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

Tangmo said:

Tougher Times Ahead for Russia

Tow chain is attached to Russian T-14 Armata in Red Square after the high tech wannabe main battle tank broke down in connection with a parade and celebration of Victory in Europe in WW II, 1945. Can't think of a war Russia has won since....or before then either. As if the 20th century wasn't bad enough for Russia, we're now in the 21st century of Russian wrong headed thinking and behaviors.


Egypt has 1,713 of M60 (A3) and 1,130 of the Abrams M1A1 that go in first plus a thousand of the various Russian T-Klunker tanks and 500 of the local Ramses II.

I see in looking at updated numbers Canada has 183 Leopard MBT most of which are deployed to Afghanistan.

India's shooting for 3500 Arjun which outperforms the Russian T-90, T-72 et al, to complement its 2,414 of the T-72 as upgraded significantly by the Polish manufacturers of the PT-91 Polish tank.

Unless Iran is going to enter WW II it is in deep trouble with the Patton M48 and Patton M60 plus a bunch of T-72 and T-62 along with some local Zulfiqar MBT that proved to be a gas can in the Iran-Iraq war. The ayatollahs made the choice some time ago to go nuclear rather than rebuild completely their entire pre-WW II military.

Russia has 10,255 of the T-72 variants, and 4500 of the T-80....plus 4000 of the T-64....fewer than a thousand of the T-90 tank and several dozen of the Armata T-14. Russians are further embarrassed to have nearly 4000 of the T-54 and T-55 neither of which was a bad tank in its day.

Saudi Arabia has a thousand MBT, 145 from France and the rest from USA -- M60A3 and M1A2. Spain has Leopards and M60s while Greece has Leopards only, upwards of 1000. Treaty ally Thailand has several hundred M60 models and some Ukrainian tanks and use only the Ukraine sourced tanks for their regular and many military coups.

Turkey of course has the largest military in Nato-Europe:

750 German Leopard 1 & 2 upgraded continually
1062 of USA M60 variants
850 of the USA M48A5T2 to include M60A3 thermal imaging, fire control systems and laser rangefinder.


Mexico hasn't any MBT which might be why Trump picks on 'em a lot.

Click to expand...

Indias arjun is not close to being implemented, has been in development for around 40 years, and is currently having israel help them to finish the final design, the arjun follows the same issues russia had with the t-80, and luckily they may one day finish it as israel is very experienced in not just tank design but tank warfare itself.

The abrahms numbers do not mean squat, it comes down to what those abrahms can do, the american abrahms have advanced anti guided missle protections and depleted uranium armor, as well as extremely advanced firing systems. The export model those countries are getting is nothing more than stripped down junk with the expectation they provide their own reactive armors, advanced guidance systems etc, iraq and saudi have been losing those tanks, iraq ditched the abrahm in favor of the t-90 which is fully equipped to the domestic version minus the electronic countermeasures, vs the m1 at twice the cost and being roughly equal to a non upgraded early production model.


Fyi you brought up ww2 with iran, iran got american goods up until their revolution in 1979, the m48 and m60 are not ww2 tanks, both are post ww2 tanks, and the m60 is extremely good at what it is, a medium armored tank, it's only major flaw is countries who try to use it for more than it was meant to be, it was good enough the marines still used them in the gulf war.


And why no mention of the leclerc french tank, the most expensive tank on the market, france and the uae use those tanks, granted combat numbers are minimal for it, but in those minimal occassions it did quite well, granted it costs about double what an abrahms does and 4 times what a t-90 costs.

beerftw said:

Russia has since the soviet union made quality tanks and quantity tanks, the quality tanks are for defense of critical areas and never mass produced, while the quantity tanks are mass produced. However in practice their quantity tanks have proven superior going back to the t-64, where their quality models were plagued with issues.

Click to expand...

Actually, the Soviets-Russians have never really been known for "quality tanks". Most of them are a compromise, with ease of production being the main factor in any of their designs. In fact, the tank that first made them famous largely got it's reputation by accident.

The T-34 was designed to be made as quickly and cheaply as possible. And in doing so, it was made with the thinnest armor of any Medium Tank in WWII. But in order to try and make the armor more efficient, it was placed at a sharp angle, which gave it roughly 30% more steel to penetrate as opposed to being at a more conventional angle. This also had an unexpected side-effect of being such a sharp angle, rounds would often deflect off of it.

The world did not buy Soviet tanks because they were excellent tanks, they bought them because they were cheap, and designed so that an individual with minimal training and education could maintain them. A perfect tank for Third World nations. And because most were patterned directly after the tank before it, upgrading them was also simple. That is why many nations today still use 1960's era tanks, that have simply been upgraded.

And because of the cost, nations could buy a lot of them. As Stalin himself said, "Quantity has a quality all it's own".

But many have since then started to move away from that ideal. The highly lopsided victories of the M-1 against the finest of Soviet export tanks with almost no losses shocked many nations, and they have moved away from Soviet-Russian tanks in the decades since Gulf War I. This can most strongly be seen in the Middle East. Where once Soviet tanks were almost exclusively seen outside of Israel, now the M-1 is the dominant tank in use.

Tangmo said:

Tougher Times Ahead for Russia

Tow chain is attached to Russian T-14 Armata in Red Square after the high tech wannabe main battle tank broke down in connection with a parade and celebration of Victory in Europe in WW II, 1945. Can't think of a war Russia has won since....or before then either. As if the 20th century wasn't bad enough for Russia, we're now in the 21st century of Russian wrong headed thinking and behaviors.


Egypt has 1,713 of M60 (A3) and 1,130 of the Abrams M1A1 that go in first plus a thousand of the various Russian T-Klunker tanks and 500 of the local Ramses II.

I see in looking at updated numbers Canada has 183 Leopard MBT most of which are deployed to Afghanistan.

India's shooting for 3500 Arjun which outperforms the Russian T-90, T-72 et al, to complement its 2,414 of the T-72 as upgraded significantly by the Polish manufacturers of the PT-91 Polish tank.

Unless Iran is going to enter WW II it is in deep trouble with the Patton M48 and Patton M60 plus a bunch of T-72 and T-62 along with some local Zulfiqar MBT that proved to be a gas can in the Iran-Iraq war. The ayatollahs made the choice some time ago to go nuclear rather than rebuild completely their entire pre-WW II military.

Russia has 10,255 of the T-72 variants, and 4500 of the T-80....plus 4000 of the T-64....fewer than a thousand of the T-90 tank and several dozen of the Armata T-14. Russians are further embarrassed to have nearly 4000 of the T-54 and T-55 neither of which was a bad tank in its day.

Saudi Arabia has a thousand MBT, 145 from France and the rest from USA -- M60A3 and M1A2. Spain has Leopards and M60s while Greece has Leopards only, upwards of 1000. Treaty ally Thailand has several hundred M60 models and some Ukrainian tanks and use only the Ukraine sourced tanks for their regular and many military coups.

Turkey of course has the largest military in Nato-Europe:

750 German Leopard 1 & 2 upgraded continually
1062 of USA M60 variants
850 of the USA M48A5T2 to include M60A3 thermal imaging, fire control systems and laser rangefinder.


Mexico hasn't any MBT which might be why Trump picks on 'em a lot.

Click to expand...

I think we should send in a 1000 tanks barrels facing south, and end the drug cartels. We'll leave behind a handful of stripped downers so they feel like they got something.

Oozlefinch said:

But many have since then started to move away from that ideal. The highly lopsided victories of the M-1 against the finest of Soviet export tanks with almost no losses shocked many nations, and they have moved away from Soviet-Russian tanks in the decades since Gulf War I. This can most strongly be seen in the Middle East. Where once Soviet tanks were almost exclusively seen outside of Israel, now the M-1 is the dominant tank in use.

Click to expand...

The lopsided results were primarily the result of Arab incompetence, not technological inferiority. The Coalition and Iraq could've switched armaments and equipment and the result would've been the same.

American said:

I think we should send in a 1000 tanks barrels facing south, and end the drug cartels. We'll leave behind a handful of stripped downers so they feel like they got something.

Click to expand...

Stalin called that kind of thingy his "Scorched Earth" policy but never mind. We don't think of you as Stalin. That may or may not be of comfort to you so we can leave it there if we like. You anyway could make a wall look better than it is if that might be the alternative to your American Plan.

I'm pleased to say though you inspired my own idea -- send the 3rd Infantry Regiment back to Mexico where in 1848 it charged and seized the heights over Mexico City to force the government's surrender. Gen. Winfield Scott had sent the 3 IR ahead as the advance force of his armies converging on the city. Alas however, by the time 3 IR reached the heights it had flat run out of ammo. So a bayonet charge it wuz. The rest is history but we're not there just yet however so kindly bear with me a bit more eh.

Gen. Scott always recognized a deliverance when he got one so he put 3 IR at the head of the victory parade into the City. As 3 IR got to the reviewing stand the general turned to his staff and said, "Gentlemen, take off your hats -- here comes The Old Guard." It stuck. Not bad either for a general who was older than Washington DC wuz at that point.

We shouldn't confuse our Old Guard with the Old Guard of Napoleon whose guys froze to death in the Russian snow and ice. Same thingy happened of course to Hitler's superior race but who were in the end fair weather soldiers. Three strikes and yer out so we won't be seeing that kind of thingy again will we. Certainly not. We can instead listen to something like 25,000 Russian tanks rust. Which brings us full circle, i.e., neither Mexico nor Russia have a main battle tank. Europe thus survives by default combined with the German Leopard MBT that tops 'em all. If Russia were smart it too would surrender to USA and do it today. Germany is their model over there.

Jredbaron96 said:

The lopsided results were primarily the result of Arab incompetence, not technological inferiority. The Coalition and Iraq could've switched armaments and equipment and the result would've been the same.

Click to expand...

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.

Oozlefinch said:

snip

Click to expand...

I honestly don't understand what point you're trying to make here. I opened up my argument by saying Arab armies are incompetent, and you didn't refute a damn thing.

Of course the combined Arab armies were defeated by Israel. Arab armies are notorious for their incompetence, from the complete lack of tactical expertise, the understanding of combined arms operations, and the unwillingness of senior leadership to act without explicit authorization from their highest authority. Yes the Arabs lost, frequently and largely because despite their otherwise conventional superiority the Arabs couldn't overcome the simple fact that they were not skilled in modern warfare. The Israelis, on the other, well trained and led, could easily trounce their Arab opponents despite their numerical and material inferiority because Israeli troops were not compromised by the sheer incompetence Arab forces frequently had to overcome when going to war.

The Iran-Iraq War.

Click to expand...

I still have no idea what you're trying to argue.

Yes, the Iran-Iraq war carried on for so long precisely because of how incompetent the Iraqis were.

"In 1981 Iraq invaded Iran with 2,750 tanks, 4,000 APCs, 1,400 artillery pieces, and 150,000 men. Against this Iran had 500 operational tanks, and 100,000 untrained Pasdaran. With surprise on their side, Iraq should have brushed all resistance aside, but instead they stalled a few miles over the border, only taking one major city - Khorramshahr - losing 8,000 troops in the process to defenders equipped only with smallarms. The greatest Iraqi victory was at Susangerd where the unprepared Iranian regular army launched an unsupported armored attack and was destroyed. The Iranians lost over 200 tanks when they became trapped on the narrow roads, though the Iraqis lost 100 themselves in the process of winning what should have been an easy ambush.

In late 1981 after some abortive and limited attacks, including the disaster at Susangerd which cost Iran most of its available tanks, the Iranians started a full offensive, attacking with about 80,000 Pasdaran and Basij militia, supported by 60,000 regular troops and 200 tanks. Sequentially annihilating or routing the Republican Guards 10th Armoured Brigade, the 5th Mechanized and 6th Armored Divisions, the 10th Armored Division at Susangerd. This had created a Iraqi salient at Dezful in the north, which the Iranians then moved to crush, routing all three infantry divisions, the mechanized division and both armored divisions of the entire Iraqi IV Corps. Iraqi generals estimate fully half the troops at Dezful became casualties. The Iraqi position was now hopeless, and the Iraqis began a pell-mell retreat from Iran. A heavily mechanized army of over 150,000 had been thoroughly thrashed by 140,000 light infantry with limited transport, and only a couple of hundred tanks.

In 1982 Iran after ejecting Iraq, Iran decided to try and take Basra, attacking with 90,000 Revolutionary Guard supported by 200 tanks and 300 artillery pieces. As mentioned above, they were outnumbered 2-1 in infantry (though many were the atrocious Iraqi "Popular Army" divisions) and 10-1 in tanks, all dug in 50km deep of defensive works. The surprising fact given the gross disparity in forces is not that the Iranians lost, but that they almost won!

The war settled into a long period of stalemate, where total Iraqi troops in the field held at 600-700,000, while Iran could generally only keep about 400,000 on the front in Iraq due to its shaky logistics.

The stalemate continued into 1987, when the Iraqis defeated the second major Iranian attack on Basra, with 200,000 Iranian infantry (Wikipedia says 650,000 which is a serious exaggeration) being eventually halted by massed Iraqi forces of close to 300,000 men as Baghdad rushed in reinforcements and conducted chemical attacks. Again, the Iranians had almost penetrated to Basra, despite massive Iraqi firepower superiority.

By 1988 the overall military balance had become massively unfavorable to Iran. After finishing a massive build up and arms buying spree Iraq had an army of over a million men (though about half were the useless Popular Army), against which Iran had only 600,000 men in its regular army, Revolutionary Guard and Basij militias. Iraq had over 4,000 tanks, while Iran had less than 1,000. The Iraqis finally began their own offensives, massing up ratios of 10-1, 20-1 and even 50-1 against the less mobile Iranians and simply grinding them down in massive, set piece offensives of armor, artillery and chemical bombardments. The Iranian military had been steadily weakening over the course of the war, and could no longer sustain the fighting, and after a string of successful Iraqi offensives that drove Iran from Iraq, the Iranians finally accepted a peace treaty."

Oozlefinch said:

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

Click to expand...

Iraq was only able to carry out the invasion of Kuwait because it had literally drilled the invasion countless times, building vast mock ups in the desert and using the actually decently trained Republican Guard to carry out the offensive.

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...

Okay, this is just mind numbingly stupid.

At no point have Arab armies actually carried out what can be considered Soviet style military doctrine. Iraq never did, because never did they perform any of the hallmarks of Soviet style maneuvers such as advancing along multiple axes, relegating fire support to the unit with the deepest penetration, using air power to open up air corridors allowing heliborne and airborne forces to seize strategic targets in the enemies operational rear. There was no insertion of an operational maneuver group or anything of the sort.

No, what Iraq did was conduct a very conventional invasion of Kuwait, then have it's infantry divisions dig into the border and hope to slug it out with the Coalition forces in a war of attrition. None of this has anything to do with Soviet doctrine in the slightest, least of all since Soviet doctrine emphasizes attacking over defending, but also because the reason Iraqi forces dug in was because the Iraqi General Staff realized that their troops were too incompetent to do anything more.

Actual Soviet style offensive operations required extensive integration of combined arms tactics, emphasizing multiple axis of advance with extensive usage of radio-electronic combat (what we call Electronic warfare, aka jamming) to blind enemy forces with the overall objective of facilitating the rapid insertion of follow up forces into the enemy's rear echelon to disrupt lines of supply, communication, and control functions. Nothing the Iraqis did remotely resembles those kind of operations because it actually requires competent leadership.

And contrary to your stupidly wide reaching statement "warsaw pact tactics are bad", the Soviet Army remained the world's premier combined arms army up until the mid-80s when economic decline gutted the Soviet armed forces as a whole. Soviet officers were part of a relentlessly professional system with a very deeply planned and technical view of warfare that the US had no real comparison for at the time.

Oozlefinch said:

Actually, the Soviets-Russians have never really been known for "quality tanks". Most of them are a compromise, with ease of production being the main factor in any of their designs. In fact, the tank that first made them famous largely got it's reputation by accident.

The T-34 was designed to be made as quickly and cheaply as possible. And in doing so, it was made with the thinnest armor of any Medium Tank in WWII. But in order to try and make the armor more efficient, it was placed at a sharp angle, which gave it roughly 30% more steel to penetrate as opposed to being at a more conventional angle. This also had an unexpected side-effect of being such a sharp angle, rounds would often deflect off of it.

The world did not buy Soviet tanks because they were excellent tanks, they bought them because they were cheap, and designed so that an individual with minimal training and education could maintain them. A perfect tank for Third World nations. And because most were patterned directly after the tank before it, upgrading them was also simple. That is why many nations today still use 1960's era tanks, that have simply been upgraded.

And because of the cost, nations could buy a lot of them. As Stalin himself said, "Quantity has a quality all it's own".

But many have since then started to move away from that ideal. The highly lopsided victories of the M-1 against the finest of Soviet export tanks with almost no losses shocked many nations, and they have moved away from Soviet-Russian tanks in the decades since Gulf War I. This can most strongly be seen in the Middle East. Where once Soviet tanks were almost exclusively seen outside of Israel, now the M-1 is the dominant tank in use.

Click to expand...

Not known for quality tanks, I disagree however many were a comprimise. The t-80 was an expensive tank designed to be russias premier tank for self defense while using the t-72 as mass produced tanks for war, in reality the first actual war russia got to use them in the t-80 performed horribly compared to the mass produced t-72 and the t-90 performed even better than that. That is of course chechnya as in afghanistan the t-72 was not used and only older tanks like the t-62. In the first war russia used a bad doctrine in chechnya and lost many tanks, by sending them in first before infantry, they were wiped out by mines ied's and multi man teams with rpg's, by the second chechnya war they had reversed that by sending infantry in first.


Russian tanks are not all patterned after the ones before them, just their best tanks, they hold that habit with all their military gear, when they find something that works they improve it instead of re inventing the wheel, the t-14 made the mistake of re inventing the wheel just like the t-80 did.

Stalin actually never said that, that has been falsely attributed to him since the late 70's, but no one could ever produce evidence he said it, and the claims he said it came long after his death.

The m-1 victories were against mostly iraq armor, between polish supplied parts for t-72's made domestically called the lion of babil, which was even worse than the first model t-72 due to thinner armor and analog controls not much greater than ww2 tanks, they even had to add a spotlight to them since they had no nightvision. Besides that iraq had many trainer tanks as well, which were well not really tanks, they looked like them but were for training purposes, and their rounds were weak and specific to trainers, this was because the sanctions, and countries found loopholes to arm iraq after the iraq iran war.


The m-1 is not the dominent tank in use though in the middle east, even israel barely uses them, and more often uses the m-60 and their own domestic tanks, as they fit their doctrine and their region better. Besides that the m-1 is only lopsided compared to iraq wars, when put to the test in yemen and iraq, the m1 has taken major losses, the export m1 is so terrible simple rpg's or even konkurs atgm's can shred them apart, as the export model has no depleted uranium armor, no advanced targeting systems, and no reactive armor. They performed so badly for the export model america had to approve more than 100 to be sold to iraq to replace what they lost fighting isis, and iraq ditched them as a main tank and opted for the t-90 instead as they could survive konkurs atgm tow missiles etc better than the export abrahms could.

Jredbaron96 said:

Of course the combined Arab armies were defeated by Israel. Arab armies are notorious for their incompetence, from the complete lack of tactical expertise

Click to expand...

Actually, it was their adherence to Warsaw Pact Doctrine that was their downfall. Exactly as it was in the Korean War, Afghanistan, and pretty much every conflict it has been tried since WWII.

It is the doctrine that failed them. And it was not one they created.

Jredbaron96 said:

Iraq was only able to carry out the invasion of Kuwait because it had literally drilled the invasion countless times, building vast mock ups in the desert and using the actually decently trained Republican Guard to carry out the offensive.

Click to expand...

They also had an invasion force that was over 4 times the size of the entire Kuwaiti Army, invading an enemy that was asleep at not on any form of alert. Oh, and they took out their only major air base in the opening hours of the invasion (which is why the air forces that did take to the skies had to land in Saudi Arabia after their initial sortie).

As for the multiple axis, that goes along with the penchant of the Soviets to use maskirovka. That worked very well in Europe, where hills, forests and cities could mask 1 or more of the attacking columns, and cause the enemy to turn towards one attack and then get hit from another direction. That was not really applicable in Iraq-Afghanistan-Kuwait. The wide open flat terrain made any type of operations foolish. Instead they used another alternate of the strategy, which was to form your units into a single massive force to overwhelm opponents. However, they did follow it in all other areas, like the large number of their ground forces being mechanized infantry, the organization of units operating at the Brigade level in most operations (as opposed to US strategy, which normally has them operate at Company or Battalion level), massing of Artillery at the Brigade level, and other things (when columns are ambushed they stop to go into attack formations before countering), and many other things.

But there are other aspects that they also all follow the old Soviet doctrine. Like segregating forces into various grades of soldiers. The US and other NATO forces never really operated like that, having the main forces, and a scattering of more elite forces. But Iraq (like the Soviets) had large number of what could only be classifies as "cannon fodder". Large numbers of forces poorly trained and equipped, largely only good for soaking up bullets or mopping up a position after it has been taken.

Another common factor in WP is their tactic of closing into direct contact as quickly as possible. There is little of the laying down a base of fire and using maneuver to take out an enemy position. When contact is made, the forces try to overrun it as quickly as possible. That was seen many times in 1991 when contact was made. The US would often settle in and let the situation evolve before committing itself. The Iraqis just went charging in on instinct as per their training.

And finally, the traditional "multi pronged attack" was simply not possible for Iraqi forces at all. In the large featureless plain that is the desert out there, there were few if any landmarks to be used for navigation. Because of this they were largely restricted to only moving along roads. This was not an issue for the Soviets, who had battlefields with plentiful landmarks to navigate by. That was realized by Israel decades ago, and rediscovered by the US in 1990-1991. That is why GPS had such a major impact in that and following conflicts.

Oozlefinch said:

Actually, it was their adherence to Warsaw Pact Doctrine that was their downfall. Exactly as it was in the Korean War, Afghanistan, and pretty much every conflict it has been tried since WWII.

Click to expand...

Repeating this does not make it so. The fact that you can't actually name a clear cut example of where ground forces used Soviet tactics is clearly indicative of the fact that you don't actually know what you're talking about, but instead just repeating what someone else told you.

As for the multiple axis, that goes along with the penchant of the Soviets to use maskirovka. That worked very well in Europe, where hills, forests and cities could mask 1 or more of the attacking columns, and cause the enemy to turn towards one attack and then get hit from another direction.

Click to expand...

Maskirovka is not just the usage of terrain to conceal movements, it's the deliberate misleading of enemy intelligent forces through usage of dummies, mock ups, false maneuvers, staged operations and leaked reports. It's nost just a war time measure, it's was also employed in the Cuban Missile Crisis, Czechoslovakia, and most recently in Crimea.

But there are other aspects that they also all follow the old Soviet doctrine. Like segregating forces into various grades of soldiers.

Click to expand...

Saying the Soviets "segregated" their soldiers to use some as canon fodder is just stupid and represents a fundamental misunderstanding of how Soviet troop categories worked. The Soviets realized that in the event of a large scale war they would need to mobilize large amounts of forces within a short period of time, and they organized their forces in appropriate categories of readiness. After all, it didn't take a significant amount of training to teach someone how to drive a truck, or load an artillery shell, so those personnel assigned to those tasking could be put to use elsewhere when not needed. You may think it's poor standards to not train units around the clock, but that's a NATO perspective.

Furthermore, that has no bearing what so ever. Iraq's large army was composed primarily of poor Shia conscripts who were taken off the streets and given a week of rifle training. They were then shuffled into infantry divisions, and meant to operate alongside the equally poorly trained mechanized and tank crews. This was a deliberate effort by the Iraqis who simply never trained their forces at all. Unlike the Soviets who regularly ran large scale national exercises that involved mobilizing their reserves, the Iraqis never bothered training their conscripts with anything but the bare minimum. Claiming that the two are equivalent just shows how little you know.

Another common factor in WP is their tactic of closing into direct contact as quickly as possible. There is little of the laying down a base of fire and using maneuver to take out an enemy position. When contact is made, the forces try to overrun it as quickly as possible. That was seen many times in 1991 when contact was made. The US would often settle in and let the situation evolve before committing itself. The Iraqis just went charging in on instinct as per their training.

Click to expand...

Closing into the enemy is a perfectly valid tactic to employ if the enemy has considerable ranged precision weaponry to employ, like NATO did, and by closing in and engaging at short ranges the Soviets could deny the usage of such weaponry because they would be too intermixed within NATO's forces to risk their usage. It's a perfectly valid tactic and in fact has no bearing whatsoever on the Gulf War. I don't know what ****ing war you're talking about, but the commencement of ground operations in the Persian Gulf was defined by Coalition forces advancing and overrunning Iraqi positions with incredible ease.

And finally, the traditional "multi pronged attack" was simply not possible for Iraqi forces at all. In the large featureless plain that is the desert out there, there were few if any landmarks to be used for navigation. Because of this they were largely restricted to only moving along roads. This was not an issue for the Soviets, who had battlefields with plentiful landmarks to navigate by. That was realized by Israel decades ago, and rediscovered by the US in 1990-1991. That is why GPS had such a major impact in that and following conflicts.

Click to expand...

And yes, it was. But that kind of large scale mechanized maneuver operations was just too complex for Iraqi forces to carry. Your continued refusal to simply accept that Iraqi forces were so glaringly incompetent just shows how little you know about the topic.

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...

Russia has been hobbled by communism foolishness for decades and the results of such bad policies on the economy saw the breakup of the Communist Union about 30 years ago. Atheistic communism is the policy of devils.

Jredbaron96 said:

And yes, it was. But that kind of large scale mechanized maneuver operations was just too complex for Iraqi forces to carry. Your continued refusal to simply accept that Iraqi forces were so glaringly incompetent just shows how little you know about the topic.

Click to expand...

Oh yes, they were incredibly incompetent. So completely incompetent that they were able to take over an entire nation of over 6,750 square miles and 4 million people in less than 48 hours.

And with this, I am pretty much done here.

Jredbaron96 said:

Furthermore, that has no bearing what so ever. Iraq's large army was composed primarily of poor Shia conscripts who were taken off the streets and given a week of rifle training.

Click to expand...

Wow, and you say I do not understand the facts involved. What you just claimed was 100% wrong.

In 1990, Iraq had one of the largest and best trained and equipped military forces in the region. Their standing army in August of 1990 was in excess of 1 million men. And the vast majority of those men were highly skilled, experienced, and equipped. You must remember, those were the survivors of the 8 year long stalemate against Iran. The bulk of the army was far from untrained conscripts.

And they were survivors of probably the most brutal war in the second half of the 20th century. An 8 year long struggle, the last 5 years primarily on the defensive in a long series of battles that more closely resemble the trench warfare of WWI than the maneuver battles of WWII. This was a force that was blooded, experienced, and had been dealing with things like massive artillery barrages, chemical weapons, and massive human wave attacks by suicide forces.

The large scale drafting was done in 1991, and only amounted to around 200,000 draftees. That is around 1/5 the size of the army prior to the invasion of Kuwait.

So the exact opposite is the reality, no matter what you want to believe. They were far from incompetent, and they were well trained. The biggest problem is that they were relying upon a doctrine that had been a failure every time it came up against US forces and those that followed a similar doctrine.

But sorry, I do admit to outright ignoring all of your racist claims that Arabs are incompetent and idiots. I myself having served with and against them have a much more open mind about their capabilities and weaknesses. And it is something that many of the nations in the region have been working to change for the last 20+ years.

Oozlefinch said:

Oh yes, they were incredibly incompetent. So completely incompetent that they were able to take over an entire nation of over 6,750 square miles and 4 million people in less than 48 hours.

Click to expand...

Against equally incompetent Kuwati resistance, in an invasion spearheaded by the best trained Iraqi forces.

In 1990, Iraq had one of the largest and best trained and equipped military forces in the region. Their standing army in August of 1990 was in excess of 1 million men. And the vast majority of those men were highly skilled, experienced, and equipped. You must remember, those were the survivors of the 8 year long stalemate against Iran. The bulk of the army was far from untrained conscripts.

Click to expand...

No, they weren't. They were large and fielded a lot of equipment, but with the exception of the Republican Guard the Iraqis were not at all well trained.

A perfect example of this is the first Iranian attack on Basra. The Iranians attacked with 90,000 light infantry and 200 tanks. Facing them were over 200,000 mechanized infantry and over 2,000 tanks deployed in an impressive set of six defensive lines over 50km deep that the Iraqis had built over the summer of 1982. The Iranians hit the Iraqi lines on 19 June and by the 1st of July had penetrated to the very last defensive line before ferocious though clumsy Iraqi armored counter attacks halted them and bogged the battle down into a stalemate that lasted into August, before the worn out Iranians finally decided to withdraw. The battle was technically an Iraqi victory, but not much of one - an armored and mechanized force, dug in prepared defenses had barely managed to halt a light infantry force half its size with negligible armored support. Worse, they had taken almost two months to do so, taking heavy losses in the process. Indeed Iraqi losses were so heavy that an entire tank division - the 9th - was disbanded.

By 1988 the overall military balance had become massively unfavorable to Iran. After finishing a massive build up and arms buying spree Iraq had an army of over a million men (though about half were the useless Popular Army), against which Iran had only 600,000 men in its regular army, Revolutionary Guard and Basij militias. Iraq had over 4,000 tanks, while Iran had less than 1,000. The Iraqis finally began their own offensives, massing up ratios of 10-1, 20-1 and even 50-1 against the less mobile Iranians and simply grinding them down in massive, set piece offensives of armor, artillery and chemical bombardments. The Iranian military had been steadily weakening over the course of the war, and could no longer sustain the fighting, and after a string of successful Iraqi offensives that drove Iran from Iraq, the Iranians finally accepted a peace treaty

Oozlefinch said:

But sorry, I do admit to outright ignoring all of your racist claims that Arabs are incompetent and idiots. I myself having served with and against them have a much more open mind about their capabilities and weaknesses. And it is something that many of the nations in the region have been working to change for the last 20+ years.

Click to expand...

It's not racism, it's a very simple observation; Arab armies are riddled with incompetence. And that hasn't changed despite decades of American support.

Against ISIS in 2014 the Iraqi Army melted before a vastly inferior foe (on paper), abandoning hundreds of tons of supplies and suffering thousands of losses. It wasn't until they had nearly reached the outskirts of Bahgdad did they manage to pull off a halt to ISIS's advance, and that was with the help of repeated American airstrikes.

Jredbaron96 said:

No, they weren't. They were large and fielded a lot of equipment, but with the exception of the Republican Guard the Iraqis were not at all well trained.

A perfect example of this is the first Iranian attack on Basra.

Click to expand...

And notice the date of the battle you are trying to use as your example. Operation Ramadan, in 1982.

That is like saying the US Army of 2001 was the same US Army in 2007. You pick a battle from early on in the conflict. And one that used a tactic I specifically listed as a major factor in the war. That was the first large battle that Iran used human wave attacks.

Yes, it was a great victory for Iran. A pyrrhic victory. Almost all of their tanks were destroyed, most of their APCs, and over 1/5 of their invasion force killed.

And it is hard to fight against that kind of attack. Just ask the US forces in the Korean War how hard it is to defeat human wave attacks.

Interesting however in that when trying to refute the experience of the Iraqi Army in 1990, you bring up a battle in 1982. You are so busy trying to refute me over and over, you seem to completely miss the very things I keep pointing out.

That is like trying to compare the US forces involved in Operation Torch with those that marched into Berlin. Amazing what less than 3 years of combat had done to the US Army.

Oozlefinch said:

And notice the date of the battle you are trying to use as your example. Operation Ramadan, in 1982.

That was the first large battle that Iran used human wave attacks.

Click to expand...

.
The human wave is a highly popularized but rather minor part of the Iranian tactical repertoir, and one they used more as a distraction to fix Iraqi attention rather than as the main effort. Had that been the sum of their tactics they could have charged at the Iraqis with millions of troops and made no headway.

More commonly, the Iranians would conduct extensive patrolling at night to find weakpoints in the Iraqi lines. Then they would move up as many tanks and artillery pieces as they could get to a critical sector and suppress the defenses, while the infantry charged through the gaps and into the Iraqi flanks and rear. The irreplaceable tanks would then withdraw, and the Iranian infantry would go about encircling and destroying the penetrated armoured and mechanized formations.

These tactics were highly effective against the Iraqis who despite their vastly superior potential mobility nevertheless tended to sit immobile in their firebases while the Iranians moved around them, to the point that time and time again Iranian RPG tank hunter teams were able to wipe out entire tank batallions and brigades as they sat static waiting for orders.

The Iranians were creative and intelligent in their attacks, and often used unorthodox tactics which stunned the rigid Iraqis, but they were hardly a juggernaught. Their leadership had been purged and many of their troops had little experience, and they had a chronic lack of firepower. The biggest thing the Iranians had going for them was the Iraqis were utterly execrable. Flanked Iraqi units would not respond, sitting still and just shooting from where they sat while Iranians swarmed over their positions, Iraqi units with clear opportunities for manuever and counterattack would not take them, and when ordered to attack the Iraqis would clank forward at halting speed in direct and poorly co-ordinated frontal attacks, allowing the footborne Iranians time to build up a defense.

Oozlefinch said:

Interesting however in that when trying to refute the experience of the Iraqi Army in 1990, you bring up a battle in 1982. You are so busy trying to refute me over and over, you seem to completely miss the very things I keep pointing out.

Click to expand...

Because you've mistakenly assumed that Iraq won because it eventually developed into a competent, combined arma force that could defeat the Iranians. That seemed like the case at the time, but it's not true.

Iran's economy had been steadily collapsing during the course of the war, and by 1987 the ability of Iran to replace its losses had eroded considerably, while Iraq had been able to buy massive amounts of weaponry from the USSR.

"By early 1988, the Iraqi military outnumbered Iran in every category of military manpower and hardware. Iraq boasted roughly 1,000,000 men under arms, while Iran could only field 600,000; Iraq had over 4,000 functional tanks, while Iran had less than 1,000; Iraq had over 600 combat aircraft, while Iran could surge less than 50. At the point of attack, Iraqi advantages were even greater, with force ratios of ten to one, twenty to one, and even fifty to one in certain categories not uncommon. On top of this, Iraq relied on massive doses of chemical agents to overwhelm Iranian defenders. Given the disparities, what is surprising is that the Iraqis could not do more."
-Pollack, "Arabs at War," p. 223

Iraq eventually defeated Iran and forces Iran out of Iraq through massive set piece offensives where the Iraqis usually held massive advantages in firepower, yet this was only accomplished by the Iraqi General Staff scripting out the entire offensive down to the company level.

Iraq won because it's economy allowed it to outlast Iran. That's pretty much the end all.

Jredbaron96 said:

Iran's economy had been steadily collapsing during the course of the war, and by 1987 the ability of Iran to replace its losses had eroded considerably, while Iraq had been able to buy massive amounts of weaponry from the USSR.

Click to expand...

Iran's economy had been "collapsing" since the split with the US after their 1979 revolution. Almost all of their military prior to that was based upon US equipment, which was embargoed after the revolution. And while they did loose a large part of their economy with the US, it was not enough to cause more than a minor recession. Their major export was still oil, and most of the world did not follow the US in their embargo of Iranian oil. So the impact was minimal.

In fact, that very embargo was one of the reasons Iraq attacked. They thought they would be easy pickings, as they were distracted with the potential conflict brewing with the US, and loosing much of their military aid at the same time. Their ability to "replace its losses" (equipment wise) and "buy massive amounts of weaponry" had ended abruptly in November 1979 when they took over the US Embassy. Almost all of their equipment was US provided. M60 tanks, HAWK missiles, F4, F5 and F14 fighters, C-130 cargo aircraft, CH-47 helicopters, M40 and TOW anti-tank weapons, M113 APCs, and a great chunk of their navy (including Sumner Destroyers, and PF-PGM class Frigates).

And to this day, Iraq is still struggling to buy any replacement parts they can to keep as much of this equipment operating as they can. Only now are they starting to replace them with other similar equipment (or backward engineering their own variants), because they are getting to the point that they are well beyond their lifespan. Either that, or that the replacements are simply not available in any form (like the F-14).

The population of Iran was almost 3 times that of Iraq. And it was not a problem of "replacing losses", they had more forces at the end of the conflict than Iraq did. What they did not have however was the "advanced weapons" that Iraq had access to. Like Iraq, their only major supplier was the Soviet Union. A nation they had a business relationship with, but did not agree with in any other ways (they were the "Lesser Satan").

And interestingly, the Soviets were never to sell significant nor highly advanced weapons to Iran for similar reasons. Iran did not like the Soviet Atheistic policies, and the Soviets did not trust the Iranian Theocracy. They were natural enemies, thrown together because each got something out of the arrangement other than weapons. The Soviets helped keep Iran stable, and out of the hands of falling back into the US influence. Iran got weapons, and experience in how to supply rebels in hostile territory.

And it must be realized that neither the US nor the USSR wanted either side to win that war. Both of the Superpowers wanted them locked in a stalemate against each other. For as long as Iran and Iraq were fighting each other, they were to busy to cause problems in other areas. Notice how after the war ended, Iraq then turned South and looked at Kuwait and the other Gulf States. Iran turned East, and got increasingly involved in Afghanistan. Without the Iran-Iraq War, those events would have happened much sooner.

Oozlefinch said:

Iran's economy had been "collapsing" since the split with the US after their 1979 revolution. Almost all of their military prior to that was based upon US equipment, which was embargoed after the revolution. And while they did loose a large part of their economy with the US, it was not enough to cause more than a minor recession. Their major export was still oil, and most of the world did not follow the US in their embargo of Iranian oil. So the impact was minimal.

Click to expand...

The impact was not minimal. Iranian oil production plummeted after the Revolution, from 6 million barrels to 1.5 million barrels.

In fact, that very embargo was one of the reasons Iraq attacked. They thought they would be easy pickings, as they were distracted with the potential conflict brewing with the US, and loosing much of their military aid at the same time. Their ability to "replace its losses" (equipment wise) and "buy massive amounts of weaponry" had ended abruptly in November 1979 when they took over the US Embassy. Almost all of their equipment was US provided. M60 tanks, HAWK missiles, F4, F5 and F14 fighters, C-130 cargo aircraft, CH-47 helicopters, M40 and TOW anti-tank weapons, M113 APCs, and a great chunk of their navy (including Sumner Destroyers, and PF-PGM class Frigates).

Click to expand...

Are you even reading what I'm saying? I literally just said it was Iraq that could replace their losses and buy massive amounts of equipment, not Iran.

The population of Iran was almost 3 times that of Iraq. And it was not a problem of "replacing losses", they had more forces at the end of the conflict than Iraq did.

Click to expand...

Population doesn't automatically translate to forces in the field. Iran's military had been purged following the revolution, and it's logistical capabilities did not recover during the war. Iran regularly struggled to field more than 400,000 men during the war at any one time.

What they did not have however was the "advanced weapons" that Iraq had access to. Like Iraq, their only major supplier was the Soviet Union. A nation they had a business relationship with, but did not agree with in any other ways (they were the "Lesser Satan").

And interestingly, the Soviets were never to sell significant nor highly advanced weapons to Iran for similar reasons. Iran did not like the Soviet Atheistic policies, and the Soviets did not trust the Iranian Theocracy. They were natural enemies, thrown together because each got something out of the arrangement other than weapons. The Soviets helped keep Iran stable, and out of the hands of falling back into the US influence. Iran got weapons, and experience in how to supply rebels in hostile territory.

Click to expand...

Uh, no.

Iran was supported primarily by Syria, China, and North Korea. Iran got more from America through the Iran-Contra Affair than they got directly from the Soviet Union.

There's a bottom line here we'd all need to be more aware of so we can be better prepared to deal with it. It's of a great significance for example that Iranian dominance in Iraq now gives the ayatollahs an exclusive and protected corridor from Tehran to the Med. And that Putin is now the go-to guy throughout the Middle East.


Iran Dominates in Iraq After U.S. ‘Handed the Country Over

JULY 15, 2017

But Iran never lost sight of its mission: to dominate its neighbor so thoroughly that Iraq could never again endanger it militarily, and to use the country to effectively control a corridor from Tehran to the Mediterranean.

“Iranian influence is dominant,” said Hoshyar Zebari, who was ousted last year as finance minister because, he said, Iran distrusted his links to the United States. “It is paramount.”

The country’s dominance over Iraq has heightened sectarian tensions around the region, with Sunni states, and American allies, like Saudi Arabia mobilizing to oppose Iranian expansionism. But Iraq is only part of Iran’s expansion project; it has also used soft and hard power to extend its influence in Lebanon, Syria, Yemen and Afghanistan, and throughout the region.

Iran is a Shiite state, and Iraq, a Shiite majority country, was ruled by an elite Sunni minority before the American invasion. But these days, it is about geopolitics as much as religion, with the divide expressed by different states that are adversaries, led by Saudi Arabia on one side and Iran on the other.

Iran’s influence in Iraq is not just ascendant, but diverse, projecting into military, political, economic and cultural affairs.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/15/world/middleeast/iran-iraq-iranian-power.html







The top three threats to the USA in the Middle East are: Russia, Russia, Russia....


Forget Iran. Russia is the real threat to the US in the Middle East

The U.S. leaving the Iran nuclear deal was like a continental earthquake.
Iran and Israel are inching towards an all-out war.
But until the U.S. gets serious about the Russian threat, we will cede much of the Middle East to Moscow in a self-inflicted foreign policy catastrophe

22 May 2018

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/22/for...real-threat-to-the-us-in-the-middle-east.html




Potus is rather busy these dayze trying to keep his head above water and intact so perhaps we shouldn't trouble him with far away matters that have nothing to do with Making America Great Again. ME is an iceberg, USA is the Titanic and we know who the captain is. Helsinki sealed it.

There was no winner of the Iraq-Iran war that Baghdad started. Both sides collapsed into a mutually agreed truce after eight years of slaughter in which a million died all totaled. There was a loser though and it's the United States. Iran now dominates Iraq. Putin and the ayatollahs are in tight as thieves.

So let's talk about winners which is the favorite topic in a certain quarter of the US. The winner of the US-Iraq war is --- China. The Boyz in Beijing have been drilling oil from Basra to Kuwait and the SA border for several years now. Shipping their tankers full of oil to China. Via the South China Sea of course. ISIS doesn't bother 'em and nobody bothers the Chinese oil companies and workers. It's secure and lucrative for Beijing, especially since no PLA soldiers are needed to protect China's investments, activity and presence. Fascinating it is how generous Beijing is with other people's money, giving some back to 'em all as it does. It's also true that Beijing and Tehran are in tight as, well, thieves.

Trump is meanwhile attacking FBI, US national intelligence and meeting secretly with Putin in Helsinki. Trump stood next to Putin at the press meeting saying he believes Putin. And the Putin-Trump Fanboyz love it while always and forever pointing the finger at Obama. While Trump is cancelling agreements left and right Putin is making new ones throughout the region. Go figure, cause it could seem like Trump and His Fanboyz are accommodating the KGB, FSA, GRU and everybody else who is looking take down the USA.

Tangmo said:

There was no winner of the Iraq-Iran war that Baghdad started. Both sides collapsed into a mutually agreed truce after eight years of slaughter in which a million died all totaled. There was a loser though and it's the United States. Iran now dominates Iraq. Putin and the ayatollahs are in tight as thieves.

So let's talk about winners which is the favorite topic in a certain quarter of the US. .

Click to expand...

The thread is: Russia Will Not Mass-Produce T-14 Armata Main Battle Tank

Russia is having an impossible time trying to peddle its wannabe main battle tank the Armata T-14. Iran and Iraq and the world at large aren't interested in the price or the technology of the T-14. This is true despite Putin and the ayatollahs in Tehran being tight as thieves. Iraq is still rebuilding everything so money is scarce after the US 2003 invasion turned quickly into Operation Desert Disaster. The US and Iran are hollering at one another again...but while Iran is a US strategic competitor, the US is hollering at every ally it used to have too, which will not stand.

There's more and it's of a strictly military calculation in Moscow that the Russians know well....


German manufacturer creates gun to fight Armata and T-90 tanks

June 16 2016


The Leopard 2A7+ is the current version of the German Army main battle tank. Leopard is a huge seller as a MBT to include many Nato countries, Singapore, Indonesia.


German military concern Rheinmetall Defence has unveiled a model of a gun developed especially to engage in combat with Russia’s new T-14 Armata and T-90 tanks.

At the Eurosatory-2016 Defence & Security International Exhibition, Rheinmetall Defence, the German military concern, presented a model of a gun that has been developed especially for destroying the new Russian T-14 Armata and T-90 tanks.

The 130-mm gun will be fitted to a new tank that Germany and France are currently developing as a substitute for the Leopard 2 and Leclerc battle tanks, writes Defense Update.

https://www.rbth.com/defence/2016/0...tes-gun-to-fight-armata-and-t-90-tanks_603691



Leopard III is coming before too much longer. Exit the T-14 Armata because it just isn't what it's been cracked up to be. Woe to the Russian T-90 tank too.

Tangmo said:

Russia is having an impossible time trying to peddle its wannabe main battle tank the Armata T-14. Iran and Iraq and the world at large aren't interested in the price or the technology of the T-14. This is true despite Putin and the ayatollahs in Tehran being tight as thieves. Iraq is still rebuilding everything so money is scarce after the US 2003 invasion turned quickly into Operation Desert Disaster. The US and Iran are hollering at one another again...but while Iran is a US strategic competitor, the US is hollering at every ally it used to have too, which will not stand.

There's more and it's of a strictly military calculation in Moscow that the Russians know well....


German manufacturer creates gun to fight Armata and T-90 tanks

June 16 2016

The Leopard 2A7+ is the current version of the German Army main battle tank. Leopard is a huge seller as a MBT to include many Nato countries, Singapore, Indonesia.


German military concern Rheinmetall Defence has unveiled a model of a gun developed especially to engage in combat with Russia’s new T-14 Armata and T-90 tanks.

At the Eurosatory-2016 Defence & Security International Exhibition, Rheinmetall Defence, the German military concern, presented a model of a gun that has been developed especially for destroying the new Russian T-14 Armata and T-90 tanks.

The 130-mm gun will be fitted to a new tank that Germany and France are currently developing as a substitute for the Leopard 2 and Leclerc battle tanks, writes Defense Update.

https://www.rbth.com/defence/2016/0...tes-gun-to-fight-armata-and-t-90-tanks_603691



Leopard III is coming before too much longer. Exit the T-14 Armata because it just isn't what it's been cracked up to be. Woe to the Russian T-90 tank too.

Click to expand...

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.