• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

beerftw said:
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.
Click to expand...

I was just trying being funny.

The tank will be the center punch and holding force for forward projection for quite a while. But tanks are most effective if it's military maintains control of the air.

Even a squid understands this. ;)
 
Jredbaron96 said:
...the Soviets also emphasized speed above all else...
Click to expand...



Actually they didn't.

The Soviet Army did consider speed and surprise as key tactical principals but the one that mattered most was concentration.

They concentrated their forces and supported success...then played the attrition game which NATO was always bound to lose.




Every exercise I was in, ended with NATO troops defending the Rhine...that's when the nuclear option would have had to have been faced.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
At the tactical level it was. Concentration is primarily an operational principal.
Click to expand...


By "tactical level" do you mean army level tactics (a Soviet Army "army" was 3-5 divisions) ?


I think you'll find that even at army level, the key principal was concentration and then reinforcing success.


Concentration is a general principal of warfare and is not limited to any particular size of unit or formation.


Yes speed is important, but you can only move quickly once you've achieved a breakthrough and won the "fight".
To win the fight you need more men/material - hence a concentration of effort.

Also when you're talking about speed of operations, you're not merely talking about the speed a tank moves...you're talking about the speed of decision making.

A Soviet Army didn't move any quicker than a Napoleonic infantry corps - say about 3 mph



IIRC most exercises I was part of saw the Soviet Army get from the inner German border to the Rhine in about 4-5 days.
 
Rich2018 said:
By "tactical level" do you mean army level tactics (a Soviet Army "army" was 3-5 divisions) ?
Click to expand...

No, I mean tactical level of warfare, which for the Soviets was division-level and below (Division was a murky range for the Soviets, they saw Divisions as tactical elements but they formed the core of operational planning).

The Soviets emphasized speed in their tactics because their tactics were at their core rigid. The Soviets knew they relied on conscripts with limited training and supported by a thin crust of leadership at the lower levels (Soviet junior officers, while well trained, didn't have a corps of professional NCOs to help lead their formations), so they focused on their platoons, companies, and battalions emphasizing speed as their primary concern. This was a necessity; Soviet tactics were part of an order driven process necessary in part due to limited training, but also because a good number of Soviet conscripts, such as Armenians, Kazahs and Uzbeks, wouldn't speak Russian as their native language. Having complex tactical battle drills would've done them no good, so instead they focused on running a limited number of battle drills, but accomplishing them very fast. The idea was that by rapidly accomplishing tactical tasking and missions it would allow them to implement their far more flexible operations once they reached the regimental level (the regiment was the building block of Soviet combined arms warfare) and above.

You're right though, concentration of forces was always a Soviet principle, but it was a more generic one meant to be applied at operational discretion, i.e concentrating forces to achieve local superiority and transfer that into a breakthrough.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
No, I mean tactical level of warfare, which for the Soviets was division-level and below (Division was a murky range for the Soviets, they saw Divisions as tactical elements but they formed the core of operational planning).

The Soviets emphasized speed in their tactics because their tactics were at their core rigid. The Soviets knew they relied on conscripts with limited training and supported by a thin crust of leadership at the lower levels (Soviet junior officers, while well trained, didn't have a corps of professional NCOs to help lead their formations), so they focused on their platoons, companies, and battalions emphasizing speed as their primary concern. This was a necessity; Soviet tactics were part of an order driven process necessary in part due to limited training, but also because a good number of Soviet conscripts, such as Armenians, Kazahs and Uzbeks, wouldn't speak Russian as their native language. Having complex tactical battle drills would've done them no good, so instead they focused on running a limited number of battle drills, but accomplishing them very fast. The idea was that by rapidly accomplishing tactical tasking and missions it would allow them to implement their far more flexible operations once they reached the regimental level (the regiment was the building block of Soviet combined arms warfare) and above.

You're right though, concentration of forces was always a Soviet principle, but it was a more generic one meant to be applied at operational discretion, i.e concentrating forces to achieve local superiority and transfer that into a breakthrough.
Click to expand...



I'm not sure that's right. It is true that for the Soviet Army, the tactical unit was the division and there were divisional tactics. A divisional commander had several assets at his disposal to achieve his objective(s).

But tactical plans existed mainly at army level (basically the equivalent of the NATO corps).
An army commander would have a tactical plan...for shock troops it was usually how to secure a breakthrough and then how to exploit it.

For example, what pattern of echelon to use ? Where he expected a breakthrough...and where he planned to direct a secondary assault in case the primary attack failed.


A front would be made up of several armies....we used to call this the operational level.


A theater would be made up of several fronts...we called this the strategic level.


A global war of several theaters would be the political level.



Regimental, divisional and army tactics were basically the same. Concentrated surprise attack and keep the numbers coming. The Soviet Army was all-or-nothing and were willing (if not actually seeking) to exchange men and material and reply on their superior numbers.

Speed was more about speed of decision making rather than actual ground speed of the tanks.

It really was a sledgehammer rather than a rapier approach.


But realistically, there was nothing NATO could have done to stop it short of the nuclear option.
 
Rich2018 said:
I'm not sure that's right. It is true that for the Soviet Army, the tactical unit was the division and there were divisional tactics. A divisional commander had several assets at his disposal to achieve his objective(s).

But tactical plans existed mainly at army level (basically the equivalent of the NATO corps).
An army commander would have a tactical plan...for shock troops it was usually how to secure a breakthrough and then how to exploit it.

For example, what pattern of echelon to use ? Where he expected a breakthrough...and where he planned to direct a secondary assault in case the primary attack failed.

A front would be made up of several armies....we used to call this the operational level.

A theater would be made up of several fronts...we called this the strategic level.

A global war of several theaters would be the political level.

Regimental, divisional and army tactics were basically the same. Concentrated surprise attack and keep the numbers coming. The Soviet Army was all-or-nothing and were willing (if not actually seeking) to exchange men and material and reply on their superior numbers.
Click to expand...

I don't think either of us are wrong, rather it varied based on the situation and the mission at hand. The definition of tactical or operational level of warfare wasn't entirely concrete, it was fluid and changed based on mission parameters. The operational maneuver group underwent several changes as well during the cold War. Divisions could be tactical or operational elements depending on several factors, including frontage, opposing forces, area of operations, and the nature of the war.

Speed was more about speed of decision making rather than actual ground speed of the tanks.
Click to expand...

I don't entirely disagree, but I think it is worth noting speed of armored vehicles, and their ability to maneuver, was a major factor in their design. Soviet tanks were near universally lighter and faster than NATO tanks, because their role was to proceed as far into the depth of the enemy's echelon

It really was a sledgehammer rather than a rapier approach.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't go so far as that either; at the Regimental level and up, the Soviets had some very flexible concepts, fully utilizing the professional skill of their officers. For example, their plan for divisional attack from the march was more fluid than our semi-equivalent, the "hasty attack" (and a lot more comprehensive as well). I think a more accurate description would be a "swarm", at face value it looks like nothing but a mass of armor and firepower but it's various spearheads are guided by some very clever tactical planning.


But realistically, there was nothing NATO could have done to stop it short of the nuclear option.
Click to expand...

On that, we agree.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
I don't think either of us are wrong, rather it varied based on the situation and the mission at hand. The definition of tactical or operational level of warfare wasn't entirely concrete, it was fluid and changed based on mission parameters. The operational maneuver group underwent several changes as well during the cold War. Divisions could be tactical or operational elements depending on several factors, including frontage, opposing forces, area of operations, and the nature of the war....
Click to expand...

Yes, I heard this term "operational maneuver group"

What did it really mean ?

At an operational level - what the Soviets called a "front" - it meant several armies focused on a single break through point.


The OMG was really an exploitation force once a breakthrough had been acheived

Again it all came down to concentration of forces and a willingness to exchange losses....and rely on superior numbers


Seriously, NATO could not defend Western Europe from the USSR in any conventional war.


But it didn't have to.

Contrary to the left's beliefs, nuclear weapons kept the peace...and still do
Also, the USSR was no hell-bent on conquering the West...though it was convinced the West was hell-bent on invading the USSR. I know a total, paradox and contradiction.


...I don't entirely disagree, but I think it is worth noting speed of armored vehicles, and their ability to maneuver, was a major factor in their design. Soviet tanks were near universally lighter and faster than NATO tanks, because their role was to proceed as far into the depth of the enemy's echelon...
Click to expand...

Actually I always thought that NATO formations were more maneuverable than Soviet ones


Yes, Soviet AFVs were smaller and lighter...have you ever looked inside a BMP-1 ? Seriously, no NATO squad/section would fit in it

Soviet tanks were small ... so small the maximum height of a tank crewman was something like 5'8"


NATO responded with some stupid designs...the US M2 Bradley was a stupid design...so was the British Warrior

If you have ever spent any time at all in a steel box, facing sideways, being bounced around, you will understand.


IMO, all APC's must allow for the dismounts to face forward and have the ability to look outside the vehicle...otherwise you have 8 soldiers puking their guts up and rapidly being incapable of combat.


...I wouldn't go so far as that either; at the Regimental level and up, the Soviets had some very flexible concepts, fully utilizing the professional skill of their officers. For example, their plan for divisional attack from the march was more fluid than our semi-equivalent, the "hasty attack" (and a lot more comprehensive as well). I think a more accurate description would be a "swarm", at face value it looks like nothing but a mass of armor and firepower but it's various spearheads are guided by some very clever tactical planning....
Click to expand...

I could be wrong on this but my understanding was that tactical doctrine was codified by the Soviet Army.

The regimental line of march was codified to the last soldier...no variation was permitted.


Basically the Soviet Army would pick pre-determined perceived points of weakness and throw everything against them....whichever broke would get the most support

Tactical initiative was frowned upon.

For all its rigidity, the USSR (ground forces) came up with a few awesome pieces of kit...

The AK series of assault rifle
The BMP series (great concept, poorly executed)
The BM-21
The Z-SU-234


Some people say the BTR series were good...they are wrong, if you've ever been in one you know how s**t they are.
 
Last edited:
During August and September 1941 the Nazi invading armies destroyed or captured 43 Soviet Russian divisions which with other Russian setbacks took 1,500,000 Russian troops out of the war from its first months. The Nazi forces then moved on to besiege Stalingrad, Leningrad and other major urban centers to include threatening Moscow.

Two idiot Russian horse generals mucked up and we know well what they did that summer. Worse however, the two old cavalry generals compounded matters by their years obstructing construction of the T-34 in significant and serious ways.

The military Luddite, Marshall Grigory Kulik used his position as commander of the Soviet Artillery Directorate to interfere in industrial production to the point that when Germany invaded, the Soviet Army was unprepared to respond. Kulik monkeyed arrogantly with the T-34 barrel which delayed its production. Kulik commanded the Leningrad Front while the Nazis blew through it to besiege Leningrad for three years. Kulik was an old horse cavalry Russian officer who despised machines.

Another old Russian horse officer who had it out against the T-34 and tanks in general was Marshall Semyon Budyonny. Budyonny got Stalin's favor when during the civil war Budyonny's Cossacks won major battles for the Reds. In the 1937 Purge Budyonny got the death sentence against the T-34 champion Marshal Mikhail Tukhachevsky which led to major setbacks to T-34 development and production (including the BT and T-26 predecessors of T-34).


Which enhances the fact the allies won World War II and they won it by forcing the Germans to fight on two fronts in Europe. At the Eastern Front practically the whole of the Soviet Russian Army launched successfully against roughly half the German Army. On the Western Front half the USA total armed force of the war launched with the Brits et al into Normandy against half the German Nazi armies. In the West the allies liberated Europe and drove into Germany. The formal allies of WW II were: USA, UK, USSR, France. The war against Japan in the Pacific-East Asia was a USA theater of operations almost entirely and as the fact of the matter. Soviet Russia swept in in August 1945 when the pickings were easy, such as Manchuria/Manchuko.

The best Russian generals were General Snow, General Ice, General Mud, General Winter. The four of 'em together have won every Russian war that Russia has won, which are anyway few and far between throughout history. As I'd posted already, the time of the Russian tank winning the moment in history is past, never to return, and that its time was a brief one besides.
 
Tangmo said:
During August and September 1941 the Nazi invading armies destroyed or captured 43 Soviet Russian divisions which with other Russian setbacks took 1,500,000 Russian troops out of the war from its first months. The Nazi forces then moved on to besiege Stalingrad, Leningrad and other major urban centers to include threatening Moscow.

Two idiot Russian horse generals mucked up and we know well what they did that summer. Worse however, the two old cavalry generals compounded matters by their years obstructing construction of the T-34 in significant and serious ways.

The military Luddite, Marshall Grigory Kulik used his position as commander of the Soviet Artillery Directorate to interfere in industrial production to the point that when Germany invaded, the Soviet Army was unprepared to respond. Kulik monkeyed arrogantly with the T-34 barrel which delayed its production. Kulik commanded the Leningrad Front while the Nazis blew through it to besiege Leningrad for three years. Kulik was an old horse cavalry Russian officer who despised machines.

Another old Russian horse officer who had it out against the T-34 and tanks in general was Marshall Semyon Budyonny. Budyonny got Stalin's favor when during the civil war Budyonny's Cossacks won major battles for the Reds. In the 1937 Purge Budyonny got the death sentence against the T-34 champion Marshal Mikhail Tukhachevsky which led to major setbacks to T-34 development and production (including the BT and T-26 predecessors of T-34).


Which enhances the fact the allies won World War II and they won it by forcing the Germans to fight on two fronts in Europe. At the Eastern Front practically the whole of the Soviet Russian Army launched successfully against roughly half the German Army. On the Western Front half the USA total armed force of the war launched with the Brits et al into Normandy against half the German Nazi armies. In the West the allies liberated Europe and drove into Germany. The formal allies of WW II were: USA, UK, USSR, France. The war against Japan in the Pacific-East Asia was a USA theater of operations almost entirely and as the fact of the matter. Soviet Russia swept in in August 1945 when the pickings were easy, such as Manchuria/Manchuko.

The best Russian generals were General Snow, General Ice, General Mud, General Winter. The four of 'em together have won every Russian war that Russia has won, which are anyway few and far between throughout history. As I'd posted already, the time of the Russian tank winning the moment in history is past, never to return, and that its time was a brief one besides.
Click to expand...


Actually Stalingrad wasn't besieged until 1942.


On day 1 of Operation Barbarossa, the Red Army lost more aircraft than the TOTAL number lost in the Battle of Britain, by Germany and the UK.

Yes, the Red Army in WWII (it wasn't re-named the Soviet Army until after the Great Patriotic War) had its leadership culled in Stalin's pre-war purges. But it still had generals who knew their stuff.

The defensive lines at Kursk for instance
The counter-attack in the Winter of 1942/43 around Stalingrad
Operation Bagration - the biggest defeat in German military history.

The T-34 was the best tank design in WWII....but because the Soviets didn't care about quality control, they were usually poorly built and equipped.

By the end of WWII, the Red Army was fielding tanks with 122mm guns and assault guns with 152mm guns. The Soviet Steamroller was unstoppable.
 
Last edited:
Rich2018 said:
Actually Stalingrad wasn't besieged until 1942.


On day 1 of Operation Barbarossa, the Red Army lost more aircraft than the TOTAL number lost in the Battle of Britain, by Germany and the UK.

Yes, the Red Army in WWII (it wasn't re-named the Soviet Army until after the Great Patriotic War) had its leadership culled in Stalin's pre-war purges. But it still had generals who knew their stuff.

The defensive lines at Kursk for instance
The counter-attack in the Winter of 1942/43 around Stalingrad
Operation Bagration - the biggest defeat in German military history.

The T-34 was the best tank design in WWII....but because the Soviets didn't care about quality control, they were usually poorly built and equipped.

By the end of WWII, the Red Army was fielding tanks with 122mm guns and assault guns with 152mm guns. The Soviet Steamroller was unstoppable.
Click to expand...


Actually Pearl Harbor wasn't bombed until December 7, 1941. It was on November 26 that the Japanese carrier task forces combined off Japan to depart as a fleet with their operations orders laid out on the commander's table. As to Stalingrad the Russian hero General Winter won that one -- yet another one in fact. He's almost impossible to beat.

The ending period of WW II were the good ol' dayze for Russia in the form of the Soviet Union. Red Army rolled across eastern Europe and grabbed land and populations elsewhere along its vast borders to the Pacific and across the Arctic. central Asia to Crimea and the Black Sea. Moscow's decision not to mass produce the T-14 further confirmed that the time had long since passed when Russian tanks won the day in history. It's also the case that the "Soviet Steamroller" was stopped cold in 1949 when the US formed and organized Nato. Indeed, Putin knows that as long as there is a Nato, Europe will remain independent and free of historical Russia and its Crazy Ivan Tyrant Dictators. It's instead the Russophiles who persist in their fantasies and who praise past Russian glories while ignoring that Soviet Russia was one of the four allies of the war (USSR, UK, USA, France).
 
Last edited:
Napoleon said:
The DOD is the only department or agency of government that has never been in compliance with Chief Financial Officers Act and has never passed a single audit. As far as any auditor has ever been able to assess - the DOD cannot account for at least 25% of its expenditures so they employ an army of people who’s job is to make **** up for their expense reports to the treasury. That’s on top of outright fraud. What we get from the DOD is certainly the most expensive military in the world. The best? Not when $700 billion buys you soldiers rummaging through garbage dumps on foreign soil for the equipment they need.
Click to expand...

More than $6 billion disappeared from the State Department while Hillary was guarding the hen house. Go figger.
 
Napoleon said:
The DOD is the only department or agency of government that has never been in compliance with Chief Financial Officers Act and has never passed a single audit. As far as any auditor has ever been able to assess - the DOD cannot account for at least 25% of its expenditures so they employ an army of people who’s job is to make **** up for their expense reports to the treasury. That’s on top of outright fraud. What we get from the DOD is certainly the most expensive military in the world. The best? Not when $700 billion buys you soldiers rummaging through garbage dumps on foreign soil for the equipment they need.
Click to expand...
And when exactly does that happen. Please be specific.
 
Last edited:
braindrain said:
And when exactly does that happen. Please be specific.
Click to expand...

Welllllllllllllllllll..........

It wasn't a garbage dump.

But after the Marines in Somalia got wind of a new toy in Mogadishu market place we sent in some gents to relieve the market of one 5-ton truck that was newer than what was in the motor pool. I suspect one of the other forces in country "lost" it and our Marines were more than happy to "gain by inventory"...

Just an interesting aside.
 
Rich2018 said:
Yes, I heard this term "operational maneuver group"

What did it really mean ?

At an operational level - what the Soviets called a "front" - it meant several armies focused on a single break through point.


The OMG was really an exploitation force once a breakthrough had been acheived

Again it all came down to concentration of forces and a willingness to exchange losses....and rely on superior numbers
Click to expand...

That's the advantage of the breakout, it transitions the fighting from intense set piece offense-vs-defense to a rapid penetration, in which casualties become lopsided in favor of the attacker.

Actually I always thought that NATO formations were more maneuverable than Soviet ones.
Click to expand...

Depends on what your definition of maneuverable is. To the Soviets, who's main objective was to breech as deeply as possible into the enemy rear, the Soviet units were well equipped to do so, since their units were not so heavily burdened with logistical support. NATO forces by comparison prefer to advance along a single unified front.

I could be wrong on this but my understanding was that tactical doctrine was codified by the Soviet Army.

The regimental line of march was codified to the last soldier...no variation was permitted.

Basically the Soviet Army would pick pre-determined perceived points of weakness and throw everything against them....whichever broke would get the most support

Tactical initiative was frowned upon.
Click to expand...

The advantage of such a doctrine is that it allows everyone to know what they are expected to do, rather than rely on junior leaders having to improvise on the spot. There are advantages and disadvantages to every doctrine.
 
It's not the first time somebody's tank got stuck in the mud. This Russian T-90 battle tank is on video however which makes it worth one's while to see and take in. It's sort of like watching a pig in a mudpit or perhaps a hippo struggling in it rocking and rolling. The best part about this mishap adventure is that it ended.

Or as Dirty Harry said, "A man's got to know his limitations." To include his machines of course.


Russian Main Battle Tank T-90 (1000HP) Got Stuck in the Mud








Best Moments and Incidents with RUSSIAN TANKs: A Compilation of T-90 Comedic Fails



In this compilation that includes some of the best T-90 fails we see when:
The T-90 operated by a Russian cowboy wannabe tried to load onto a flatbed truck.
T-90 hydroshock while crossing a simulated ford.
Hauling arse slides off a wet city street through a wall at a shopping center.
Speeding down a city wet road the T-90 takes out a lamp post.
T-90 fails to pull out of its snow cover.
Zipping at high speed across a field the T-90 went front over rear when it hit a rail in its path.
Video concludes with some views contained in the video above. The T-90 plays prominently in the compilation video.
 
American said:
Of course, you wouldn't believe it. What do we get out of DoD; the best military. What do we get out of the Welfare system; nothing. And the defense budget is a smaller percentage of the total budget, by about 50%, then it was after WWII, Korea and smaller than during Vietnam.
Click to expand...

Do you know what our Defense spending and our Welfare spending do have in common? They've both got their priorities screwed up.
 
Cordelier said:
Do you know what our Defense spending and our Welfare spending do have in common? They've both got their priorities screwed up.
Click to expand...

Maybe you should start a thread on that, and we can debate.
 
Spending money to defend Europe is absurd. The EU has over 3 times the population and over 10 times the wealth and industrial base compared to Russia. It'd be like the EU spending a hundred billion a year to defend the USA against Mexico.
 
Last edited:
joko104 said:
Spending money to defend Europe is absurd. The EU has over 3 times the population and over 10 times the wealth and industrial base compared to Russia. It'd be like the EU spending a hundred billion a year to defend the USA against Mexico.
Click to expand...


It's also worth pointing out that, without the malign interference of the US and UK, the EU and Russia would have much better relations, much more trade, much more economic inter-dependence.

The US is partly a victim of its own policy. It can't create tensions and exaggerate 'the Russian threat' without offering to spend money protecting Europe from this supposed threat.

But equally it calculates that a Europe which didn't see Russia as a threat would be much less supportive of the US's global foreign policy debacles. On balance, the US has always preferred European subservience, even though it means spending money on defending against an illusory threat.
 
Westphalian said:
It's also worth pointing out that, without the malign interference of the US and UK, the EU and Russia would have much better relations, much more trade, much more economic inter-dependence.

The US is partly a victim of its own policy. It can't create tensions and exaggerate 'the Russian threat' without offering to spend money protecting Europe from this supposed threat.

But equally it calculates that a Europe which didn't see Russia as a threat would be much less supportive of the US's global foreign policy debacles. On balance, the US has always preferred European subservience, even though it means spending money on defending against an illusory threat.
Click to expand...

TRANSLATION : Without the US and UK Russia would be able to blackmail and bully the EU with impunity.
 
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...

Finally Muscovite super - tank Armata reached putler´s tank divisions, PICTURE . reaction in USA/NATO?

DxWubF8WwAEL5iG.jpg
 
Litwin said:
Finally Muscovite super - tank Armata reached putler´s tank divisions, PICTURE . reaction in USA/NATO?

DxWubF8WwAEL5iG.jpg
Click to expand...

Again that is the t-34 from ww2 not the armata, will you please take your meds.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom