Gaijin and modern NATO armor

Machinery of War Discussion Ground Vehicle
636

and Russia’s tech is any better? Let me remind you that they have upgraded far more tank chassis from the 80s than produce new ones since the start of the war, alongside this most of their air force was built between 1984-2007 and has seen a very concerning lack of modernisation and ability to adapt to it’s failures, resulting in a vastly incompetent and highly inefficient body, one not desirable for a major power’s air force

The only other nato ‘adversary’ (out of russia, iran, north korea and China) that holds a candle to modern NATO tech is currently China, who has done an exceedingly good job at improving it’s military in reaction to the changing environment of modern combat.

1 Like
637

I was responding to somebody who talked about how old Russian kit is ,as I stated our kit in Ukraine is no newer,in many cases older. 1980s is forty years away.60 tons is still 60 tons as well when it comes to crossing country.

You need to remember that Ukraine is getting western gear that is forty year old hand me downs.USA is doing lend lease all over again.

Drones and mines are taking the tanks out there not other tanks.Ukraine is not War Thunder which was my original point.

638

I’m pretty sure that both Ukraine and Russia are currently leading in terms of understanding the nature of modern combat, at least when it comes to that theatre of war.
That shouldn’t be a surprise given that they are in situations where they’re forced to adapt to these cycles of innovation extremely rapidly, where the introduction of new weapon systems are only managing perhaps 2 months if not mere weeks of relevancy before their effectiveness is severely diminished.

Technological sophistication doesn’t seem to be the issue.

The issue in Europe right now is that there’s a massive lack of both hardware and ammunition.
The majority of European countries would’ve ran out of artillery ammunition a few months into this conflict, meanwhile Russia still has artillery superiority over Ukraine after years of this conflict, dispite Europe’s best efforts to overcome this disadvantage.

Europe is also extremely bureaucratic (read: slow) to adapt and even react with the urgency that is demanded.

5 Likes
639

I Don’t see how any ex-servicemen of NATO can have that much experience of what is happening in Ukraine and Russia.Its like watching the early years of ww2 again.Trying to stay game related but if Russias actions over the last two years mean that Ukraine can never join NATO then Putin has already won.He has that barrier that was all he ever wanted.The rest is just a sideshow.He got rid of Wagner too.Piont is if I am right then what the tanks are doing in that war are somewhat irrelevant as far as tactics go and its likely that Russias tanks are fine for their intended purpose.

1 Like
640

The MiG-25-esque chain of events is happening again in real time

4 Likes
641

It certainly is not the straight shooter that War Thunder is and it’s not the same war I fought in years ago.

One thing is for sure War Thunder players would entertain the imbalance of real warfare for one minute.

642

Everything we’ve sent (afaik) is from the early 1990s at the youngest, with all of the domestic armor packages and most of the long-range strike weapons not being sent.

2 Likes
643

Innovations in wartime during information era transmissions make little to no difference. The ultimate answer is that tanks on the front are still the best breakthrough machines, and thus are the most likely to be targeted or squawked about in channels dedicated to said machines.

1 Like
644

Iran’s modernization of the T72 is a decent enough upgrade. It just doesn’t have the air defense capabilities that China possesses.

I don’t underestimate China for that specific reason. They aren’t knock-off T-62s, they’re a whole different animal. Plus, their doctrine is more focused on trade routes in and near their waters. If they were to expand, their tanks are light enough that in the terrain they are expected to fight in, they’d rapidly have an advantage in most island fighting in limited numbers.

Might be another reason for the Army updating the stockpiles with the Booker.

1 Like
645

Oh, OK, let’s play that out.

No.

Obviously, since the first wave of tankists who were there did not know what they were doing, didn’t have any stomach to fight innocent people, and left. I’m frankly worried that some were unalived because of it.

That and logistics didn’t keep up for those few who had a grasp of what they were doing and supported the move.

1 Like
646

A USMC veteran on the M1A1 Abrams tank: “This tank was designed for assault!” - News - War Thunder

Particularly as a USMC tanker we have larger concerns with tank operations in unfavorable terrain. I would also like to point out that while the US Army said tank operations could not be done in Afghanistan the USMC deployed an entire company and effectively operated for years in Afghanistan.

Even in Ukraine using tanks is a lot more straightforward than operating in Afghanistan. I know their infrastructure is poor compared to most of Europe or the United States, but we operated in third world littoral countries with even worse infrastructure and terrain all the time with our tanks deployed with MEU’s.

You may choose not to believe me if you wish. shrug But, I don’t think that would be very wise.

3 Likes
647

LOL

Yeah, a lot of officers I worked with had a tendency to overblow enemy capabilities. Usually it was the guys that were trying to appear smart when they were average or guys that had toxic egos.

1 Like
648

If that intended purpose is launching turrets into space while incinerating their crew. Then yes. IF their purpose is to dominate the battlefield, then, uh, no.

3 Likes
649

Your implication that war goals cannot be obtained whilst significant losses are sustained seems rather short-sighted and fragile as a premise to me.

2 Likes
650

The US Army and the US Marine Corps are not the same thing,I know that from experience .The attitude between the two is a world apart.During Granby the British Army worked closely with the Marines and due to being similar in size the Marines were attentive to everything the British stated where as the US Army was so vast and pig headed it didn’t want to know.

Simply not true and not working out that way.Yours and my experience of tanks is not worth much over there from what I am hearing that was my point.

Afghanistan? How long ago? 10,20 30 years ago and with total Air superiority and against a bunch of farmers in Toyota’s? This is not Ukraine or Russia.

The UK ran no tanks in the Falkland Islands ,It was a foot sloggers war.
Maybe the Yanks would have moved into the Falklands, block paved it and built a McDonalds before moving in but not every country is the same is it?

651

Obtaining goals with UNNECESSARY losses is indicative of incompetence and poor equipment.

1 Like
652

There is an old saying. Amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics. The logistic situation in Ukraine is VASTLY simpler than in Afghanistan. Furthermore, tactically you are dealing with an enemy who is fighting conventional warfare vs. an enemy that was an insurgency embedded in the population. I’ll will take dealing with mud over dealing with those other issues every time.

Based on the level of incompetence I am seeing from the Russians, the situation is MUCH simpler in Ukraine. Let’s be real. If the Ukraine forces were a similar number of Marines, similarly equipped, we would be in Moscow sipping vodka and holding tribunals by now. This is not to knock the Ukrainians. They have done EXTREMELY well with how far behind they started this war. But a competent professional military force requires a lot of time and resources coupled with experience. Ukraine had weapons but that was about it. They didn’t have the resources to effectively train, a standing force with time to train, or any experience. I am impressed and as an American proud to support Ukraine and feel our support is used as well as possible given the limitations. As long as America continues to provide weapons to Ukraine they will win.

3 Likes
653

Never heard that one as the study of tactics is vital. How can it not be?

Nobody was sure how we would fare against the T72 in Kuwait or Iraq to start with so it was unknown territory. We had lived in our tanks prior to going as you may well have done so we were as confident as we could be.

Logistics was what won us Granby. That and total air superiority. The ability to be able to get a new engine deep inside enemy territory is something we had that they wont most likely have in Ukraine on one side and the ability to fit it and no be harassed from the air is another thing that both sides face.Yes we are talking drones ,either being spotted or directly attacked.

Tanks that weight 20 tons more than those they face ARE having issues over there.Fact.This is not something I considered before I heard about it.It is not something I made up for whatever reason.

Russian incompetence cannot be ignored you are right but both side are similar.
Nobody seems to be running the numbers over there.We are not seeing the kind of engagement we expected in a NATO/Wasaw Pact confrontation.

None of us have encountered the artillery they have in the current war and the ability to target it with such accuracy and with so much oncoming data from Satellites and drones.

I only know your back ground from what you have said and in some case on this forum that experience is second to none such as living in an M1 ,In my case Chally One but for the Ukraine it’s irrelevant.Those currently serving on both sides there are on a sad voyage of discovery out there,us old boys can only look on.

A a Brit I have no default anti Red sentiment.I take no sides ,I am not Ukrainian nor Russian.I have an impartial view point and comment on what is not what should be.

As for winning all I see is the US making billions and the Ukraine owing it to them,The body bags are not full of Americans and the US arms industry still makes a packet.That is the only win to be had here. Suprised you ca’t see that.

All the US is doing is try and agitate the enemy into declaring war on them like they did with Japan and Germany.All I see happening is Russian getting bored and dropping a small nuke on a small town in Ukraine and forcing the Ukrainians to flee back home before Kiev gets the big one.Game over ,Putin sets up the border where he wants and Ukraine can never join NATO.America gets the shivers and decides its population too comfortable for a nuclear exchange.Russia wins.

All I can say as far as this game is concerned is that is a game and if it is to work the tanks have to be equal in some way.Like reality its about who fires first.

654

I think you’re thinking of this too literally. It’s a well taught lesson in the USMC as I learned it in the infantry as well.

It’s an old saying but was popularized by a Marine Corps Commandant.

The ultimate lesson in the saying is not delegitimizing tactics and strategy, but showing the importance of logistics. Many leaders especially young officers and NCO’s do not weigh logistics heavily in mission planning. Instead focusing on execution of the battle plan. Yet this mistake is constantly repeated throughout the history of warfare, with it most recently being shown in Russia’s initial push into Ukraine. The advance was heavily crippled in many areas due to a lack of resupply.

2 Likes
655

I thank you for the explanation and I understand that the USMC is smaller and self reliant compared to the US Army as a result they are well respected by allied forces who worked with them. I’m not missing the point as I stressed how important logistics was in Iraq and how lucky we were to have the support we did.My whole point is that it is even difficult to sleep out in the open in Ukraine without a passing drone costing a few dollars dropping a grenade on your head.How about trying to do major mechanical work under those conditions? That is not something we had to worry about 30 years ago.Being bogged down out there for a short time is a death sentence .If heavy NATO tanks are getting stuck when lighter Russian equivalents are not then that is a big issue.
I think the biggest issue is though ,that despite what the public may think ,the top level US and UK commanders looked out for their troops at every conceivable level where as Russia does not appear do that.
Bringing the discussion back tot he game much of the footage I have seen is reminiscent of the game,single tanks or small formations with little support.
It is very odd.It is like Russia either don’t have the numbers we were lead to believe they have or they simply don’t want to deploy them in great numbers.

Overall I think tanks are not dead as such but the way they will be designed in the future will be different.They will need to evolve as they always have.No medals for that observation I guess.