t-80 improvements and turret with a t-72 frame proved to be an epic success. The reactive armor used is simply russia using a pencil while everyone else is using a high end pen, the reactive armor was cheap, and individual panels can be replaced, while hard armor requires sections to be cut out and new ones welded in to replace it, far more costly to fix a conventional tank than one with reactive armor.

The western variants of reactive armor are not comparable to russias, as the western version uses it to improve conventional armor while russia uses it to make medium tanks better armored than most heavy ones, this also fits russias doctrine where the tank will likely see service in a european war, it's small size and mobility would be a great asset, while something like a t-14 would handle poorly in such terrain due to it's size. Also even though russia has the best reactive armor, it is far from invincible, it can easilt stop atgm's, but things like the abrahms modern super sabot it is far from invincible to but rather resistant too, and of course an a-10 would wipe them out no matter what armor they used much like an su-25 would wipe out an abrahms no matter how armored it was.

When it comes down to tanks it depends on the doctrine used, and I truthfully feel the abrahms would do poorly in europe due to it's size, while the leapord 2 would perform better and be a metter match as it was designed for european combat. the same can be seen in the middle east, where the modern abrahms can usually take out russian tanks because the range they can fire at, russian tanks were meant for the average fire range in europe, usually up to 1.5 km while in open deserts engagements can happen at 2-3 km.

Click to expand...

Pentagon weight watchers are reducing the size of the US MBTs but not by too much given an MBT is not a go-cart either. It remains true an MBT needs size to traverse the terrain, punch hard, defend itself and to outmuscle the other guy. Leopard is popular with Nato armies because the name and the function match up exactly, to include its effectiveness. No one is disputing these accounts.

Leopard was designed and crafted for the European battle space to include Eurasia. German tank designers and engineers made a tank to fit the physical environment and the concomitant combat experience they know like the back of their hand. German tank engineers, producers, users know also the Russian doctrines of tank battle and warfare. So in the age of tactical nuclear weapons the Russians know they are at a severe disadvantage to use their historical tank doctrine of massing small agile tanks to swarm the opponent. Even pre-Leopard the Soviet and Warsaw Pact forces weren't going to have any advantage to the swarm, swoop and surround tank doctrine of Moscow. Both the Soviet and now the present execution of the massive artillery barrage of Europe as the prelude to a massed, broad front tank assault would be the stark announcement of an imminent Russian suicide by tank. Into the fryer, as it were. Massed Russian tanks would be in fact great balls of fire before the artillery barrage concluded.

Russia has a gazillion tanks because Russia is big -- geographically the largest country. Russia fears China more than it fears Nato. Russian generals and the literature obsess about China, not the USA or Nato. Moscow knows the Chinese will move when they're ready, and when the global circumstances are judged in Beijing to be favorable. Everyone knows the Europeans don't do this to Russia any more, and certainly not post WW II. So Russia has to defend its Far East against swarms of PLA modern tanks, to include air forces and PLA naval forces. Moscow needs to have secure borders across Asia and in Eurasia, the latter in the air and the waters from the Med to the Arctic. Looking at its tank forces from this perspective, as Moscow does, we find that 25,000 of 'em ain't nowhere near enough. Especially when many of 'em are old and klunky with dated firepower effectiveness and survival capability. It's also a severe vulnerability that Moscow relies almost exclusively on its wide open rail system to move its tanks from here to there. It could give a new meaning to being railroaded, as in blasted far afield.

beerftw said:

You are correct that they were not in mass usage then, however I am sure their estimates would have assumes the cold war had not ended and russia would have kept upraging the t-72 and t-80 to kontakt armor. It was a brilliant design to get a medium tank to survive as well as a heavy tank, and it was cheap too, however it left one fatal flaw, even if it was placed to stop a javelin americas top atgm, the ammo hold was vulnerable, and required discipline to keep the tank safe, the only t-90 ever lost was lost from a tow missile, with an exposed ammo hatch in syria, something a disciplined operator would not do, however in war that is often impossible, as doctrine may be set aside for the shtf moment and the operator may forget the basics for that moment.

Click to expand...

And at the same time, NATO was also introducing their own version of reactive armor.

So this largely is a wash on both sides.

Jredbaron96 said:

My 1985 virtually all T-55s were relegated to category V units or in storage, so their lack of reactive armor wouldnt have mattered. By the time they were sent into battle the world wouldn't have been recognizable.

And while T-80s were only a fraction of the tank fleet as the newest model they would've been priority for Soviet echelons actually expected to conduct offensive operations, like GSFG. So even if they were few in number overall they'd would be been the principal MBT NATO would face.

Click to expand...

Yes, the T-80U would have been the front line tank if WWIII had broken out. But they were few in number, and likely would have largely been expended in the opening weeks. Leaving lesser and lesser quality tanks to continue the offensive. Which would have then fallen in greater and greater numbers. The numbers of the T-80U would have continued to decrease.

As increasingly larger numbers of M-1 tanks would have been brought into the theater by the US from stateside depots. Which means the M-1 would have then been facing off against the T-72, then the T-62, then finally the T-55. And we are not even starting to discuss the bringing in of increasing numbers of A-10, AH-1, and AH-64 aircraft which were specifically designed to go after tanks.

And we are not even talking about only the US tanks. There is also the German, UK, and other tanks of the rest of NATO.

So it does not matter if you think the T-80U would be the "principal MBT NATO would face", there were not enough of them to make much of a difference long-term. You have to look at what the NATO strategy was at the time. Hit and run, steadily retreating to France, and trading land for enemies. It was a planned retreat, with ATGMs taking out as much equipment as they could with as little losses as possible. Not trying to hold them off in any way.

It was always expected that the lines would finally stabilize somewhere in Eastern France. Not Germany. And by the time the large numbers of reinforcements from the US, Canada, and the rest of NATO arrived the best of the Soviet equipment would be in ruins, when fresh units would enter and attack from the West.

Fledermaus said:

Thank you Oozle, Beer and Jred for all your posts on this subject.

Click to expand...

You are welcome.

What many forget is that I am actually an impartial analyst in here. I simply look at what was known and available then, and make conclusions based on what is known of the tactics of the time. Not interjecting more current concepts or equipment.

beerftw said:

When it comes down to tanks it depends on the doctrine used, and I truthfully feel the abrahms would do poorly in europe due to it's size, while the leapord 2 would perform better and be a metter match as it was designed for european combat. the same can be seen in the middle east, where the modern abrahms can usually take out russian tanks because the range they can fire at, russian tanks were meant for the average fire range in europe, usually up to 1.5 km while in open deserts engagements can happen at 2-3 km.

Click to expand...

This is where the main strategy has to be taken into account.

In the event of WWIII in Europe, the NATO strategy was always to conduct a fighting retreat. Not to try and meet the SOviet son the battlefield, but to try and slow their advance as much as possible, trading men for land in the most efficient way possible.

Most of the engagements on the NATO side would not have been with tanks, but with other equipment. HMMWVs with TOW missiles. Infantry with DRAGON missiles. M-2 Bradley APCs with whatever they had. Engage, fire off the missiles, then run like heel to the next series of prepared positions. Not trying to meet the Soviet tanks with NATO tanks. Simple make them bleed as much as possible, while tanking as much out as they could while doing so.

The actual "tank battles" would come later, when NATO was ready to strike back. When the US entered into the conflict with 3 armored divisions, along with what the rest of NATO could throw into the battle. At that time, they would be facing a Warsaw Pact army that was bloodies, worn down, and at the end of a very long logistical chain that would have been under attack for weeks or months.

Most seem to have this mistaken belief that the US 3rd Armored Division (the one stationed in Germany during the Cold War) would have been facing off against the best of the Soviet Armor. That is simply not the case. The intent had always been to do hit and run withdrawals. Fire off some shots, then run like hell to the West. Make them bleed, make them expend material and stretch supply lines. And as the lines of the Soviets got longer, that of NATO would grow shorter.

All to often, I notice that people keep comparing stats of equipment, and completely forgetting how that equipment will be used.

PleasantValley said:

I am not "tanker guy" but in what world is a T-72 (even upgraded) anywhere near on a par with an M1A1 Abrams?
Can some armored types educate me if i am way off base here?

Click to expand...

In general terms, it is not.

But in quantity, it can be.

Think of it as a battle with one side using a Civil War era musket, against soldiers with the M16.

Sounds lopsided, right? The M16 will wipe the field with them.

Well, if the M16 users are a Battalion and the rifled muskets are a Regiment, it is much less lop-sided. If the muskets are a Division, then odds are they will win, even with the inferior technology.

To put it in perspective, the T-72 was the best tank the Soviets produced, in the early 1970's. The M-1 dates to the early 1980's. In general, assuming equal advantages with numbers, terrain, and tactics, it was assumed that you would need 2 T-72s to equal 1 M-1. Whish was reasonable, since the T-72 was made in huge numbers and esported all over the world.

However, for the most part only the Soviets expected their tanks to ever fight against US tanks. In most of the world, they expected to fight against either other Soviet tanks (say the Sino-Vietnam War), or against older US tanks.

In general, the T-72 was on par with the M-60A3 or the Israeli Magach 6/7 (domestically upgraded M60A2-3 tanks). But in most engagements, it was the tactics that mattered far more than the tanks themselves.

PleasantValley said:

Funny you mention this.
Just today I was watching Greatest Tank Battles and I selected 73 Easting, about the US vs. the Iraqis.
The American commanders mention this over and over again.
They say the Iraqis use old Soviet tactics and got slaughtered by us.
At one point the Iraqi armor were in their assembly area starting up their engines and we burst through and shot them to hell.
They said they set up everything correctly if the year was 1945, but not for modern tactics.

Funny, I saw that just this morning.

Click to expand...

Which is something I keep mentioning over and over again, but many keep ignoring or missing.

Before I left Fort Bliss, I spent a lot of time talking with old tankers who fought in the Gulf War. Many mentioned how they were scared going into that war, having spent years being trained into Soviet doctrine during the Cold War. And then being amazed at how closely the Iraqi forces followed it, and how easily they were defeated.

What they keep missing is the strength of Warsaw Pact doctrine is in the Corps/Army level of conflict. While the Gulf was mostly fought on the Battalion-Regiment level. This is a level where the NATO doctrine was unquestionably stronger. Almost all of the engagements of that war were at the Battalion-Regiment level, which is the strongest part of NATO doctrine. And the weakest of Warsaw doctrine.

If the Gulf War had somehow been a large single battle, Iraq might well have won. They had superior numbers in most areas. But they were to widely dispersed to be used in that way, which played into the hand of the coalition forces. They were largely cut up in pieces long before they were ever engaged on the ground.

Soviet doctrine was always more or less like a giant fist, prepared to strike huge crushing blows. NATO was always much more fluid. Hit and run, attack and withdraw. Keep the other side guessing where the next attack would come, or where the concentrations were even at.

Even today, most people have no idea at how the Coalition Forces had kept Iraq convinced that the main push would come from the sea. The attack on Ad-Dawrah, the constant shelling of positions outside of Kuwait City by the Battleships. The constant assembly of amphibious assets (including MIKE boats and AMPHTRAKs) off the shore, only to return to the ships. I served with many Marines who took part in these things, which were all designed to convince Saddam that the attack was coming from the sea, by Marines.

Which worked to perfection. When the assault came from the West, they had no idea where to turn. And when the Marines landed, it was by helicopter behind the shore defenses they had so carefully set up.

Even a 10 to 1 advantage is of no use, when it is pointed the wrong way.

Oozlefinch said:

Yes, the T-80U would have been the front line tank if WWIII had broken out. But they were few in number, and likely would have largely been expended in the opening weeks. Leaving lesser and lesser quality tanks to continue the offensive. Which would have then fallen in greater and greater numbers. The numbers of the T-80U would have continued to decrease.

As increasingly larger numbers of M-1 tanks would have been brought into the theater by the US from stateside depots. Which means the M-1 would have then been facing off against the T-72, then the T-62, then finally the T-55. And we are not even starting to discuss the bringing in of increasing numbers of A-10, AH-1, and AH-64 aircraft which were specifically designed to go after tanks.

And we are not even talking about only the US tanks. There is also the German, UK, and other tanks of the rest of NATO.

Click to expand...

You don't understand Soviet doctrine very well.

The T-80 would not have been the only tank the Soviets would field. When they invaded West Germany they would've fielded both T-72s and T-80s; T-80s were relegated to tank divisions and T-72s to Motor Rifle Divisions. Both would've been fielded against NATO.

And by the time the Soviets ran out of T-80s the war would be over, either through ceasefire or a nuclear exchange would have invalidated all major events on the battlefield.

t was always expected that the lines would finally stabilize somewhere in Eastern France. Not Germany. And by the time the large numbers of reinforcements from the US, Canada, and the rest of NATO arrived the best of the Soviet equipment would be in ruins, when fresh units would enter and attack from the West.

.

Click to expand...

The French would've gone nuclear the moment Soviet troops set foot in France. That was the cornerstone of their entire nuclear deterrent.

Oozlefinch said:

Which is something I keep mentioning over and over again, but many keep ignoring or missing.

Click to expand...

Because it's not accurate at all, lol.

Saying the Iraqis made use of Soviet doctrine is like handing a monkey a power tool and cite it as evidence of primates making use of tools.

Tell me, what part of Soviet doctrine involves sitting in a static position and refusing to move while your division is being slaughtered. Or refusing to inform your higher ups that the division before you is being crushed despite that being your only job.

The Iraqis lost because of how poorly skilled they were. You could've given them the best equipment in the world and if would've been useless because their troops weren't trained well enough. You could have given them any kind of doctrine you wanted and they wouldnt have carried it out because information dissemination was unheard of in the Iraqi Army.

Keep building all those tanks.




Apache pilots love targets.

Moscow has been sending huge smoke signals that it wasn't going ahead with the T-14 Armata. We knew already the $4 million cost of each unit and that it contains new high tech systems untested in any actual military operation. We know also the German Leopard MBT has a new gun to take out the Armata, and that US, Germany, UK have the ammunitions to penetrate the falsely touted Kontack and Relikit protection armaments.

Franz-Stefan Gady discusses this in the Diplomat where he is a senior defense analyst. Included in Gady's background is his time in the ME as an Austrian Army officer, a senior fellow at the EastWest Institute and a researcher with the Institute of National Strategies Studies of the National Defense University in Washington, D.C.



It has been obvious for some time now that the Russian Ministry of Defense (MoD) has abandoned plans to mass-produce 2,300 [of the] T-14s by 2025. For example, already in October 2017 the MoD announced that it will upgrade T-80 and T-90 series MBTs and revise plans to melt down 10,000 armored vehicles by 2020 and keep 6,000 in reserve.


Russian T-90 Tank

Russia will continue to have more than one main tank now that the T-14 will not be mass produced.





Russian T-72 Tank

The upgraded T-72 continues to be part of the Russian active tank corps.


Also in January 2017, the MoD announced that it will upgrade its T-72 MBT force. “The Russian Ministry of Defense’s decision to upgrade older T-72 and T-90 models could be interpreted as a sign that despite earlier announcements, the T-14 will not replace the Soviet-era tanks as the mainstay of Russia’s tank force in the near future and that the Russian Ground Forces will continue to operate various MBT variants at least for the next decade,” I speculated at the time.

The per-unit cost of a T-14 MBT is estimated to be around $3.8 million.

The Russian Ground Forces are still expected to receive around 100 T-14 MBTs by 2020. In February, the MoD placed an order for two T-14 battalions with each unit expected to receive around 40 T-14 MBTs. The Russian Ground Forces are presently operating 16 to 20 T-14s prototypes for evaluation and testing. The first T-14 MBT will purportedly be deployed with the 1st Guards Tank Regiment of 2nd Guards Tamanskaya Motor Rifle Division, garrisoned in Moscow and part of Russia’s Western Military District.

https://thediplomat.com/2018/08/russia-will-not-mass-produce-t-14-armata-main-battle-tank/



These two tanks aren't too shabby. However, there's China over in Russia's Far East where the CCP Boyz in Beijing are determined to have Siberia as their own. A Chinese basis of the claim to Siberia seems to be that a Chinaman spit there one day. Same as the South China Sea where all the maps that show purported Chinese ownership were made in China. Same poor quality too btw.

For Putin and the Russian Defense Ministry it's out with the new and in with the old. Which also means a higher risk of breakdowns and crashes. It also means old established weapons platforms in Russia are competing for the few bucks available. The Jamestown Foundation in the Virginia suburbs of Washington does one thing comprehensively and thoroughly: Russia. Jamestown does Russia from A through Z to include its armed forces....


Indeed, the defense ministry has recently opted to reboot the old T-80, in what seems to be a cost-cutting exercise. The updated T-80BV will use less kerosene and feature increased accuracy in target acquisition. These older platforms are reportedly in plentiful supply, with up to 3,000 in military warehouses. Moreover, with its updated characteristics, including better fuel economy, the T-80BV may compete with the T-90.


Russian Navy MiG-29 Flying Boxcar Plagued By Crashes on Land and Into the Sea




Following the arrival of the [aircraft carrier] Admiral Kuznetsov to the Eastern Mediterranean, a routine test flight by a small number of fighter jets resulted in a navy MiG-29 ditching into sea a few kilometers from the aircraft carrier. The Russian defense ministry confirmed that a routine training flight involving three MiG-29s had resulted in the loss of one with the pilot safely ejecting. The cause of the accident was described as due to a “technical fault.” The loss of the fighter jet suggests that all is not well in the Russian military aviation industry or its capacity to successfully produce advanced air assets. The MiG-29s in question were the latest generation MiG-29Ks and MiG-29KUBs (Life.ru, November 14).

In June 2011, a test flight of the MiG-29KUB in Astrakhan region resulted in a crash, killing both its crew members. The cause of the sudden catastrophe was again said to be “equipment failure,” most likely to do with the mechanism used in the folding of its wings. Then, on December 4, 2014, another MiG-29KUB crashed during a training flight, with both pilots ejecting and hospitalized in serious condition. Again, the cause of the accident was given as equipment failure (TASS, RBK, November 14).

Russia’s continued reliance on upgrading older existing platforms may yield cost-cutting benefits. But this, combined with manpower and training issues, offers a less rose-tinted insight into the current condition of Russia’s Armed Forces.

https://jamestown.org/program/russias-military-paper-tiger/







When India the main backer to buy it said to forget it, it was over. Chronic troubles with the craft killed the project for Russia. Russia kept telling India the troubles were traced to Indian mechanics and technicians. India didn't buy it. Russia found itself with an airplane it never wanted. So....


Russia Cancels Mass Production Of The Su-57 Fighter Jet

Jul 13, 2018

Russia’s Su-57 fighter jet. Only 12 have been ordered, and no more orders are coming.
Russia announced earlier this month that the Su-57, its proposed entry into the world of fifth-generation stealth fighters, will not see mass production.
The jet had some promising capabilities in combat, but design and production difficulties made it a difficult project with limited export potential.
This move represents a failure for Russia to manage its huge defense budget and breadth of projects and to find buyers for its version of a jet meant to take on US stealth fighters.

Russia Cancels Mass Production Of The Su-57 Fighter Jet – India Defence Consultants



In with the old and out with the new.

Oozlefinch said:

And at the same time, NATO was also introducing their own version of reactive armor.

So this largely is a wash on both sides.



Yes, the T-80U would have been the front line tank if WWIII had broken out. But they were few in number, and likely would have largely been expended in the opening weeks. Leaving lesser and lesser quality tanks to continue the offensive. Which would have then fallen in greater and greater numbers. The numbers of the T-80U would have continued to decrease.

As increasingly larger numbers of M-1 tanks would have been brought into the theater by the US from stateside depots. Which means the M-1 would have then been facing off against the T-72, then the T-62, then finally the T-55. And we are not even starting to discuss the bringing in of increasing numbers of A-10, AH-1, and AH-64 aircraft which were specifically designed to go after tanks.

And we are not even talking about only the US tanks. There is also the German, UK, and other tanks of the rest of NATO.

So it does not matter if you think the T-80U would be the "principal MBT NATO would face", there were not enough of them to make much of a difference long-term. You have to look at what the NATO strategy was at the time. Hit and run, steadily retreating to France, and trading land for enemies. It was a planned retreat, with ATGMs taking out as much equipment as they could with as little losses as possible. Not trying to hold them off in any way.

It was always expected that the lines would finally stabilize somewhere in Eastern France. Not Germany. And by the time the large numbers of reinforcements from the US, Canada, and the rest of NATO arrived the best of the Soviet equipment would be in ruins, when fresh units would enter and attack from the West.



You are welcome.

What many forget is that I am actually an impartial analyst in here. I simply look at what was known and available then, and make conclusions based on what is known of the tactics of the time. Not interjecting more current concepts or equipment.

Click to expand...

Nato was introducing their own reactive armor then, but theres was inferior, as nato countries pushed heavier traditional armor as it was better against ke weapons, while russia pushed reactive armor as a way to make light tanks perform like heavy tanks, and to render atgm's useless. If you have seen kontact and relikt armor the russians like to cover their tanks with it, while nato only likes to use it in certain spots, this is simply differences in doctrines.

RetiredUSN said:

Keep building all those tanks.

View attachment 67239206


Apache pilots love targets.

Click to expand...

Problem is those apaches are easy targets for the pantsir s-1 and the variant it replaced, which would move in tank formations. The pantsir was made mecause attack helicopters could strike and retreat fast enough sam batteries could not stop them, and they could wipe out armored divisions. The pantsir is designed for attack helicopters and low flying cruise missiles.


Plus you need to throw an a-10 into the mix besides the helicopters, those are real tank killers and not as easy pray to the pantsir system.

Jredbaron96 said:

You don't understand Soviet doctrine very well.

Click to expand...

Yea, I do not understand it at all.

I only trained in it for a decace, and even operated in it as OPFOR as well.

Yea, but I know nothing. I bring up specifics over and over again, and you simply go "Nope, you are wrong". I am to be honest bored of this.

Let me know when you are actually going to discuss this, instead of going "Nope" over and over again.

Jredbaron96 said:

The French would've gone nuclear the moment Soviet troops set foot in France. That was the cornerstone of their entire nuclear deterrent.

Click to expand...

With increasing number of reinforcements flooding into France, and the Soviets have a roughly 30 to 1 advantage of nukes when compared to France, you think they would have gone nuclear?

Yea, it is things like that that I can not simply take you seriously any more. You are completely off the mark, and have no idea what was actually involved.

Let's take your analogy back a few decades. To say to 1938. The French had millions of tons of chemical weapons at the outbreak of WWII. And as a country they were completely overwhelmed and destroyed by the Germans. Enduring a 5+ year long occupation.

Yet they never used these weapons.

Yet, you have this conceit that they would have used them the moment Soviets entered France?

And it is not even chemical weapons they possessed at the outbreak of WWII. They possessed weaponized cholera, anthrax, and botulism. In addition to mustard gas, phosgene, and others. None of which they ever used against the Germans, even as they completely overwhelmed and occupied their country.

Yet you claim that the moment Soviets crossed the border they would have been nuked. Knowing the Soviets had an over 10 to 1 superiority in nuclear weapons. And it would have resulted in the almost complete destruction of their people and their country.

Like every other member of NATO, the French adhered to a strict policy of "No first use" of nuclear weapons. They would only use them in response to a nuclear attack, never be the initiator of one. That was clearly stated in their 1961 declaration of "Force de dissuasion", part of their larger concept of "du faible au fort".

Are you even aware that by the late 1960's the French had as it's only missile component capable of delivering nuclear weapons the submarine? They had abandoned all of their Nuclear Ballistic Missiles delivered by air and on land? They only way they could have delivered such weapons was by air. And their only missile strikes would have been the 72 missiles on their Redoubtable class submarines?

Do you really think that the French would have attacked the Soviets with 64 nukes? Knowing the response would have been by thousands?

No, I am done with this discussion. It has become nothing but an old Monty Python skit. I make a claim, and back it up with figures, and references, and real world instances. And all you do is go "Nope, you are wrong, you are an idiot, I am right".

And I have grown tired of that. Come back when you want to have a real discussion, not simply go around strutting and saying how right you are with nothing to back it up with.

You have absolutely no idea what reality is my friend. None. As so many, you simply make up things as you go along

beerftw said:

Nato was introducing their own reactive armor then, but theres was inferior, as nato countries pushed heavier traditional armor as it was better against ke weapons, while russia pushed reactive armor as a way to make light tanks perform like heavy tanks, and to render atgm's useless. If you have seen kontact and relikt armor the russians like to cover their tanks with it, while nato only likes to use it in certain spots, this is simply differences in doctrines.

Click to expand...

It largely does not matter, which is why I said that was a wash.

By the time of the Cold War, neither side was using it to any large amount. It was still brand new technology, that was still being slowly introduced to their forces. The wide spread use of reactive armor was still a decade away.

On the Soviets, it amounted to less than 10% of their armored assets. The same is true of NATO assets.

It would have been about as effective as say the "Assault Rifle" in WWII, or body armor.

Yes, both sides used it. No, neither side used it in the numbers that would have made any impact on the war in either direction.

Yes, the Germans made the first "Assault Rifle" in 1943, with the StG-44. They produced around 400,000 by the end of the war. When the size of their army at it's height was over 13 million.

You simply can not take into effect a single weapon (or even a part of a single weapon), and claim it will make a major difference unless it is produced and distributed in a wide enough fashion to actually be effective. Which the Soviets never were able to do prior to 1992 when their government collapsed and the Cold War ended.

If that had not happened, then the T-80U would largely have been a footnote in the war. Where they likely would have shown results early on, in achieving their breakouts and dealing considerable damage to NATO forces, before being overwhelmed by the increasing number of reinforcements from the West. Because that is ultimately what little of an impact less than 1 in 10 of their tanks with this would have meant.

Kind of like ultimately the impact of the German jet aircraft in WWII. Yes, far superior. But ultimately, to few to make any kind of real difference in the outcome of the war.

Oozlefinch said:

Yea, I do not understand it at all.

I only trained in it for a decace, and even operated in it as OPFOR as well.

Yea, but I know nothing. I bring up specifics over and over again, and you simply go "Nope, you are wrong". I am to be honest bored of this.

Let me know when you are actually going to discuss this, instead of going "Nope" over and over again.

Click to expand...

You haven't cited a single specific at all actually, just vague generalities.

With increasing number of reinforcements flooding into France, and the Soviets have a roughly 30 to 1 advantage of nukes when compared to France, you think they would have gone nuclear?

Click to expand...

Yes. In fact the French openly stated that.

Let's take your analogy back a few decades. To say to 1938. The French had millions of tons of chemical weapons at the outbreak of WWII. And as a country they were completely overwhelmed and destroyed by the Germans. Enduring a 5+ year long occupation.

Yet they never used these weapons.

Yet, you have this conceit that they would have used them the moment Soviets entered France?

And it is not even chemical weapons they possessed at the outbreak of WWII. They possessed weaponized cholera, anthrax, and botulism. In addition to mustard gas, phosgene, and others. None of which they ever used against the Germans, even as they completely overwhelmed and occupied their country.

Click to expand...

Because you stupidly lump chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons together under the umbrella term "WMDs" and act as if their impacts are therefore exactly the same, when in fact their implementation and effects are radically different from one another.

Chemical agents for starters. They were first used to major effectiveness in WWI during the Second Battle of Ypres, and subsequently never made a major impact during the war. Not for lack of usage at all, poison gas was used extensively throughout the rest of the war, but it never again made a major operational or strategic impact. Why? Because just days after chlorine had been used the first improvised gas masks were made. And every power subsequently introduced them. Chemical protection equipment, specifically gas masks, are not only cheap and easy to mass produce they're readily available, even to third world armies. You may achieve temporary surprise against an unsuspecting enemy, or if your enemy is so desperately poor they can't even afford chem suits, but a modern military like the Wehrmacht would've had no issues protecting their forces from chemical attack.

As for biological weapons, the answers pretty ****ing obvious. Even the most lethal biological agents take dozens of hours, if not days or even weeks to kill. Your enemy invades your country, you launch biological weapons at them. Guess what, now those columns of enemy infantry are now contaminated. But of course they don't just drop over dead instantly, because anthrax and chlorea don't kill on impact. In the meantime those now infected troops are marching through your villages, towns and cities, in your own country. Guess who now has cholera too? Your own people! Great job, in an effort to save yourselves you've instead given your own population the plague. Well done. Oh, and if your enemy vaccinates their troops, or otherwise inoculates them, your bio weapons have just been seriously degraded.

But you can't vaccinate yourself, or protect yourself with a gas mask from a nuclear detonation. The heat blast and the shock wave are impossible to stop, unless you're outside the blast radius, which is massive. You see the difference now right, why nuclear weapons are different than other WMDs?

Like every other member of NATO, the French adhered to a strict policy of "No first use" of nuclear weapons.

Click to expand...

This is why I don't take you seriously. You blatantly state wrong things and then act as if you've made some kind of point.

NATO never adopted a NFU policy. https://www.armscontrol.org/act/1999_07-08/jmja99

Oozlefinch said:

Yet you claim that the moment Soviets crossed the border they would have been nuked. Knowing the Soviets had an over 10 to 1 superiority in nuclear weapons. And it would have resulted in the almost complete destruction of their people and their country.

Are you even aware that by the late 1960's the French had as it's only missile component capable of delivering nuclear weapons the submarine? They had abandoned all of their Nuclear Ballistic Missiles delivered by air and on land? They only way they could have delivered such weapons was by air. And their only missile strikes would have been the 72 missiles on their Redoubtable class submarines?

Do you really think that the French would have attacked the Soviets with 64 nukes? Knowing the response would have been by thousands?

Click to expand...

You're a perfect example of why common soldiers don't dictate national policy, strategic leaders do.

The French knew from the very beginning of the nuclear arms race they had no realistic possibility of matching the Soviets. It was impossible; the Soviets had a larger population, resource base, economy, everything. So France didn't bother trying to match the Soviets, instead they focused on ensuring that any nuclear exchange which occurred would cause greater damage to the attacker than the attacker could cause France. See one disadvantage the Soviets had was their bigger population; it meant while the Soviets could kill all the French, the French could kill even more Soviets.

France was never going to survive a nuclear exchange. Metropolitan (European) France is only 213,010 square miles, The United States has 3,794,101 square miles, the USSR 8,649,538 square miles, China 3,747,879 square miles. France, unlike the others, doesn't have the space or the population to survive a nuclear exchange. It's why the French moved their nuclear arsenal to sea; their land-based silos were far more likely to be destroyed than their submarines.

The French nuclear doctrine was, and still is, centered around killing as many people as possible. The French would not target command and control centers, military forces, or industrial regions. The French targets would be population centers; Moscow, Minsk, Kiev, Lengingrad, Stalingrad, Rostov, Saratov, Vorohnez, Baku, Tankshet, Karkhov. The openly stated, publicly declared French nuclear doctrine was to inflict as many civilian casualties as possible on the enemy. Blatantly, the idea was you could kill all 60 million French, but the French could kill even more Russians.

"Within ten years, we shall have the means to kill 80 million Russians. I truly believe that one does not light-heartedly attack people who are able to kill 80 million Russians, even if one can kill 800 million French, that is if there were 800 million French." Charles De Gaulle

Oozlefinch said:

Yea, I do not understand it at all.

I only trained in it for a decace, and even operated in it as OPFOR as well.

Yea, but I know nothing. I bring up specifics over and over again, and you simply go "Nope, you are wrong". I am to be honest bored of this.

Let me know when you are actually going to discuss this, instead of going "Nope" over and over again.

Click to expand...

Let me clarify this a little further.

You have never to me demonstrated a thorough understanding of what Soviet doctrine is or what it's about. Even key aspects I would consider essential to mention when discussing Soviet doctrine never get brought up by you, which is why I frequently express doubt when you claim to know a lot about how the Soviets fought.

For example, the Soviet system was one that accepted trade offs. Compare it to a game of chess; the American method is to develop each individual piece on the board, ever pawn, rook, knight and bishop, to be the best they can be. NATO wants the best tanks, soldiers, rifles, aircraft, helicopters, artillery pieces, so on. By comparison the Soviet view is to accept that certain pieces have strengths and weaknesses, and design a plan that maximizes those strengths while minimizing their weaknesses. This is the founding principle of Soviet doctrine but I've never seen you mention it.

The Soviets also emphasized speed above all else. They sacrificed tactical flexibility for speed, running a rigid series of battle drills as fast as they can. This is a fine idea; being faster than your enemy allows you to set the pace and tone of the engagement, and allows you to take control of the initiative easier. The key elements of Soviet operational planning was speed and shock, shock being the combination of surprise and firepower. It made perfect sense; when combined effectively speed and shock are almost impossible to counter unless you have a lot of space to retreat to and a lot of reserves. By attacking rapidly the Soviets could move faster than NATO could react, and penetrate deep into NATO's rear echelon. That was another cornerstone of their doctrine, the breakthrough. The Soviets believed having depth to the attack was instrumental in achieving victory, therefore the main objective for attacking units was to penetrate enemy lines and continue advancing as far into the enemy's rear echelon as possible. This was to be accomplished above all else, and the farther the unit penetrated the better. This would have the added benefit once the nukes started flying, that NATO wouldn't risk nuking Soviet spearheads because they'd be intermixed with NATO's own support elements.

NATO criticized Soviet doctrine as too rigid and centralized. They argued that the Soviets sacrificed quality for quantity, and they relied too heavily on numbers and firepower. These criticisms aren't without merit, but they're also not terribly accurate. The Soviets were rigid at the tactical level, but part of that was a necessity; you couldn't rely too much on improvisation when not all of your conscripts spoke the same language. And the Soviets were in fact very flexibility at the operational level where they thrived, moreso than NATO. Soviet troops and equipment were inferior on average, but the Soviets also knew war was not won based on 1-on-1 fights, it was won through campaigns and operations. The Soviet centralized command structure was vulnerable, which NATO though their lack of was a virtue, despite our doctrine of AirLand Battle being heavily reliant on a centralized command structure to be effective.

The biggest problem of the Soviet system was that of "norms", mathematical principles that the Soviets used to calculate everything from ammo expenditure, fuel consumption, casualty rates and combat effectiveness. There's nothing wrong with using formulas to predict these things but the Soviets centered their entire operational doctrine around these norms. The problem was that if these norms proved to be wrong or inaccurate, the entire establishment of the Soviet system would need to be reformed - in the middle of a war.

So yeah, all these things are hallmarks of Soviet doctrine but I've rarely seen you mention any of them, instead opting for generic descriptions of "overwhelming force and numbers". Nor have you demonstrated how any armies (like the Iraqis) made use of this doctrine. So yeah, that's why I don't take you seriously on this matter.