Russia's Armata tank falls victim to harsh economic reality

[Viacheslav]

The Armata Tank falls into this category. Yes, on paper, it's superior. But in production it isn't and the new Abrams M-1A2 SEP just barely over the other 2 top Western Tanks. They buy from the same vendors that Russia is blocked from buying from. Embargoes are a bitch, ain't they. I suggest you get your butts out of the Ukraine and Georgia. Then maybe you can have access to the good stuff and not have to roll yer own. You can't change the fact that you start from ground zero, it takes years and decades to catch up. Just reaching where you were before the embargo doesn't mean you caught up. The others that have pooled their resources just keep getting better. That goes for the 3 Western Tanks I mentioned. Just because you want it and put it on paper doesn't make it superior to the ones that already have it in service.

You do not understand the Russian military strategy, I can agree that, for example, the T-90 tank is worse than the Abrams M1A2 SEP, but the T-90 costs almost half as much, and also T-90 less worth in service. And the T-90 does not require high skills from the soldiers, T-90 can be repaired in the desert, and uses only "shit and sticks." In the Second World War, German tanks, for example the Tigers, were the "best" tanks of that time, but cost two or even more times than Soviet tanks, and required more expensive care and qualified personnel.
And another great example is the automatic Kalashnikov rifle, the AK is not the best automatic rifle and does not even take the second place, but the AK is cheap, reliable, unpretentious, easy to maintain, and probably ranks first as a mass automatic rifle

 

[cnm]

And the Armata will have to wait to do any real warring since it's numbers will be really low for quite some time.

Ah. Where is the real warring in which it will be deployed?

 

[Daryl Hunt]

The Armata Tank falls into this category. Yes, on paper, it's superior. But in production it isn't and the new Abrams M-1A2 SEP just barely over the other 2 top Western Tanks. They buy from the same vendors that Russia is blocked from buying from. Embargoes are a bitch, ain't they. I suggest you get your butts out of the Ukraine and Georgia. Then maybe you can have access to the good stuff and not have to roll yer own. You can't change the fact that you start from ground zero, it takes years and decades to catch up. Just reaching where you were before the embargo doesn't mean you caught up. The others that have pooled their resources just keep getting better. That goes for the 3 Western Tanks I mentioned. Just because you want it and put it on paper doesn't make it superior to the ones that already have it in service.

You do not understand the Russian military strategy, I can agree that, for example, the T-90 tank is worse than the Abrams M1A2 SEP, but the T-90 costs almost half as much, and also T-90 less worth in service. And the T-90 does not require high skills from the soldiers, T-90 can be repaired in the desert, and uses only "shit and sticks." In the Second World War, German tanks, for example the Tigers, were the "best" tanks of that time, but cost two or even more times than Soviet tanks, and required more expensive care and qualified personnel.
And another great example is the automatic Kalashnikov rifle, the AK is not the best automatic rifle and does not even take the second place, but the AK is cheap, reliable, unpretentious, easy to maintain, and probably ranks first as a mass automatic rifle

I think I have a pretty good idea on the mindset of both sides. Propaganda is important to make the other side think you have something you don't. The Bounder is one the the US bit and bit hard on. So the US returned the favor with the "Star Wars" and the USSR bit so hard it destroyed itself. There were other factors involved but Star Wars was just one of the reasons. The Armata Tank is one of those things right now. And so is the SU-57, 41 and 37. But the SU-35 is real.

I won't argue against anything you said about the AK-47. Been on the receiving end of that little monster. In the hands of a well trained and experienced troop, there are better assault rifles out there. But in the hands of the "Peoples" Soldier than the AK is the best choice. This is why it's become the weapon of choice with many outfits that don't have the time and resources to finely hone their troops training. The AK is simple and works while it lacks in accuracy, it makes up with the fact it can fire after being drug through the mud and muck.

 

[Viacheslav]

So the US returned the favor with the "Star Wars" and the USSR bit so hard it destroyed itself. There were other factors involved but Star Wars was just one of the reasons.

Being a former citizen of the USSR, I can say that "Star Wars" did not have any impact on the collapse of the USSR and moreover the role of the West was minimally almost zero in this process. The USSR was doomed from the very beginning and could live only under the "firm hand", as it was during the reign of Stalin and a little during Khrushchev's time.

But in the hands of the "Peoples" Soldier than the AK is the best choice. This is why it's become the weapon of choice with many outfits that don't have the time and resources to finely hone their troops training. The AK is simple and works while it lacks in accuracy, it makes up with the fact it can fire after being drug through the mud and muck.

Yes, the USSR Army was called the "People's Army" and most of the weapons were developed on the basis of this fact.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Being a former citizen of the USSR, I can say that "Star Wars" did not have any impact on the collapse of the USSR and moreover the role of the West was minimally almost zero in this process. The USSR was doomed from the very beginning and could live only under the "firm hand", as it was during the reign of Stalin and a little during Khrushchev's time.


You were told what they wanted you to hear. The same goes even today. If you spoke out you might just disappear. Like today under Putin. Of course, with him, a little nasty cocktail may be secretly introduced.


Yes, the USSR Army was called the "People's Army" and most of the weapons were developed on the basis of this fact.

The USSR stopped having a Peoples Army right after WWII. This is why they have upgraded to the AK-74

 

[Balancer]

The Ministry of Defense of Russia ordered the delivery of the first T-14 Armata tanks to the troops

The Ministry of Defense of Russia signed a contract for the delivery of the first Armat tanks to the troops for testing in the test operation format, the official website of the Russian military department said on December 26, quoting the statement of the Commander-in-Chief of the Ground Forces, Colonel-General Oleg Salyukov.

According to Oleg Salyukov, at the moment defense and industrial enterprises are working on debugging and harmonizing all systems, units and assemblies of the new combat vehicle, and the results of the pilot operation in the troops are necessary to prepare the serial production of the newest tank.

"Now the enterprises of the military-industrial complex conduct debugging of" Armata ", its adjustment and coordination of all units and units of the tank. The work is carried out in accordance with the planned deadlines, "Oleg Salyukov said.

 

[Balancer]

And the T-90 does not require high skills from the soldiers

Already at the end of the Soviet Union, the task was to develop a new army helicopter. In the design office of Kamov came the representatives of the ground forces and appealed to the then head of the bureau, Sergei Mikheev. And they said: "The degree of automation of a new helicopter should be such that we put a soldier - and he would fly". Mikheev later recalled: "Apparently, we have become such expressions of persons that they decided to significantly soften the demands: Okay, with the soldier we clearly got excited - agree to the sergeant-super-term ... "

(I do not know how correctly translated into English the title of sergeant, who remains to serve after compulsory recruitment, Google translated this as a "sergeant-super-term")

Therefore, the helicopter was developed extremely simple in piloting, with an automated sighting system, very cheap. But then the USSR disintegrated, many cheap helicopters that were available to little qualified pilots became unnecessary. And in the series instead of a large number of Ka-50 went a small amount of expensive two-seat version of the Ka-52.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

And the T-90 does not require high skills from the soldiers

Already at the end of the Soviet Union, the task was to develop a new army helicopter. In the design office of Kamov came the representatives of the ground forces and appealed to the then head of the bureau, Sergei Mikheev. And they said: "The degree of automation of a new helicopter should be such that we put a soldier - and he would fly". Mikheev later recalled: "Apparently, we have become such expressions of persons that they decided to significantly soften the demands: Okay, with the soldier we clearly got excited - agree to the sergeant-super-term ... "

(I do not know how correctly translated into English the title of sergeant, who remains to serve after compulsory recruitment, Google translated this as a "sergeant-super-term")

Therefore, the helicopter was developed extremely simple in piloting, with an automated sighting system, very cheap. But then the USSR disintegrated, many cheap helicopters that were available to little qualified pilots became unnecessary. And in the series instead of a large number of Ka-50 went a small amount of expensive two-seat version of the Ka-52.

View attachment 169757

One thing that you can't take away from Russia is the ability to build one hell of a Military Helo.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

The Ministry of Defense of Russia ordered the delivery of the first T-14 Armata tanks to the troops

The Ministry of Defense of Russia signed a contract for the delivery of the first Armat tanks to the troops for testing in the test operation format, the official website of the Russian military department said on December 26, quoting the statement of the Commander-in-Chief of the Ground Forces, Colonel-General Oleg Salyukov.

According to Oleg Salyukov, at the moment defense and industrial enterprises are working on debugging and harmonizing all systems, units and assemblies of the new combat vehicle, and the results of the pilot operation in the troops are necessary to prepare the serial production of the newest tank.

"Now the enterprises of the military-industrial complex conduct debugging of" Armata ", its adjustment and coordination of all units and units of the tank. The work is carried out in accordance with the planned deadlines, "Oleg Salyukov said.

That means that the Armata will be ready for full production within 5 years. That is, unless they treat it like at least one other Heavy Tank in the past and decide that they don't need it. I believe that Russia does need it. The problem is, in 5 years, even the slow moving US is going to field a new Tank that surpasses the M1A3 by quite a margin. Another case of Russia moves the goal post and the US lengthens the playing field.

 

[Balancer]

One thing that you can't take away from Russia is the ability to build one hell of a Military Helo.

In the USSR there was such a popular song of the bard Yuri Vizbor, which many sang as a folk song, without knowing the author. There were lyrics like this - "But we are making rockets. And we covered the Yenisei. And also in the field of ballet we are ahead of the whole planet

 

[Balancer]

The problem is, in 5 years, even the slow moving US is going to field a new Tank that surpasses the M1A3 by quite a margin.

I do not think that Russia is going to arrange a tank duel with America It is highly unlikely that Armata will face on the battlefield with the Abrams in the near future. In addition, Armata is not a preserved sculpture. This is a new platform on which you can make many different models.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

The problem is, in 5 years, even the slow moving US is going to field a new Tank that surpasses the M1A3 by quite a margin.

I do not think that Russia is going to arrange a tank duel with America It is highly unlikely that Armata will face on the battlefield with the Abrams in the near future. In addition, Armata is not a preserved sculpture. This is a new platform on which you can make many different models.

They could if they were to buy the M1A themselves. But, wait, they can't do that either due to embargo. Meanwhile, we might be able to get ahold of a Armata after they are exported for testing. Wait, the Russians aren't stupid and actually export a fully functional Armata, right? I can't wait for the SU-35 to be exported to someone other than the terribles. We do have a nice collection of Mig-29s that are tested on a regular basis making the Mig-29 pretty much worthless against the US Fighters.

No, your assumption if incorrect. Russia and the US would find it quite bad to fire on each other. But 3rd party countries may do just that. Think of Syria and Israel going at it if the Russians sell Syria the Armatas. I suspect that Syria will also get a few SU-35s later on. As it stands now, militarily, Israel has top shelf items and have regularly mopped the floor with Syria.Of course, the Syrians currently have a few of the T-90s and tons of updated T-72s. Israel currently has countless M1As and some upgraded M-60s. The M-60 upgraded are equal to the T-72. But the T-90 isn't up to par with the M-1A2 so it's up to Syria to provide their own mops and rags.

 

[Viacheslav]

You were told what they wanted you to hear. The same goes even today.

I saw everything with my own eyes, and can repeat that the USSR collapsed, because of internal reasons.

The same goes even today. If you spoke out you might just disappear. Like today under Putin. Of course, with him, a little nasty cocktail may be secretly introduced.

Putin's regime is authoritarian but not totalitarian as it was in the USSR

The USSR stopped having a Peoples Army right after WWII. This is why they have upgraded to the AK-74

[/QUOTE]
This is not true, the army of the USSR has always been the "People's Army", mostly part of the army were conscripts who served two years in the army or three years in the Navy (since 1967).

 

[Daryl Hunt]

You were told what they wanted you to hear. The same goes even today.

I saw everything with my own eyes, and can repeat that the USSR collapsed, because of internal reasons.

The same goes even today. If you spoke out you might just disappear. Like today under Putin. Of course, with him, a little nasty cocktail may be secretly introduced.

Putin's regime is authoritarian but not totalitarian as it was in the USSR

The USSR stopped having a Peoples Army right after WWII. This is why they have upgraded to the AK-74

This is not true, the army of the USSR has always been the "People's Army", mostly part of the army were conscripts who served two years in the army or three years in the Navy (since 1967).[/QUOTE]

During the decades, the US had conscription. All the way until 1973 but I would hardly call it a "Peoples" Army. And the M-16 was adopted in the middle 60s. We trained our conscription solders like they were regulars. Time was taken. Unlike the USSR (and maybe Russia today) the US actually equipped the troops with enough uniforms and weapons for them to operate. Yes, there were other shortfalls but during a battle, our troops were well equipped. I can remember hearing that the way that a USSR Sgt got replacement uniforms was to take them from the new recruits. Even today, while our troops are somewhat under paid, the Russian Forces are woefully underpaid. The Russian Army is just too corrupt. If corruption is accepted by the "People" then yes, it can be called a "Peoples" Army. But it's not. Push comes to shove, the driving force is fighting for the Motherland or Nationalism. Having a Draft doesn't mean a People's Army.

This is why the Russians have replaced their AK-47 with a more modern AK-74 which is a respectable weapon but requires better training. The AK-47 is more suited for the rag tag insurgents and terrorists these days. There are just too many better choices for Professional Armies.

 

[Balancer]

During the decades, the US had conscription. All the way until 1973 but I would hardly call it a "Peoples" Army.

There is a big difference. In the USSR almost all served in the army. If a man did not serve in the army, it always caused surprise and questions. And in the United States, in the conscription period, as I understand it, a relatively small number of Americans served.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

During the decades, the US had conscription. All the way until 1973 but I would hardly call it a "Peoples" Army.

There is a big difference. In the USSR almost all served in the army. If a man did not serve in the army, it always caused surprise and questions. And in the United States, in the conscription period, as I understand it, a relatively small number of Americans served.

I was a legal draft dodger. I was technically drafted for the Army or Marines but opted to quickly join the AF. I had no choice as did many poor to middle class 18 and 19 year olds. You heard the motto "Uncle Sam Wants You". It was really, "Uncle Sam's Got You" if you couldn't find a deferment fast enough. And that took money. In the USSR, the rich could also buy their kids out of military service as well. Case in point, Trumps Bone Spurs. Or Clinton's college deferments. The Rich had a choice, everyone else was drafted.

 

[Balancer]

The Rich had a choice, everyone else was drafted.

That is, in the US the conscription was all-out? Then I'm sorry, I did not know about it, thought that a limited number of men were called into the army.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

The Rich had a choice, everyone else was drafted.

That is, in the US the conscription was all-out? Then I'm sorry, I did not know about it, thought that a limited number of men were called into the army.

WE used a lottery system. The higher the numer the less likely you were to be drafted. But depending on that was not wise. In the higher population states a draft number of 100 meant there was a chance you wouldn't be drafted. But from a lower population state, 100 or even 200, you made arrangements to either find that derferment or head off to the Military. If my family were financially better off, I was going to join the Colorado Air Force National Guard. Fat good that would have done. In South East Asia, they worked us past the dangerous point and the Colorado National Guard was sent to relieve us. I guess I was meant to be there no matter what.

What ironic, after I signed the enlistment papers and was sent to Denver for processing I found out that I was not fit for the Army, Marines or Navy due to some minor health issues. But the Air Force didn't have those restriction and the Air Force didn't draft. If it weren't for bad luck, I wouldn't have any luck at all

 

[Balancer]

WE used a lottery system.

So after all, what percentage of Americans then served in the army? In the USSR, even with those who avoided military service, almost 100% actually served.

By the way, a funny skew happened. By the time of the collapse of the Soviet Union, the prestige of service in the army had fallen very much. A lot of hazing, a loss of the sense of the existence of the army, the destruction of ideology. People tried to avoid service in the army by any means. In the 1990s, hell broke out in the army. It came literally to the point of starvation. My brother-in-law returned after service in the navy as a walking skeleton. Later it became a little better, but the army was still a very unpopular place. But in the last 10 years the situation has changed dramatically. Despite the fact that the army is 50% contractual, and 50% draft, many people not only began to strive for service in the army, but it comes to the point of absurdity. Some are willing to pay bribes, only to be drafted into the army

 

[Daryl Hunt]

WE used a lottery system.

So after all, what percentage of Americans then served in the army? In the USSR, even with those who avoided military service, almost 100% actually served.

By the way, a funny skew happened. By the time of the collapse of the Soviet Union, the prestige of service in the army had fallen very much. A lot of hazing, a loss of the sense of the existence of the army, the destruction of ideology. People tried to avoid service in the army by any means. In the 1990s, hell broke out in the army. It came literally to the point of starvation. My brother-in-law returned after service in the navy as a walking skeleton. Later it became a little better, but the army was still a very unpopular place. But in the last 10 years the situation has changed dramatically. Despite the fact that the army is 50% contractual, and 50% draft, many people not only began to strive for service in the army, but it comes to the point of absurdity. Some are willing to pay bribes, only to be drafted into the army

You described something similar here. When the economy is strong, the Military has to beg for people. But when it's sour the Military can get very picky since the available unemployed workers are so high. Right now, the Army can't get enough. But the economy balances things out. Contrary to the Orange Orangutan in office, there are still way too many unemployed and under employed people. We get lied to as well and some actually believe it. But the Baby Boomers (born 1946 to 1965) are electing to take early retirement as it pays better than working some crappy job. This makes the employment rate look better.

To answer your question, 7.3% of the total US Population has served or are serving in the military