Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
One of those decidedly unsexy things: No standardized pallets and containers, no forklifts suitable for field conditions. I'll confess that I laughed my rearside off the first time I saw a guy with full camo facepaint driving a forklift, but it's the sort of thing that multiplies a time saving every time something is unloaded and reloaded.
Surprising, in that the Russian doctrine used to be one of rapid advance. Which means you have to drag your logistics tail along. Making sense of these guys is enough to give you a headache.
By the late 80s we had them beat everywhere except being too tall and heavy
I've seen it theorized that it's the difference between offensive and defensive doctrine. If you expect to be on the offense, your tanks can be small and cramped, because the crew doesn't have to sit around waiting for the battle to arrive. If you're planning on a defensive battle, crew comfort becomes a larger issue. Also, the attacker has to supply along an axis that grows longer (if he's successful), where defenders will be right close to their supplies. So you want your tank to be smaller and lighter - less fuel, for one thing. And you can bring more of them forward.
Their T-72 might have had great specs, but logistics is still king: What can they actually get to the battlefield and keep operating for the entire war? And a tank does not operate in its own tank vs tank bubble of combat. If the opposition has better overall combat support, they are still likely to win even with inferior tank specs (as the Egyptians learned going against those Israelis).
They were still using a large number of T-54 tanks. I had a chance to sit in a T-54 that the Israelis had captured and given to the US (the Israelis had just sealed them up and shipped them over...they hadn't even removed the bodies). It sucked.
Most agree that the T-72 is not the top line tank in Ukraine or Russia in general usage - but reports are that Russia has lost about 25% of their total tanks - many just abandoned due to lack of fuel or stuck. An advanced aircraft is of little use if can't use it properly, can't fly it and is subject to destruction by a cheap missile. A great tank is of little use if driven in a column, no fuel or ammo available and is continuously being subjected to possible destruction by an antitank missile. Tactics, ability to supply and countermeasures are much more important than the equipment used. This is why Russia is doing poorly - they seem to have not taken care of the basics.
One thing that seems to work well are their medium range ballistic missiles. I don’t know how many they have but there is not much to stop them.
The US learned in Vietnam that unless you use nukes, you can't bomb a nation into submission. You haven't won until you can stand a 19-year-old with a rifle, unopposed, anywhere on their soil.
In other words, when you have a country where many of the best, brightest and most motivated are trying to LEAVE it creates a morale and talent vacuum.
Well, at least that is an IMPROVEMENT.
When I was in Russia in 1996 I was complaining to my translator about something with regards to the government.
She looked at me and said "What do you expect from a country that took the best and brightest and KILLED them.
The other "funny" thing is we were out for the weekend in a forested area and one of the Russians asked the Americans if we wanted to have a "shooting" contest. It was a professional forestry trip so both countries were represented by mid-career professional foresters.
In the Russian Far East there are lots of things that can kill you in the woods so even under the Soviets the Russian foresters were allowed to carry guns while working. I don't know of any American forester than carries a gun while working.
So I thought we were going to get our butts kicked. The Russians couldn't even hit the trees the targets were attached. Even Americans, without much firearms experience outshot the Russians. It was sad.
I remember thinking, damn, we would have won WWIII.
Most agree that the T-72 is not the top line tank in Ukraine or Russia in general usage - but reports are that Russia has lost about 25% of their total tanks - many just abandoned due to lack of fuel or stuck. An advanced aircraft is of little use if can't use it properly, can't fly it and is subject to destruction by a cheap missile. A great tank is of little use if driven in a column, no fuel or ammo available and is continuously being subjected to possible destruction by an antitank missile. Tactics, ability to supply and countermeasures are much more important than the equipment used. This is why Russia is doing poorly - they seem to have not taken care of the basics.
I think this war is doing to the main battle tank what the sinking of the Bismarck and Pearl Harbor did to the battleship. They were already vulnerable to the torpedo, or guided anti tank missile but then married to the aircraft or fire and for the tanks the newer forget guidance and/or cheap drones the gig was up.
New armor developed for the tanks in the 80s just saw and improvement in dual shaped charged warheads to defeat it and robots recognizing the tank are now attacking the weaker tops. While armored battleships soldiered on for the rest of WWII, only those near completion during the war were built and used only because they were ready.
I think this war is doing to the main battle tank what the sinking of the Bismarck and Pearl Harbor did to the battleship. They were already vulnerable to the torpedo, or guided anti tank missile but then married to the aircraft or fire and for the tanks the newer forget guidance and/or cheap drones the gig was up.
New armor developed for the tanks in the 80s just saw and improvement in dual shaped charged warheads to defeat it and robots recognizing the tank are now attacking the weaker tops. While armored battleships soldiered on for the rest of WWII, only those near completion during the war were built and used only because they were ready.
Stray thought: There could be a parallel to modern self-propelled artillery. The old-school M109 self-propelled tank-looking units planned to deal with counterbattery by being armored well enough to withstand a near-miss.
They have now given way to lighter-armored wheeled units like the French CAESAR and the Swedish ARCHER, who are networked and computerized, and whose survival strategy is shoot-and-scoot. ARCHER can park, lay the gun, fire 3 155mm rounds with high precision, stow the gun and be driving away before the first round impacts.
Could be a case of parallel evolution about to happen.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
