The US' military is built for global power projection, the Russian military is built for overwhelming ground war capability in Europe. Different priorities.
I agree - no one is invading Russia and taking Moscow. Not without extreme force. The US could never do it. NATO never could do it. Perhaps I if the world including China formed one fighting force, with tens of millions of ground troops then she would fall. But realistically no one can or ever will take Moscow and that is what the Russians clearly focus on. Not enough money for their navy and power projection- they don’t even have an aircraft carrier. Well a useful aircraft carrier anyway.
When legislature wants to keep the costs down, it is often easier to get funding for upgrades over new models; even if the "upgrade" ends up replacing 80% of the vehicle with modern parts.
Many governments fall for what I'd like to call the "theseus's ship fallacy". If, over it's voyage, a ship's parts have all been replaced, as in in hull, deck, sails etc. in repairs, is it still the same ship? All new wood is all new ship, right? Or maybe not? Though one has to consider the fact that most legislations and budgets are planned for a 4 year term (elections. Ahem, russia is different here.). A brand new tank may need 10, 15, 20 years or even more of conceptualising, developing, prototyping, testing and building. Many governments, for better or worse (worse if you ask me in terms of armament aquisition, but noone ever asks me anyway so nvm) don't operate on these timescales. "So modernising Tank model 3 with ERA takes 18 months but a new tank needs 180 (one hundred and eighty [!])? Yeah okay let's reuse the late 70s to mid 80s model again for the N-th time." (most governments prolly in 2038 AD)
@@LowSkillSurvival the game of developing modern tanks and 6th generation aircraft is balancing feature and mission creep. Looking at the advancing of Semiconductors IaW Moores Law and some other paradigms we have achieved numerous technological leaps in a short span with tech and integrated circuit capabilities & limitations. So the systems we develop for tomorrow in the year 2010 or 2015 are going to report possible relative deficiencies with bleeding edge stuff out the skunkworks. There is a game theory with funding, technology, manufacturing agreements, politics, economics, need vs necessity, testing, and overall feasibility. Its easier to look at the last 50 years and say what is and will be effective; which is not true for even the next 25 years. At which point we must resign to studying peer designs and breakthroughs.
No, mostly not. The reason is that equipment that is currently operated has an existing, invested lobby. New programs require new bidding, and means the company that is currently milking the govt might not get the contract. So it's in the interest of the companies on top to avoid new replacement programs. The company builds a lobby that protects the program and fights for upgrades instead. One way that you are partially correct is the degree to which some services keep utterly failing to develop a good new project. For instance the Army has been unable to replace the Bradley and they've been trying with failed programs for 20 years. Congress is fed up with this. It's cheaper to just upgrade existing equipment, even if its more expensive in the short term, because the cost of failed R&D adds up. It's less to do with getting funding for new programs than it is to do with the Pentagon repeatedly failing. Look at the LCS and the Zumwalt, and these frigates that will cost as much as a Burke (before its over with). The Navy can't develop a cost effective surface combatant any more. So the navy may have to just upgrade and keep building Burkes.
@@hagdore and by the brave Ukrainian men and women using advanced but easy to carry and use AT systems and drones. But it must be around time to try cutting one of the most toward Russian armies around Kiev off. Most likely the one to the west would be easiest and most useful.
@@ceetee9659 But Ukraine should have gambled and moved for the Ivankiv road crossing. That would have made the whole army get cut off and would have made it impossible to pull out units.
The USA military is about concentration of force and air power, not overwhelming superiority in numbers on the ground. Different strategies. Hopefully we’ll never find out whether the Russian or US doctrine is used to better effect.
Yup, the idea with the US's stealth, guided munitions and intelligence infrastructure is to minimize direct fighting but instead to penetrate deep beyond the front lines, strike vital points like command and supply infrastructure, and return while attracting minimal resistance. This worked well against a national army - like in Desert Storm - but less well against irregular insurgent forces.
@Glass. wow wowwee waaa......USA defeated a bunch of countries that were 1/100th their size in GDP and military power/budget? Don't think USA has really won any war since wwii,let alone an enemy her own size. And even WWII was questionable......I mean USA didn't do much in the eastern front......they barely even landed in Normandy until like June 1944,just one year before the end of the war,when the Nazi war Machine was more or less crushed and broken by the Soviets...... Pathetic. And Japan let's be honest is a questionable power. Japan's land army was extremely weak compared to the major Western powers and most of her army was deployed in China fighting the Chinese....roughly 2.6 million Japanese to be exact....... That means the Japanese that faced the Americans were only a tiny proportion of the overall forces....man the largest battle between USA and Japan in Iwo Jima barely 70,000 Japanese troops and 40,000 volunteers took part in it..... That was laughable.....that is barely a skirmish. U know how many Germans fought the russians in Barbarossa in 1942?nearly 3.4 million Germans Vs 5 or 6 million russians. All in all all USA really did was fight a bunch of aircraft carrier battles against the Japanese.
Worse. Russia is a land power with a huge land border. Protecting the US borders requires minimal military troops (actually close to none, since the US-Canadian border is the longest demilitarized border in the world and Mexico's military and official policy is purely defensive). The same can not be said for Russia. They have to keep a good chunk of troops stationed along the Chinese border.
As a former russian soldier, I would say that russian technical preparation is very low. Bad equipment. In this video he said a number of 3 k tanks.. You can easily reduce it to 1,5 k. At least. This tanks is just on paper. In a reality there is a very bad technical condition. And corruption. If Ukraine had more air forces in the beginning, this war would be over by now.
It’s what the US learned. You don’t need overwhelming numbers if you can get sufficient forces to where they’re needed when they need to be there. 1000 tanks stuck in the mud miles away from their target with air defence but no air support, are worth less than well trained infantry delivered to exactly where they need to be and covered by highly intergrated air support.
But the USA doesn't have to worry about invasions, they invade. Russia has a big territory so it needs more units to be scattered around for protection.
Big difference in this scenario is Russia fighting in back yard, US fighting an ocean away. The NATO allies would have to make their contribution or the US will to fight wears down in a protracted conflict. Russia just has to fight to a stalemate not a victory. But it is more productive for everyone not to fight and just worry about their own part of the world without bothering others.
There is no western European country that can mass its military to go fight Russia. There is also no reason for it. There may be a willingness from govs, but they are aware that this would mean instant civil war in their own countries, as many people will side with Russia, starting uprising all over Europe. Their continuous anti Russia propaganda hardly convinced anyone. If anything, you will not find many people IN Europe that want another war in Europe. We've had more than enough. So if the US wants a war, they can invite Russia in their own country and fight it there.
@@slenderman27490 There´s always a difference between being send halfway round the globe to fight people and being attacked on your own homeland. Europe will fight hard against an invasion from the East. If you mean attacking Russia just to secure US dominance, then yes - that would not be popular
Remember, a typical Taliban fighter in Afghanistan, like a typical Viet Cong guerrilla fighter in Vietnam during the Indochina war, carries less than $50 worth of arms & ammunition. 🤔 For plain truths, pls read my insightful multi-pages 'Ole Fella' comment on TH-cam at.., "China-US tensions: A closer look at the Five-Eyes intelligence partnership / CGTN"
It's crazy how wide the gap between the USA and everyone else has become thanks to Ukraine. I don't think anyone would even bother comparing russia to the US anymore.
eh, i wouldn't want to test that theory out. We haven't fought a conventional war against anyone since we invaded Iraq 20 years ago, and even longer if you're looking at a serious fight. And our training these days tend to be focused a lot on diversity training and the like, to the point that a report on the navy getting feedback from current and newly retired sailors a year or so back overwhelmingly found that our capabilities had suffered, our personnel were getting more training on SJW bs then on how to actually do their jobs. Just remember that in WW1, all the great powers was convinced they had an invincible army because they hadn't seriously fought each other since the Napoleonic wars, and were used to rolling over less technologically advanced people in Africa and Asia. We're in a similar situation today I think.
@@magmat0585 Wouldn't the same be true for everyone else? The only difference being the US has actually fought a conventional war in the past decades, and has more military budget than the rest of the world combined.
@@magmat0585 a stupid point of view. Inclusiveness doesn't ruin an army, corruption does. That's why the Russian army is a joke. The US army will do just fine until they let corrupt management in without scrutiny. Give the US another Trump for 20 years so that they have enough time to replace all the generals with people who would kiss his ass and they might decline like Russia, but allowing people of different backgrounds in who actually want to be soldiers to start from the lower ranks and work their way up will only strengthen the army.
@@dominuslogik484 Ukraine has S-300 anti-aircraft missile systems which will turn Russian jets and bombers into mince meat. (Russia would do the same to US jets and bombers also with their S-400 systems which are state of the art)
@@RobVollat anti radiation missiles outrange SAM weapon systems and guide based on radar signals which means the s400 is unlikely to be effective since they will need to keep them offline until they know an aircraft is overhead which by then it's too late.
@@RobVollat not realy..read the comments bellow, every weapon ha sa countermeasure. Especialy by the west which is far more sophisticated than fucking russia lol
I wonder how Russia is looking to modernize it's military now that they're being sanctioned into the stone age and suffered quite significant asset loss.
Strategically this war has been pretty bad for Russia. Not only has Russia demonstrated how insanely incompetent their leadership is, but also how bad their logistics and training is.
Don't be fooled. The Russian military maybe falling woefully short of their expectations, but the economic damage caused by sanctions is grossly overstated by western media. The Ruble has only fallen by about 30%, and they are responding to this by forger closer ties with China, the largest manufacturer in the world. Unless China is likewise sanctioned the Russian economy is going to be just fine. In fact the economic fallout of all of this is likely to hurt western economies far more.
@@Aethgeir I am sure Putin will be super happy to kiss the feet of his new master Xi Jinping who he would be 100% dependent on. Hopefully Putin is prepared to become a puppet of China.
@@Aethgeir I mean to quote Ping when asked whether they are allies; no, we do business with one another but we also do business with Ukraine and right now business is poor. Russia should find a diplomatic solution and stop this war.
Drones the ukrainians have shot down seem to be made with cheap chinese and civilian grade technology. Russian weapons tech is so far behind Nato 🤣 Nato will propably cripple the entire movement of russians troops in the first hours of war, as russian troops are extremely dependent on railways and trains to move troops and equipment. Nato missiles propably gnna hit the railway's at critical junctions and such, forcing trains to stop and making them easy targets aswell.
No, no one is going to invade Russia.They have enough firepower to stop any invader.Russia would be well served to concentrate on economic performance and winning the support of their nation with good policies.Raise the standard of living for ordinary Russians rather than seek even greater military power. No Western country or alliance is going to attack Russia.
As a former M1 tank crewman, we learned that the Soviets/Russians where going to bomb the shit out of us for approximately 1 hour prior to an assault. That's alot of fucking rounds down range
funny comparison is that the Germans during ww2 where supprised that after american carpet bombed them the americans usually didnt follow up with an attack something they got used to dealing with the soviets.
"Sheer numbers and hardware may not be enough" Mr Binkov, truer words have never been spoken in light of the Russian struggles in Ukraine. Great video, almost prescient
The russian strategy is probably best for them since they a land power that mostly has to concern itself with its own backyard, and their syrian naval and air base helps them plug most of the former gaps in force projection to places oversees where there are also russian interests. And by maintaining a stupidly large motor pool, like more stuff then they could ever use themselves in an all out war, they have an almost limitless supply of spare equipment to replace combat losses for proxies like the syrian government and the LNA. The US by comparison, is half the world away from most of its foreign interests, so more emphasize on extensive expedionary capability and air power are required to protect them.
That's the thing, it isn't maintained, the reality is Russia could field maybe half of these numbers and even fewer crews would be trained to anywhere close to US standards. Not that Russia and the US will ever fight save Russia going crazy and invading a NATO country.
@@drawingdead9025 from what i see us forces are no more trained or experienced than RU. you seem to have forgotten the 20 year slaughter on its own troops that the US endured, as well as bringing in flak like the aussies and uk to do dirty work. during the russo afghan war they were remarked as being hardcore, whether they were directly experienced or not, and that's not to say us soldiers aren't, but these are the same twats that told themselves to burn tires and base wastes with jet fuel. creating a festival of dioxins to engulf the camps almost 24/7, which now has bit the US vets in the ass now alot of them are being diagnosed and dying from cancers because of that very notion of burning waste stupidly. one of the most expensive and versatile armies, could not remove or get rid of waste in a efficient and most importantly safe manner. sorry i went off track a little. i dont know why generally Americans think Russians are less educated and less experienced in some cases. being sat in a base getting skin damage from desert sun, waiting for drone strikes that every single time cause casualties for civilians. is not exactly experience and especially not wise to use as a comparison for experience in my opinion. there is a reason USA does not want war with Russia, not just because its stupid and will not bring any factor of progress in life, but the fact they know they cannot outmatch them in any advantage sadly. usa propaganda is very good. this isnt for me to defend russia, because they are so much more inconsistent, but you forget russians are more patriotic to there nation than even americans are.
@@Dockhead We can agree to disagree but have to point out one outrageous statement you made: '...but the fact they know they cannot outmatch them in any advantage'. Come on man, there is literally no military area (save maybe high-speed anti-ship missiles) where Russia clearly has an advantage. No solider would trade a M1 tank for a T72/80/90, no pilot would trade a F-22(or even a F15) for any SU or MIG, etc.
@@drawingdead9025 sorry i meant for 'every' advantage more accurately. you would not initiate war or compose war due to the fact of 1 possible advantage. this isn't Vietnam, and that's a perfect example of a higher power nation thinking its tactic can work without notion of the enemy. Vietnam was an onslaught, and a catastrophe of chemical warfare that i say never got justice. sure thats the past, but my point stands. m1 abrams have had holes punched in them from rpg's mate. like i say usa propaganda is so infiltrated into society, i remember the rumours said that the m1 and its variations had up to 600mm of physical protective Armor blah this blah that. it clearly doesn't or at least the first few base models, again used in the afghan/Iraq insertion your just cherry picking examples for weaponry against weaponry etc and ill not debate into that as its a rabbit hole im not interested spending time in sadly. and you forget environment, which id argue is more important to a role and action of any said vehicles over its components of use like speed or optics or firepower etc. again this is not me defending Russia at any angle. its just me realistically exposing why usa preaches its the better enemy whilst all trying to literally not ever engage in any conflict with them. Russian patriots are a whole other level of the drum bashed heads of us soldiers. and the us guys are some tough sons of bitches ill give them that. reason USA wont even push Iran to pysical conflict is because they know Iran is the highest stocked prepared AA wielding nation in the east specifically with a mix of old and new US and RU AA. so they create sanctions and controversy politically so that these multi million stupid costing jets dont get shot out of the sky in there first exertions, before the next contract can be constructed to flog even more money out of the Americans in some Israeli joint operation.
Seems like for the last 30 years Russian quartermasters have been selling all the new motor oil, grease, and tires on the black market. Rotten tires and blown engines have crippled their operation.
Overall, I think the reason why the Russian Armed Forces is stuck in time is primarily because of its open geography and the lack of consistent economic health to support the complete outfitting of its ground forces with modern equipment that is capable of delivering precision & firepower without losing its intensity and power. Setting some of Moscow's questionable organization and command arrangements aside, Russian geography has been a nightmare for Moscow since the Czarist times with the open geographical terrain in the West that prevents effective defensives to be established without high costs. A single breach into Russian territory could often result in disaster if there are no units in depth plug it. From that perspective, it honestly doesn't surprise me that Russia maintains such a massive ground force. Furthermore, given the lack of long periods of stable economic growth since the 1990s (I'm taking like consistent 2-3 decades growth) it'll be next to impossible for Moscow to completely overhaul its entire armed forces to the modern era that allows for formations to be reduced brigades/corps structure that allows flexibility, ease of logistical management, and command and control effectiveness. Therefore, it has to largely maintain its regiment/division/army structure to ensure it still has the combat and firepower to match the West. This can be seen with how despite the development of advanced platforms like T-72B3Ms, T-90AMs, T-14 Armata, and etc. only a small handful of elites units in the Western Military District gets them. This could also explain why Russia is so big into hybrid warfare strategies and measures against the West in attempts to re-establish its influence globally and in its near abroad.
If Russia had a stable economic model for itself and for its phere of influence those countries maybe woudl not turn to the west and the whole situation would not be like that. But fact is, there is no growth model for those vassal nations only a model to hold their leaders in power somehow as we could seen it in balearus and kazaztan right now. Russia totally failed to invest all its oil money into something usefull. But well, that is the problem with most dictotorships.
Here in Sweden, we are more focuses on Anti Tank weapons. Let's see...... Legendary Carl Gustaf, now in version 4 Bofors Bantam Miniman (Swedish military designation Pansarskott m/68) FFV Robot 56 Bill Bofors Strix mortar round (Pansarsprängvinggranat m/94) Bofors Saab AT-4 Bofors NLAW (Robot 57) Saab I might have forgotten some....
" several times smaller in economic output ".. is rather understated .. Russia's low quality GNP ( slightly higher PPP) is the same as Just New York City , Not state Just New York city..
yes but you have to take it into context. for example a lot of NYC output is financial. this is relatively less useful in a ww3 than say the output of physical products. this is the same view as the US GDP in general, a ton of it is just healthcare costs, and it doesn't translate into better lives for the citizens(europe has better healthcare at far lower spending) nor more $ for the military. it's literally excess spending that inflates GDP but does nothing for the people or nation.
Russian army simply isnt made for global power projection like US army. Its more like an regional power projection thats why they use more ground based firepower.
Quality over quantity my friend. I was an Abrams Commander in the US Army, and Russian 'armor' is almost an insult to the term. They are fast and agile though! Even one of our standard M830 HEAT rounds can easily get a mobility kill simply aiming at the tracks. Also, Russia relies on Cold War relics, as is readily apparent by their overwhelming use of T-72's and D-30 howitzers.
They could never afford to modernize their military. There country has fallen into economic ruins due to the autocratic government. Turns out their army was also a paper bear.
I seem to recall that even as the Soviets brought out newer tanks like the T-62 and T-72, they put the older tanks (e.g. T-54/55) into storage in huge depots, many of them underground, in order to keep a reserve of tanks older veterans and reservists could still use without extensive retraining. I wonder if those old depots are still in use, but with newer but now obsolete tanks?
They are still in use, notably they've been bringing out, the black sheep of Russian MBTs, T-62s (M1s with the applique cheek armour) have been reactivated and then sent to the SAA, sometimes still with Russian railway logistics markings left on there, I believe that affords it a laswr rangefinder, and decent protection against basic PG-7 warheads, but that is essentially at this point almost half a century old tech at this point, and the irregular opposition has been known to use advanced TOW 2 and other ATGMs that sucj vehicles wouldn't stand a chance against. Getting 40+ year old veterans to crew said tanks in a near peer total war probably wouldn't work out though, mho.
@@seeleagent I would think they would still have plenty in storage, even after selling some off. The USSR produced over 150K tanks post WWII. I doubt they've sold that many to Syria. Now as to how many they have left, the number I came across was 55K...that's still alot.
One of the reasons why the USSR kept all of those tanks, besides the one you mentioned, was to have something to use after all of the newer stuff had been destroyed in a WWIII/invasion of Western Europe type scenario. If you think about it, most of all the modern/front line stuff would've been gone within a few weeks. At that point a 50 year old T-55 is going to be better than anything your NATO opponent is going to have to throw at you...which would be practically nothing.
Mass armour and fire power might look good on paper but I don’t think it will work for Russia in this new age of warfare when a small squad of easily concealed infantry with smart anti tank missiles pose such a threat to tanks.
I think the AFRF's emphasis on anti-air systems is likely practicing the idea of the "air defense umbrella". I remember reading about the umbrella doctrine in a paper on the Arab-Israeli wars, and it's really fascinating. Basically, the tactical/mobile SAM element is their way of keeping air parity when they cannot hold air superiority. This makes sense when facing the US and NATO, which have a backbone of air power.
That air defense umbrella did work. Things only fell apart for the Egyptians when they had to move beyond the umbrella. It's also possible the US sent squadrons to directly fly for the IDF. I've never been able to confirm that.
US slash NATO doesn’t have the technology for a effective air defence. Russian weaponry reflects its defensive nature. Whereas NATO looks to project its power in support of the US Hegemonic empire. As such the US needs to have massive air power! Albeit 65% of its might is inoperable by way of scavenged for parts, no allocated pilots or support crew and a high percentage of planes left in old technology that couldn't respond to battle requirements nor do they fire the lasts decade missiles. So on paper or in a long protracted war maybe. That said the next non nuclear war with superpowers will last only days before a settlement is reached. Owing to massive losses of equipment to missile efficiency.
@@ivankurtz1909 One just needs to look at how many planes were lost in the Yom Kippur war and how many planes the US has that still works to realize that the US military is a hollowed out force against a near peer like Russia that can challenge the air theater. China is another story, as their hardware sucks so bad they have to buy Russian castoffs to reverse engineer decent engines and their planes still can't take off with reasonable payloads.
The US Army started their transition to modern networked fighting tactics with the "Airland Battle" Field Manual back in the early 1980s. Since then, the US military doctrine has progressed to the idea of "systems of systems", stressing nimble decision making and getting inside the enemy's OODA loop. This requires huge investments in C3I hardware, software(!) and personnel training. The hardware is just the tip of the iceberg and the really important stuff is underneath the shiny bits. The Russians may have a bit of new hardware but they totally missed the boat on the importance of nimble, synergetic knowledge based warfare. You can't run a modern military campaign on a shoestring budget with a conscript force.
And they also seem to have forgotten that they don’t have their own GPS satellite constellations. And that GPS guided munitions need GPS to guide them.
I do agree with the title of this video. Russia made a very big point of showing off all of this hyper destructive new tech they have, (like the TOS-1 flame vehicle being destroyed by Ukrainian Arty) only to discover you need to know how to employ it first. It's crazy to see such a power like them being regularly humbled by a force far smaller and less equipped. Seeing the Russian invasion is like watching a dumb child's tantrum. I almost pity the inexperienced and obviously poorly trained soldiers carrying all of this tech they barely know how to employ. So many tactical mistakes. The most painful ones to me are the shooting galleries they create with their bunched up vehicle formations.
Except that everything you write is total BS. It's a pretty bad place from which to start an argument. At np point anywhere in the last 3 years has Russia been "humbled". 400,000 dead Ukrainian troops might attest to that, is they could, vs around 40-50,000 dad Russian troops. In short, you are either dead thick, simply very badly informed, a regular sponge for propaganda or simply projecting onto Russia what the Ukrainians are doing or experiencing.
They tried with Finland roughly 100 years ago, now they are trying with Ukraine. Got smacked in the face by heroic efforts of the Finns back then, getting smacked in the face now by Ukrainian heroes. Whoddathunk the 21st century is not as conducive to a re-Stalinization of Russia, -everyone, literally everyone except for banditi circle of Putain.
Very interesting in light of the Ukraine invasion 5 months later. Now we can see the difference between having equipment and using that equipment effectively.
Having seen the Russian military in action I'm intimidated not at all. In the field an American force arrayed against the Russians would be like an SS panzer division going through a convent.
A nice breakdown, but it has me wondering, how much of a nightmare is it to keep such a large mechanized, and diversified mechanized force running? In my experience with armored vehicles, half the battle is in the motor pool with maintenance.
It’s also OIL. Cut off or greatly diminish that and everything grinds to a halt. Power projection is Life when your fighting, If your not moving forward then it’s only a matter of time before you have lost. That’s not to say that Putin wouldn’t use small tactical Nukes as a show of force and then Immediately sue for Peace to stop any escalation and that would be the most likely scenario if both these idiots (US/Russia) ever decided to trade blows. Putin better think long and hard about trying to seize any NATO property. While there aren’t any “Winner’s” in that fight there is loosing and being utterly decimated and that’s what Russia’s economy will be in any direct prolonged fight.
Russia still practice military conscription, wich is usually just a slavery to maintain vehicles. That's why it costs not that much, but its quality is rather bad.
@@Veyrxi The conscription service does not set itself the task of making a good, experienced soldier. Its purpose is to give a civilian an idea of what an army life is. To teach discipline, daily routine and other things that will help in wartime. It's better than your rags with glasses, who have no idea why they should listen to an officer. This is the advantage. In a global conflict, Russia has more trained people.
@@АлександрЕгоров-ъ8в Знакомый на учениях недавних рассказывал, как весь взвод поставили чистить картошку на время учений, чтобы они просто сидели и никому не мешали. Имхо, сидеть чистить картошку - это не армейская жизнь. А вообще, это не по теме, они просто там ухаживают за техникой, готовят бараки и полируют оружие. Вот это суть призывников, и все. Какие-то там идеи вроде учить дисциплине, чему-то еще - это буллщит на экспорт. Там просто собирают рабочую силу на организацию обеспечения регулярных сил.
@@mattnsac "New as good agin" or, good as new again ain't good enough. Makes NO sense to fix garbage! The Ukraine probably isn't going to salvage anything left behind. Not even the tires!
Yep. Russia being an utter failure when it comes to military power. Like, goddamn I’m willing to bet the shit T-34’s actually built in WW2 would have done a better job taking Ukraine.
I believe it was Lenin who said "Quantity has a quality all its own." I know for certain it was Isaac Arthur who said "If brut force isn't working, you aren't using enough of it." I believe Russia has taken both of these quotes to heart.
Russia? I guess It is the USA who keeps hundreds of military bases across the globe, 11 aircraft carrier groups etc. Perhaps the purpose is to keep one vehicle per each few bombs, shells, mines or rockets the rest of the world could counter-offer against them. Americans got so much of weaponry that they simply left behind $90 bln. worth of these in Afghanistan alone!
Remember, Russia has around 12,000 or 15,000 tanks in its tactical reserve. They may not be the most modern models, but they are there. Don't forget, there is still conscription in Russia, which means that there are also trained reserve personnel available. The biggest mistake that can be made is to underestimate your opponent and his abilities.
You forgot to mention Lenin's body, they can use It to summon his soul from Hell at any given moment. He is probably a Demon Lord at this point, which would mean that he could summon entire demon hordes by his own, that cannot be ignored as well. Jokes aside, never forget how they basically won WWII through sheer numbers. Plus, the fancy tech the US has can be crushed by EMPs and cybernetic warfare. WWIII will not be as simple as NATO vs Warsaw Pact, you have China being DECADES ahead of everyone else in terms of chemical and bilogical warfare (their science has no limits nor ethics, and plenty of human prisioners to experiment on), Russians have supersonic missiles, and only god knows how Lasers, Railguns and Quantum Computing will affect military strategy in the next 20 years. The "good" thing is that China has a really small window to declare WWIII before 2030, so many of these will probably not impact the battlefield that much. They cannot wait for more than that, because If 2030 comes and the so called "Great Reset" is implemented they will have already lost, and no war will even happen because the entire system will be jammed by the 1% and their interest, and they do not want the Chinese Empire creating problems for them.
@@bigbangrafa8435 China has a small time window for WW3 between 2023 and 2030. The peek of the Chinese growth will be in 2022-2025 and after that it will shrink and loose power.
@@jul1anuhd The peak of Chine growth is already over. The debt crisis will send them back to the 90s so hard, aside from the population problem and the huge corona wave that will hit them in the next weeks and months. Everybody who was saing it will be the chinese century is a fool.
The US, UK, Canada, Australia and other nations that have to travel with their armed forces to get to the battlefield have a much much much better logistical grasp and processes out of necessity. Russia does not seem to have logistics figured out, even to invade their own neighbours.
I've read a Chinese article claiming that during a Sino-Russian joint exercise in 2018, a Chinese combined arms battalion (2100 troops) managed to won against a Russian division of 13000 troops, even severely damaged a motorized infantry regiment of 4390 troops to the point that it completely lost combat ability, and only suffered a loss of 500 troops. They did this by jamming the Russian electronics and having much better recon ability, according to the article. When I first read this back then I thought this was just a Chinese wet dream, but now I think about it there were probably some truths in it.
2100 vs 13000 wasn't really that crazy of an odd. Considering both sides had the ability to call air support (which the Chinese claimed theirs were much more efficient), I think with American troops you can achieve similar or even better ratio.
Regarding artillery, the main reason so used self-propelled instead of towed is counter battery fire. Flying in pieces to fixed positions works well against an inferior force without own artillery and artillery radars, but quickly can get very messy against opponents that has them.
Every time I hear about AK-74 being "not so accurate" as its western competition (and I hear it a lot on TH-cam) I recall that I regularly shoot a civilian version of AK-74 on the shooting range and can attest that this particular rifle is extremely accurate at ranges of around 200 meters. Closer range is no sport, farther - I am not 25 anymore) What's wrong with my rifle?!
high level soldiers will testify that the ak is not as accurate as nato 556 counterparts. I think what the ak has going for it is higher energy, arguably better barrier penetration, more reliable in bad conditions and easier to mass produce.
@@smokeshow7691 Dont know if barrier penetration, higher energy and other stuff need any improvement, but reliability is the core feature of AK since the inception ok AK-47. The weather tests weapons are subjected before acceptance into Russian Army are ridiculously tough already. AK beats any western comptetitors hands down and by far margin. Accuracy wise, 100 m and 200 m are standard distances in rifle shooting competitions. Maybe high level pro soldiers shoot at farther distances using optics, but to me a 230 mm target popper at 200 m is already pretty little (I use iron sights, no optics) and as mentioned AK-74 is already very accurate.
One thing that is blatantly evident when examining Russian formations and general doctrine, is that it is a deterrent and defense based force. Not built around maintaining wide reaching engagements outside its borders.
Seems the upgrades are not really worth it, luckily! Maybe besides the T-90M At least now a lot of their tanks are getting decommissioned or transferred to the Ukrainian army.
Everyone dissing Russian military, but does the US military have megayachts? Hmm? A significant part of the Russian military budget has been put to good use in megayachts. US is behind thirty years.
In the first Gulf War of 1991-1992, U.S. artillery already had counterparty fire in many cases. That is, when shot at by enemy artillery, the response fire was already calculated & rounds were already in the air towards the enemy artillery before the enemy rounds hit the ground. Wheras, the older technology used by Iraq enabled the Marines to "shoot & scoot" with their mobile artillery. That is, shoot some rounds & then move position before enemy counterfire could be set up.
Not only has Russia devastated the fascist Ukrainian army but it has destroyed a large amount of NATO's arsenal in the process. Russia's on a path of righteousness to eliminate nazism and restore World order. 6 out of 7 Earthlings are rootin' for Putin )
A few days ago I watched a video about a Russian tractor plant making armored vehicles for the Russian military shut down because necessary parts from Germany were sanctioned . The Russian management told them to go home without pay or go to Ukraine to fight . That sums up the Russian governments attitude in a nutshell . Russia is stuck in time and has no future if they treat such essential industrial workers as temporary disposable assets . Successful countries treat their skilled workers better and keep alive the vital industries that progress them into the future . Russia has a socially retarded mentality that keeps them from being a contributing member of the modern world . I don't mean to disrespect any of the Russian and Ukrainian people that have emigrated to the US . Some of which I have worked with and considered Brothers and Sisters
Turns out the russian army is even worse than what predictions said. Turns out most of their stuff hasn't been refurbished in decades and even their newer tanks are getting knocked out by old weapons which means their armor is not good at all.
I like how japan quickly understood their situation and took the neccesary actions: -the americans were cutting down on military budget overall since obama’s time. -the north koreans were getting more embolden for some reason -the chinese were starting to flex their renewed military might Japan was not gonna wait on allies to help them when and if things got sour, so they beefed up what needed to be beefed up. So despite their economy bubble bursting in the early 90s, the stagnation of their economic growth AND their population shrinking, they put their heads down n began the necessary work.
The Russian army reminds me of that hoarder that lives down the street you know the guy he’s 40 Bikes in various makes and models in various states of repair and mashed together if your going to modernize you need to commit and do it fully not just slap some bells and whistles on old stuff or buy a few new shiny things your afraid to commit.
'Enuff Dakka' iz more than you got, but less than too much. An' there ain't no such thing as too much dakka. 'Enuff Dakka' iz not a state of being, but ratha' a state of strivin'. It iz not a goal to achieve, but ratha' an ideal to emulate. Hence, in all possible situationz, the only correct phrase is MORE DAKKA. Saying 'Enuff dakka' by itself iz gittery.
Russia has too many vehicles/weapons I know that sounds silly being an army, but think about all the spare parts, ammunition, tooling, fuel and training, theres just far too many moving parts logistics must be an absolute fucking nightmare for them.
It is not just the total number of vehicles. Look at the Frankenstein nature of all those vehicles. Like five basic types with about 5 varieties each. Imagine trying to match the right part to the right vehicle! Then get it to the right tank, all the while a bloody war is going on. The Germans had the same issue in ‘44 and ‘45. They built three versions of the Tiger and the parts didn’t match. Many Tigers were lost because they were sent the wrong version of the part and had to be destroyed when they couldn’t be repaired. Look at pictures of WWII tanks and many of them are carrying spare parts, especially spare track, on their hulls. Break down, hit a mine, or get a track shot, you can repair it yourself if your friends hold the field. You can’t do that today due to ERA.
It is not just the total number of vehicles. Look at the Frankenstein nature of all those vehicles. Like five basic types with about 5 varieties each. Imagine trying to match the right part to the right vehicle! Then get it to the right tank, all the while a bloody war is going on. The Germans had the same issue in ‘44 and ‘45. They built three versions of the Tiger and the parts didn’t match. Many Tigers were lost because they were sent the wrong version of the part and had to be destroyed when they couldn’t be repaired. Look at pictures of WWII tanks and many of them are carrying spare parts, especially spare track, on their hulls. Break down, hit a mine, or get a track shot, you can repair it yourself if your friends hold the field. You can’t do that today due to ERA.
Ukraine is equal power to 2003 Iraq. So that is qiote significant. Now put into perspective that they also have 18000 to 30000 casualties. The war isnt going well for them.
@@vyros.3234 Russia has sustained more than 45,000 casualties(some esrimates put the number at over 60,000), including 6 generals and an admiral confirmed KIA, and has been pushing Russian forces back in recent weeks. Between that and bombing Russian oil reserves just across the border, they're doing extremely well. Also, they've confirmed that they've splashed an SU-35, several Ka-52's, and captured some of Russia's top secret drone jamming AA systems and turned them over to the Americans.
@@vyros.3234 consider they did it without much of an air force and mostly with infantry artillery.....imagine if Brandon wasn't Brandon but rather Trump-like....start equipping and training Ukrainians last summer with A-10's, stock piling more air defenses, infantry anti-armor weapons, and lend-lease of all that old Soviet stockpiles from former Warsaw Pact countries? The finniest part is that that could have happened under the radar as inventory upgrading of NATO allies and "disposed" of in Ukraine. Everything except for A-10's and Apache gunships. But once Ukrainian pilots had training on those systems it would be another "tool" to use to equip Ukraine with. Instead Brandon was too consumed with his Bolshevik tactics of attacking his domestic opponents and counting his bribes from Russia, Ukraine and China. It is evident that Brandon doesn't want to over-equip Ukraine for god forbid they win and expose the truth about his corruption. I'm sure the Russians will too if they lose to Ukraine. I wonder how many other socialist political leaders in Europe have committed treason with getting bribes from Russia?
Russia never throws anything away. They keep and store Russia is vast and you really need tracked vehicles for mobility. Russia must keep " Stalins Organ" i.e. MLRS system in production. 6/21/1941 is a valuable lesson. I personally think the Russian defense strategy fits their geography and the geopolitical realities that they face.
It would be interesting to know how Russia maintains all this equipment because there is a cost to not decommissioning older weapons. Perhaps their smaller budget has encouraged them to develop ways of performing more efficient maintenance. Or perhaps their equipment is not maintained sufficiently to be reliable. It's hard to know.
They're certainly not good at wars they didnt prepare, or trained for blitzes like they one they pulled off. Russia is basically a siege army with lots of artillery.
It sure seems like they banked on a single tactic (shock and awesome) to overwhelm enemies. If that fails however, you get what we have now in Ukraine, a stranded unprepared army that is slowly falling apart in the face of resistance.
@@neothaka Except they completely failed at even that tactic. It seems like they have not got the memo of how modern conflicts are fought. Its essentially a cold war army, stuck in a 21st century war. Where every civilian is essentially an intelligence agent with more tools than the old KGB used to have.
I think Russians now recognise a more qualitive military force. Its also where the money is. They just need to demonstrate their military prowess in small engagements around trouble spots with their newest ordinance to get higher value for their exports. And best of all get someone else to pay for it.
Russia has historically favored fire power over maneuver. This has two roots; firstly, a conscript based army is far easier to train to use firepower and second, Russian strategic needs are focused on regional issues rather than global.
@@wilhelmu mobile in a theater related sense? I deffinitely don't know enough about the subject to make claims,but I want to remind whoever reads it, that tactical and strategic mobility are unrelated,tanks move very fast within the same theatre of war,but they're the slowest kind of unit to move around when it comes to inter-theater movement.
@@feelthepony yeah, I mean the doctrinal level. The russians are the ones who established doctrines such as wide front or defense in depth, and they also favored irregular warfare by training partisan units to fight behind enemy lines. Although motorization of the entire army wasn't possible, there were mechanized groups(separate tank battalions within infantry divisions) meant to execute time-constrained operations on limited area. In addition to that, there were also of course also separate divisions that were entirely tank or mechanized.
The US' military is built for global power projection, the Russian military is built for overwhelming ground war capability in Europe. Different priorities.
I agree - no one is invading Russia and taking Moscow. Not without extreme force. The US could never do it. NATO never could do it.
Perhaps I if the world including China formed one fighting force, with tens of millions of ground troops then she would fall. But realistically no one can or ever will take Moscow and that is what the Russians clearly focus on. Not enough money for their navy and power projection- they don’t even have an aircraft carrier. Well a useful aircraft carrier anyway.
"different priorities." Exactly.
@@craigduncan4826 taking Moscow will be easy even Napoleon did it but taking all of Russia is pretty much impossible.
@@chico305SIGMA easy ?
Only easy because it was a trap...
@@chico305SIGMA Napoleon collapsed after briefly capturing Moscow. The geography makes Russia almost impossible to capture.
When legislature wants to keep the costs down, it is often easier to get funding for upgrades over new models; even if the "upgrade" ends up replacing 80% of the vehicle with modern parts.
Very good and under appreciated point.
We did the same thing with our Mothball fleets
Many governments fall for what I'd like to call the "theseus's ship fallacy". If, over it's voyage, a ship's parts have all been replaced, as in in hull, deck, sails etc. in repairs, is it still the same ship? All new wood is all new ship, right? Or maybe not?
Though one has to consider the fact that most legislations and budgets are planned for a 4 year term (elections. Ahem, russia is different here.). A brand new tank may need 10, 15, 20 years or even more of conceptualising, developing, prototyping, testing and building. Many governments, for better or worse (worse if you ask me in terms of armament aquisition, but noone ever asks me anyway so nvm) don't operate on these timescales.
"So modernising Tank model 3 with ERA takes 18 months but a new tank needs 180 (one hundred and eighty [!])? Yeah okay let's reuse the late 70s to mid 80s model again for the N-th time."
(most governments prolly in 2038 AD)
@@LowSkillSurvival the game of developing modern tanks and 6th generation aircraft is balancing feature and mission creep. Looking at the advancing of Semiconductors IaW Moores Law and some other paradigms we have achieved numerous technological leaps in a short span with tech and integrated circuit capabilities & limitations. So the systems we develop for tomorrow in the year 2010 or 2015 are going to report possible relative deficiencies with bleeding edge stuff out the skunkworks. There is a game theory with funding, technology, manufacturing agreements, politics, economics, need vs necessity, testing, and overall feasibility. Its easier to look at the last 50 years and say what is and will be effective; which is not true for even the next 25 years. At which point we must resign to studying peer designs and breakthroughs.
No, mostly not. The reason is that equipment that is currently operated has an existing, invested lobby. New programs require new bidding, and means the company that is currently milking the govt might not get the contract. So it's in the interest of the companies on top to avoid new replacement programs. The company builds a lobby that protects the program and fights for upgrades instead. One way that you are partially correct is the degree to which some services keep utterly failing to develop a good new project. For instance the Army has been unable to replace the Bradley and they've been trying with failed programs for 20 years. Congress is fed up with this. It's cheaper to just upgrade existing equipment, even if its more expensive in the short term, because the cost of failed R&D adds up. It's less to do with getting funding for new programs than it is to do with the Pentagon repeatedly failing. Look at the LCS and the Zumwalt, and these frigates that will cost as much as a Burke (before its over with). The Navy can't develop a cost effective surface combatant any more. So the navy may have to just upgrade and keep building Burkes.
Turns out it doesn't matter what you've got unless you have well maintained trucks to supply them.
Happened to the red army in ww2. They never learned
@@lmafo4utube the red army only won in WW2 thanks to the US
@@carso1500 dont forget the 24mill man, weak german combat units and killed geners bij hitler
@@carso1500 yes almost all Russian trucks in the Second World War were from the US, also almost all railroad “wheels”.
@@mwtrolle the ones that crapped out were all Urals at the beginning of the war. Same issues Russians facing now. No maintenence checks and poorly run
The Russian army isnt stuck in time. Its stuck in ukraine.
In the mud in Ukraine.
@@hagdore and by the brave Ukrainian men and women using advanced but easy to carry and use AT systems and drones.
But it must be around time to try cutting one of the most toward Russian armies around Kiev off.
Most likely the one to the west would be easiest and most useful.
They're not stuck; those farmers are dragging 'em around pretty easily...
@@mwtrolle good call. A week later we see the answer was actually both sides of the kyiv advance would be repelled
@@ceetee9659 But Ukraine should have gambled and moved for the Ivankiv road crossing. That would have made the whole army get cut off and would have made it impossible to pull out units.
The USA military is about concentration of force and air power, not overwhelming superiority in numbers on the ground. Different strategies. Hopefully we’ll never find out whether the Russian or US doctrine is used to better effect.
this guy doesnt want the next call of duty to be unique *claps*
@@m1a1abrams3 Prolly wouldn't be anymore COD nights my dude
Yup, the idea with the US's stealth, guided munitions and intelligence infrastructure is to minimize direct fighting but instead to penetrate deep beyond the front lines, strike vital points like command and supply infrastructure, and return while attracting minimal resistance. This worked well against a national army - like in Desert Storm - but less well against irregular insurgent forces.
@Glass. wow wowwee waaa......USA defeated a bunch of countries that were 1/100th their size in GDP and military power/budget?
Don't think USA has really won any war since wwii,let alone an enemy her own size.
And even WWII was questionable......I mean USA didn't do much in the eastern front......they barely even landed in Normandy until like June 1944,just one year before the end of the war,when the Nazi war Machine was more or less crushed and broken by the Soviets......
Pathetic.
And Japan let's be honest is a questionable power.
Japan's land army was extremely weak compared to the major Western powers and most of her army was deployed in China fighting the Chinese....roughly 2.6 million Japanese to be exact.......
That means the Japanese that faced the Americans were only a tiny proportion of the overall forces....man the largest battle between USA and Japan in Iwo Jima barely 70,000 Japanese troops and 40,000 volunteers took part in it.....
That was laughable.....that is barely a skirmish.
U know how many Germans fought the russians in Barbarossa in 1942?nearly 3.4 million Germans Vs 5 or 6 million russians.
All in all all USA really did was fight a bunch of aircraft carrier battles against the Japanese.
Worse. Russia is a land power with a huge land border. Protecting the US borders requires minimal military troops (actually close to none, since the US-Canadian border is the longest demilitarized border in the world and Mexico's military and official policy is purely defensive). The same can not be said for Russia. They have to keep a good chunk of troops stationed along the Chinese border.
December 2021: "Russia has the second most powerful military in the world!"
March 2022: "Russia has the second most powerful military in Ukraine."
Russia has the only military in Ukraine, the other is just ghost of Kiev type military(fantasy)
As a former russian soldier, I would say that russian technical preparation is very low. Bad equipment. In this video he said a number of 3 k tanks.. You can easily reduce it to 1,5 k. At least. This tanks is just on paper. In a reality there is a very bad technical condition. And corruption. If Ukraine had more air forces in the beginning, this war would be over by now.
A literal example of quality beating quantity every single time
Its about quality. Ukraine has Soviet aircraft, which are bad
Answer: No.
They are stuck in the mud.
Dont worry Ukrain Farmers are there to pull them out.
@@blablubb8615 literally lol
I guess you can scratch a good amount of those numbers off.
It’s what the US learned. You don’t need overwhelming numbers if you can get sufficient forces to where they’re needed when they need to be there. 1000 tanks stuck in the mud miles away from their target with air defence but no air support, are worth less than well trained infantry delivered to exactly where they need to be and covered by highly intergrated air support.
its called defeat in detail.
Three A-10 Warthogs could destroy that convoy in 1 hour! Just practice!
But the USA doesn't have to worry about invasions, they invade. Russia has a big territory so it needs more units to be scattered around for protection.
@@WetPig well, guess what. RUSSIA INVADED!
I mean us Germans learned that the hard way too, though at the end we didnt have too many armoured units left anyway xD
Watching this video in March of 2022 is like popping open a bottle of finely aged wine
Besides the Russian tanks are overestimated as are the Russian armies abilities.
They turned out to be lacking in the anti-tractor department
We should send Ukraine a couple of killdozers 😂
LMAO!
Big difference in this scenario is Russia fighting in back yard, US fighting an ocean away. The NATO allies would have to make their contribution or the US will to fight wears down in a protracted conflict. Russia just has to fight to a stalemate not a victory. But it is more productive for everyone not to fight and just worry about their own part of the world without bothering others.
There is no western European country that can mass its military to go fight Russia. There is also no reason for it. There may be a willingness from govs, but they are aware that this would mean instant civil war in their own countries, as many people will side with Russia, starting uprising all over Europe.
Their continuous anti Russia propaganda hardly convinced anyone.
If anything, you will not find many people IN Europe that want another war in Europe. We've had more than enough. So if the US wants a war, they can invite Russia in their own country and fight it there.
NATO is a paper tiger. As soon as our guys start coming back in body bags en masse, we would sue for peace.
@@slenderman27490 There´s always a difference between being send halfway round the globe to fight people and being attacked on your own homeland. Europe will fight hard against an invasion from the East. If you mean attacking Russia just to secure US dominance, then yes - that would not be popular
Remember, a typical Taliban fighter in Afghanistan, like a typical Viet Cong guerrilla fighter in Vietnam during the Indochina war, carries less than $50 worth of arms & ammunition. 🤔
For plain truths, pls read my insightful multi-pages 'Ole Fella' comment on TH-cam at..,
"China-US tensions: A closer look at the Five-Eyes intelligence partnership / CGTN"
"China-US tensions: A closer look at the 'Five-Eyes' intelligence partnership / CGTN": th-cam.com/video/H6nkAVegk0g/w-d-xo.html
*"If you don't know what you're doing, neither does the enemy"* - Sun Tzu, probably.
american army in a nutshell
"Dying is gay" Sun Tzu to his son
“If it’s a bad idea, it’s probably a terrible idea” Sun Shitzu
_"Sun Tzu said that"_
--Sun Tzu but it's actually just the TF2 Soldier in Sun Tzu's clothes
"It is not the meat: it is the motion" - 11th grade Sun Tzu
It's crazy how wide the gap between the USA and everyone else has become thanks to Ukraine. I don't think anyone would even bother comparing russia to the US anymore.
I'm sure China is mulling their overwhelming numbers strategy.
eh, i wouldn't want to test that theory out. We haven't fought a conventional war against anyone since we invaded Iraq 20 years ago, and even longer if you're looking at a serious fight. And our training these days tend to be focused a lot on diversity training and the like, to the point that a report on the navy getting feedback from current and newly retired sailors a year or so back overwhelmingly found that our capabilities had suffered, our personnel were getting more training on SJW bs then on how to actually do their jobs. Just remember that in WW1, all the great powers was convinced they had an invincible army because they hadn't seriously fought each other since the Napoleonic wars, and were used to rolling over less technologically advanced people in Africa and Asia. We're in a similar situation today I think.
@@magmat0585 Wouldn't the same be true for everyone else? The only difference being the US has actually fought a conventional war in the past decades, and has more military budget than the rest of the world combined.
@@magmat0585 a stupid point of view. Inclusiveness doesn't ruin an army, corruption does. That's why the Russian army is a joke. The US army will do just fine until they let corrupt management in without scrutiny. Give the US another Trump for 20 years so that they have enough time to replace all the generals with people who would kiss his ass and they might decline like Russia, but allowing people of different backgrounds in who actually want to be soldiers to start from the lower ranks and work their way up will only strengthen the army.
The gap between the US and China has narrowed over time. Ukraine has made it clear that both have left Russia behind.
Russia: We're going to add advanced T-14 Armata tanks to our armoured division.
Ukrainian Farmers: Is for me? >( ͡❛ ▿ ͡❛)
All 20 of them?
@@nobbynobbs8182 add one zero at the end and we can talk official state propaganda numbers
Cool, a better variety of targets.
Russia is rapidly solving the need for hardware to be replaced as we speak. Permanently.
By surrendering?
This comment did not age well😂
@@Putnamsmifnah, it did age well.
Except what was meant was “if old equipment get destroyed, there is no need to “replace” that equipment”
Yep, that remark that Russia lacks confidence in coordinating its various units, that proved a completely adequate insight.
The comment on not being able to guarantee air superiority and fire support was spot on.
@@dominuslogik484 Ukraine has S-300 anti-aircraft missile systems which will turn Russian jets and bombers into mince meat. (Russia would do the same to US jets and bombers also with their S-400 systems which are state of the art)
@@RobVollat those expensive S-400 are easy taget for drone attack, even inferior turkey drone are able to destroy most S-300 in azerbaijan.
@@RobVollat anti radiation missiles outrange SAM weapon systems and guide based on radar signals which means the s400 is unlikely to be effective since they will need to keep them offline until they know an aircraft is overhead which by then it's too late.
@@RobVollat not realy..read the comments bellow, every weapon ha sa countermeasure. Especialy by the west which is far more sophisticated than fucking russia lol
I wonder how Russia is looking to modernize it's military now that they're being sanctioned into the stone age and suffered quite significant asset loss.
Strategically this war has been pretty bad for Russia. Not only has Russia demonstrated how insanely incompetent their leadership is, but also how bad their logistics and training is.
Don't be fooled. The Russian military maybe falling woefully short of their expectations, but the economic damage caused by sanctions is grossly overstated by western media. The Ruble has only fallen by about 30%, and they are responding to this by forger closer ties with China, the largest manufacturer in the world. Unless China is likewise sanctioned the Russian economy is going to be just fine. In fact the economic fallout of all of this is likely to hurt western economies far more.
@@Aethgeir I am sure Putin will be super happy to kiss the feet of his new master Xi Jinping who he would be 100% dependent on. Hopefully Putin is prepared to become a puppet of China.
@@Aethgeir I mean to quote Ping when asked whether they are allies; no, we do business with one another but we also do business with Ukraine and right now business is poor. Russia should find a diplomatic solution and stop this war.
Drones the ukrainians have shot down seem to be made with cheap chinese and civilian grade technology. Russian weapons tech is so far behind Nato 🤣
Nato will propably cripple the entire movement of russians troops in the first hours of war, as russian troops are extremely dependent on railways and trains to move troops and equipment. Nato missiles propably gnna hit the railway's at critical junctions and such, forcing trains to stop and making them easy targets aswell.
*Russian military in Ukraine:* It's not what you have, it's how you lose it.
You should update this video and replace all mentions of "Russian" with "Ukrainian". Because these are all Ukrainian vehicles now
Russia has no chioce but to have a huge ground forces considering its geopolitical situation. The same is true for America, but in the navy sector.
oh...so bad. a ten of tactical nukes and "huge" becomes " very little and radioactive" ;)
@@fabioartoscassone9305 Remember that ships and airfields are more endangered by nuclear weapons than loose land formations ;)
No, no one is going to invade Russia.They have enough firepower to stop any invader.Russia would be well served to concentrate on economic performance and winning the support of their nation with good policies.Raise the standard of living for ordinary Russians rather than seek even greater military power.
No Western country or alliance is going to attack Russia.
@@GM-fh5jp Yeah but doing that makes the oligarchs less wealthy in the short term and Putin doesn't want that.
@@bogdanbogdanoff5164 Ships are not more endangered by nuclear weapons than land formations.
As a former M1 tank crewman, we learned that the Soviets/Russians where going to bomb the shit out of us for approximately 1 hour prior to an assault. That's alot of fucking rounds down range
funny comparison is that the Germans during ww2 where supprised that after american carpet bombed them the americans usually didnt follow up with an attack something they got used to dealing with the soviets.
Sounds fun……
"Sheer numbers and hardware may not be enough" Mr Binkov, truer words have never been spoken in light of the Russian struggles in Ukraine. Great video, almost prescient
The russian strategy is probably best for them since they a land power that mostly has to concern itself with its own backyard, and their syrian naval and air base helps them plug most of the former gaps in force projection to places oversees where there are also russian interests. And by maintaining a stupidly large motor pool, like more stuff then they could ever use themselves in an all out war, they have an almost limitless supply of spare equipment to replace combat losses for proxies like the syrian government and the LNA. The US by comparison, is half the world away from most of its foreign interests, so more emphasize on extensive expedionary capability and air power are required to protect them.
That's the thing, it isn't maintained, the reality is Russia could field maybe half of these numbers and even fewer crews would be trained to anywhere close to US standards. Not that Russia and the US will ever fight save Russia going crazy and invading a NATO country.
All Russian reserves are rotting in fields. They aren’t useable and never will be.
@@drawingdead9025 from what i see us forces are no more trained or experienced than RU. you seem to have forgotten the 20 year slaughter on its own troops that the US endured, as well as bringing in flak like the aussies and uk to do dirty work.
during the russo afghan war they were remarked as being hardcore, whether they were directly experienced or not, and that's not to say us soldiers aren't, but these are the same twats that told themselves to burn tires and base wastes with jet fuel. creating a festival of dioxins to engulf the camps almost 24/7, which now has bit the US vets in the ass now alot of them are being diagnosed and dying from cancers because of that very notion of burning waste stupidly.
one of the most expensive and versatile armies, could not remove or get rid of waste in a efficient and most importantly safe manner.
sorry i went off track a little.
i dont know why generally Americans think Russians are less educated and less experienced in some cases. being sat in a base getting skin damage from desert sun, waiting for drone strikes that every single time cause casualties for civilians. is not exactly experience and especially not wise to use as a comparison for experience in my opinion.
there is a reason USA does not want war with Russia, not just because its stupid and will not bring any factor of progress in life, but the fact they know they cannot outmatch them in any advantage sadly. usa propaganda is very good.
this isnt for me to defend russia, because they are so much more inconsistent, but you forget russians are more patriotic to there nation than even americans are.
@@Dockhead We can agree to disagree but have to point out one outrageous statement you made: '...but the fact they know they cannot outmatch them in any advantage'. Come on man, there is literally no military area (save maybe high-speed anti-ship missiles) where Russia clearly has an advantage. No solider would trade a M1 tank for a T72/80/90, no pilot would trade a F-22(or even a F15) for any SU or MIG, etc.
@@drawingdead9025 sorry i meant for 'every' advantage more accurately. you would not initiate war or compose war due to the fact of 1 possible advantage.
this isn't Vietnam, and that's a perfect example of a higher power nation thinking its tactic can work without notion of the enemy.
Vietnam was an onslaught, and a catastrophe of chemical warfare that i say never got justice.
sure thats the past, but my point stands.
m1 abrams have had holes punched in them from rpg's mate. like i say usa propaganda is so infiltrated into society, i remember the rumours said that the m1 and its variations had up to 600mm of physical protective Armor blah this blah that. it clearly doesn't or at least the first few base models, again used in the afghan/Iraq insertion
your just cherry picking examples for weaponry against weaponry etc and ill not debate into that as its a rabbit hole im not interested spending time in sadly.
and you forget environment, which id argue is more important to a role and action of any said vehicles over its components of use like speed or optics or firepower etc.
again this is not me defending Russia at any angle. its just me realistically exposing why usa preaches its the better enemy whilst all trying to literally not ever engage in any conflict with them. Russian patriots are a whole other level of the drum bashed heads of us soldiers. and the us guys are some tough sons of bitches ill give them that.
reason USA wont even push Iran to pysical conflict is because they know Iran is the highest stocked prepared AA wielding nation in the east specifically with a mix of old and new US and RU AA. so they create sanctions and controversy politically so that these multi million stupid costing jets dont get shot out of the sky in there first exertions, before the next contract can be constructed to flog even more money out of the Americans in some Israeli joint operation.
This video is eerily accurate. The Russians have faltered in Ukraine for the reasons stated in this video. Good job,. Well done.
The Eagle and the Bear logically fight like an eagle and a bear.
No…no he’s gotta point
Son of a bitch hes right!
Eagle fly. Bear smesh.
Goddamn u might be on to something
Months ago I wouldn't have know.
Now though, yeah, it's stuck.
lol
The real war start in comment section
Ong
lol yep. Information.
I'd like to see both sides lose.
Keyboards at the ready.
When humans can dehumanize their enemies just to cast away doubt, Reason is lost.
Seems like for the last 30 years Russian quartermasters have been selling all the new motor oil, grease, and tires on the black market. Rotten tires and blown engines have crippled their operation.
And they've been replacing those with cheap Chinese tires that were not even military grade.
They should have focused on fuel mileage
Seems laughable to compare them to the US now 🤣 . They need to focus on their new enemy: farm tractors and frostbite.
Overall, I think the reason why the Russian Armed Forces is stuck in time is primarily because of its open geography and the lack of consistent economic health to support the complete outfitting of its ground forces with modern equipment that is capable of delivering precision & firepower without losing its intensity and power. Setting some of Moscow's questionable organization and command arrangements aside, Russian geography has been a nightmare for Moscow since the Czarist times with the open geographical terrain in the West that prevents effective defensives to be established without high costs. A single breach into Russian territory could often result in disaster if there are no units in depth plug it. From that perspective, it honestly doesn't surprise me that Russia maintains such a massive ground force. Furthermore, given the lack of long periods of stable economic growth since the 1990s (I'm taking like consistent 2-3 decades growth) it'll be next to impossible for Moscow to completely overhaul its entire armed forces to the modern era that allows for formations to be reduced brigades/corps structure that allows flexibility, ease of logistical management, and command and control effectiveness. Therefore, it has to largely maintain its regiment/division/army structure to ensure it still has the combat and firepower to match the West. This can be seen with how despite the development of advanced platforms like T-72B3Ms, T-90AMs, T-14 Armata, and etc. only a small handful of elites units in the Western Military District gets them.
This could also explain why Russia is so big into hybrid warfare strategies and measures against the West in attempts to re-establish its influence globally and in its near abroad.
It’s nice to see someone using their brain on the internet. You’re absolutely right.
If Russia had a stable economic model for itself and for its phere of influence those countries maybe woudl not turn to the west and the whole situation would not be like that. But fact is, there is no growth model for those vassal nations only a model to hold their leaders in power somehow as we could seen it in balearus and kazaztan right now. Russia totally failed to invest all its oil money into something usefull. But well, that is the problem with most dictotorships.
The Russian military is also full of so much corruption. Unbelievable amounts
Is hybrid warfare the type where you defeat yourself?
This aged well
Unlike Russian tires
@@ego4551 best comment so far.
They say that Ukrainian farmers are harvesting Russian tanks these days
Donbas miners are harvesting ukranian tanks these days
@@manrealman2795 you will lose
@@peter5149 right after your unconditional surrender
It's interesting watching theses videos with everything happening atm
Here in Sweden, we are more focuses on Anti Tank weapons. Let's see......
Legendary Carl Gustaf, now in version 4
Bofors Bantam
Miniman (Swedish military designation Pansarskott m/68) FFV
Robot 56 Bill Bofors
Strix mortar round (Pansarsprängvinggranat m/94) Bofors Saab
AT-4 Bofors
NLAW (Robot 57) Saab
I might have forgotten some....
" several times smaller in economic output ".. is rather understated .. Russia's low quality GNP ( slightly higher PPP) is the same as Just New York City , Not state Just New York city..
That just proves that GNP is a shit metric...
Tfw a literal drained swamp has more economic output than all of Russia.
@@command_unit7792 no you just have to use it in the correct context
Well NY got flooded which shows how poor they are. Russia has kept dry.
yes but you have to take it into context. for example a lot of NYC output is financial. this is relatively less useful in a ww3 than say the output of physical products. this is the same view as the US GDP in general, a ton of it is just healthcare costs, and it doesn't translate into better lives for the citizens(europe has better healthcare at far lower spending) nor more $ for the military. it's literally excess spending that inflates GDP but does nothing for the people or nation.
Answer: Yes.
Russian army simply isnt made for global power projection like US army. Its more like an regional power projection thats why they use more ground based firepower.
But of course.
true, and still Russia is massive, even though they have massive army it's still very hard to cover all that area
This vid aged like fine wine
Fine milk, you mean?
Quality over quantity my friend. I was an Abrams Commander in the US Army, and Russian 'armor' is almost an insult to the term. They are fast and agile though! Even one of our standard M830 HEAT rounds can easily get a mobility kill simply aiming at the tracks. Also, Russia relies on Cold War relics, as is readily apparent by their overwhelming use of T-72's and D-30 howitzers.
They could never afford to modernize their military. There country has fallen into economic ruins due to the autocratic government. Turns out their army was also a paper bear.
This war has shown Russia's true weakness to the world, Ukrainian farmers.
Revenge of the Kulaks.
3330 tanks on paper, in real life they used not T14 Armata, but old T72 B, sometimes even without dynamic armor.
Perfect for Javeline hunt
@@andrerothweiler9191 It's perfect even for outdated RPG-7
@@ax_a-ix6275 well Javelines are better, Ukraine is making a killing with NLAWS. RPG are ok but not front
Have you seen the pictures of the ERA being packed with cardboard instead of the explosive!!?
@@Ipwnboobz Yeah, It's russian nanotechnology and also 2th army of the world
I seem to recall that even as the Soviets brought out newer tanks like the T-62 and T-72, they put the older tanks (e.g. T-54/55) into storage in huge depots, many of them underground, in order to keep a reserve of tanks older veterans and reservists could still use without extensive retraining. I wonder if those old depots are still in use, but with newer but now obsolete tanks?
@@seeleagent Donbass Separatists ain’t got non of that shit.
Syrians do.
They are still in use, notably they've been bringing out, the black sheep of Russian MBTs, T-62s (M1s with the applique cheek armour) have been reactivated and then sent to the SAA, sometimes still with Russian railway logistics markings left on there, I believe that affords it a laswr rangefinder, and decent protection against basic PG-7 warheads, but that is essentially at this point almost half a century old tech at this point, and the irregular opposition has been known to use advanced TOW 2 and other ATGMs that sucj vehicles wouldn't stand a chance against.
Getting 40+ year old veterans to crew said tanks in a near peer total war probably wouldn't work out though, mho.
@@Donuthan There is footage of a T-62M surviving an ATGM hit to its turret cheek.
@@seeleagent I would think they would still have plenty in storage, even after selling some off. The USSR produced over 150K tanks post WWII. I doubt they've sold that many to Syria. Now as to how many they have left, the number I came across was 55K...that's still alot.
One of the reasons why the USSR kept all of those tanks, besides the one you mentioned, was to have something to use after all of the newer stuff had been destroyed in a WWIII/invasion of Western Europe type scenario. If you think about it, most of all the modern/front line stuff would've been gone within a few weeks. At that point a 50 year old T-55 is going to be better than anything your NATO opponent is going to have to throw at you...which would be practically nothing.
"Sheer numbers and hardware may not be enough"... Prescient.
They forget logistics. Tanks aren't much good without diesel.
*laughs in Ukranian farmer*
You can destroy a tank from the inside by simply mixing diesel with regular gas, and then letting the Russians steal it.
Mass armour and fire power might look good on paper but I don’t think it will work for Russia in this new age of warfare when a small squad of easily concealed infantry with smart anti tank missiles pose such a threat to tanks.
@Terror tv exactly
How can the 2nd strongest army in the world
make such logistics failures recently
corruption.
They don't have cheap motorcycles and pick ups - faster and cheaper!
Vietnam?
I think the AFRF's emphasis on anti-air systems is likely practicing the idea of the "air defense umbrella". I remember reading about the umbrella doctrine in a paper on the Arab-Israeli wars, and it's really fascinating. Basically, the tactical/mobile SAM element is their way of keeping air parity when they cannot hold air superiority. This makes sense when facing the US and NATO, which have a backbone of air power.
yep reason iran i believe is biggest holder of AA weaponry.
That air defense umbrella did work. Things only fell apart for the Egyptians when they had to move beyond the umbrella. It's also possible the US sent squadrons to directly fly for the IDF. I've never been able to confirm that.
US slash NATO doesn’t have the technology for a effective air defence. Russian weaponry reflects its defensive nature. Whereas NATO looks to project its power in support of the US Hegemonic empire. As such the US needs to have massive air power! Albeit 65% of its might is inoperable by way of scavenged for parts, no allocated pilots or support crew and a high percentage of planes left in old technology that couldn't respond to battle requirements nor do they fire the lasts decade missiles. So on paper or in a long protracted war maybe. That said the next non nuclear war with superpowers will last only days before a settlement is reached. Owing to massive losses of equipment to missile efficiency.
@@ivankurtz1909 One just needs to look at how many planes were lost in the Yom Kippur war and how many planes the US has that still works to realize that the US military is a hollowed out force against a near peer like Russia that can challenge the air theater. China is another story, as their hardware sucks so bad they have to buy Russian castoffs to reverse engineer decent engines and their planes still can't take off with reasonable payloads.
@@ivankurtz1909 So i have my ASD and you troll deny that exists? Yes your hilarious.
Who's going to service all that shit and keep it running?? Getting parts and fuel alone would be logistical nightmare.
I think the Russians are learning that the hard way.
Logistics and mainternance was never russias strong suit.
HOI players would know.
The US Army started their transition to modern networked fighting tactics with the "Airland Battle" Field Manual back in the early 1980s. Since then, the US military doctrine has progressed to the idea of "systems of systems", stressing nimble decision making and getting inside the enemy's OODA loop. This requires huge investments in C3I hardware, software(!) and personnel training. The hardware is just the tip of the iceberg and the really important stuff is underneath the shiny bits. The Russians may have a bit of new hardware but they totally missed the boat on the importance of nimble, synergetic knowledge based warfare. You can't run a modern military campaign on a shoestring budget with a conscript force.
And they also seem to have forgotten that they don’t have their own GPS satellite constellations. And that GPS guided munitions need GPS to guide them.
@@fencserx9423 Incorrect. Russia uses its own GPS system.
I do agree with the title of this video. Russia made a very big point of showing off all of this hyper destructive new tech they have, (like the TOS-1 flame vehicle being destroyed by Ukrainian Arty) only to discover you need to know how to employ it first. It's crazy to see such a power like them being regularly humbled by a force far smaller and less equipped. Seeing the Russian invasion is like watching a dumb child's tantrum. I almost pity the inexperienced and obviously poorly trained soldiers carrying all of this tech they barely know how to employ. So many tactical mistakes. The most painful ones to me are the shooting galleries they create with their bunched up vehicle formations.
Except that everything you write is total BS. It's a pretty bad place from which to start an argument. At np point anywhere in the last 3 years has Russia been "humbled". 400,000 dead Ukrainian troops might attest to that, is they could, vs around 40-50,000 dad Russian troops.
In short, you are either dead thick, simply very badly informed, a regular sponge for propaganda or simply projecting onto Russia what the Ukrainians are doing or experiencing.
The gist I'm getting from this is: Invading Russia is a very bad idea. But for Russia to invade an entire sovereign nation is also a very bad idea.
True, never bet against the russians in their home field, but never bet for the russians on away games.
You would have to be mad to invade Russia.
They tried with Finland roughly 100 years ago, now they are trying with Ukraine. Got smacked in the face by heroic efforts of the Finns back then, getting smacked in the face now by Ukrainian heroes. Whoddathunk the 21st century is not as conducive to a re-Stalinization of Russia, -everyone, literally everyone except for banditi circle of Putain.
Very interesting in light of the Ukraine invasion 5 months later. Now we can see the difference between having equipment and using that equipment effectively.
Well at least the Russians don’t need to refurbish these tanks as they are on fire in Ukraine
Some enterprising individuals with heavy salvage equipment can dent the global scrap iron biz.
Having seen the Russian military in action I'm intimidated not at all. In the field an American force arrayed against the Russians would be like an SS panzer division going through a convent.
that's a horrible analogy.
@@sevex9 indeed
That’s awful and yet hysterical
A nice breakdown, but it has me wondering, how much of a nightmare is it to keep such a large mechanized, and diversified mechanized force running? In my experience with armored vehicles, half the battle is in the motor pool with maintenance.
It’s also OIL. Cut off or greatly diminish that and everything grinds to a halt. Power projection is Life when your fighting, If your not moving forward then it’s only a matter of time before you have lost. That’s not to say that Putin wouldn’t use small tactical Nukes as a show of force and then Immediately sue for Peace to stop any escalation and that would be the most likely scenario if both these idiots (US/Russia) ever decided to trade blows. Putin better think long and hard about trying to seize any NATO property. While there aren’t any “Winner’s” in that fight there is loosing and being utterly decimated and that’s what Russia’s economy will be in any direct prolonged fight.
Russia still practice military conscription, wich is usually just a slavery to maintain vehicles. That's why it costs not that much, but its quality is rather bad.
@@Veyrxi The conscription service does not set itself the task of making a good, experienced soldier. Its purpose is to give a civilian an idea of what an army life is. To teach discipline, daily routine and other things that will help in wartime. It's better than your rags with glasses, who have no idea why they should listen to an officer. This is the advantage. In a global conflict, Russia has more trained people.
@@АлександрЕгоров-ъ8в Знакомый на учениях недавних рассказывал, как весь взвод поставили чистить картошку на время учений, чтобы они просто сидели и никому не мешали. Имхо, сидеть чистить картошку - это не армейская жизнь.
А вообще, это не по теме, они просто там ухаживают за техникой, готовят бараки и полируют оружие. Вот это суть призывников, и все. Какие-то там идеи вроде учить дисциплине, чему-то еще - это буллщит на экспорт. Там просто собирают рабочую силу на организацию обеспечения регулярных сил.
@@Veyrxi ты в армию то сходи. А то видно, что совсем не в теме. От чистки картофеля тоже есть толк.
Well, it seems the upgrade and maintenance problem is somewhat easier now.
No no no , I fix salvage new as good agin!
@@mattnsac
"New as good agin" or, good as new again ain't good enough. Makes NO sense to fix garbage! The Ukraine probably isn't going to salvage anything left behind. Not even the tires!
2:39 ah 20 width vs 40 width, the greatest debate in history. In comes paradox with the meta breaking combat width update
Most Russian equipment is from the Soviet Union era with slight modifications must be a nightmare fighting modern stuff.
"What sort of battlefield the future will bring"
I guess we know the answer to that... and the result...
Well the Ukrainian people is creating a big scrapyard
Yep.
Russia being an utter failure when it comes to military power.
Like, goddamn I’m willing to bet the shit T-34’s actually built in WW2 would have done a better job taking Ukraine.
Well, you can have lots of tanks but if your logistics are lacking you have lots of tanks parked/abandoned, lacking fuel.
I believe it was Lenin who said "Quantity has a quality all its own." I know for certain it was Isaac Arthur who said "If brut force isn't working, you aren't using enough of it." I believe Russia has taken both of these quotes to heart.
That irst quote is from Stalin not Lenin. But yes, that's what Russia believes.
@@dariuszrutkowski420 I stand corrected; thank you.
Russia? I guess It is the USA who keeps hundreds of military bases across the globe, 11 aircraft carrier groups etc. Perhaps the purpose is to keep one vehicle per each few bombs, shells, mines or rockets the rest of the world could counter-offer against them. Americans got so much of weaponry that they simply left behind $90 bln. worth of these in Afghanistan alone!
Remember, Russia has around 12,000 or 15,000 tanks in its tactical reserve. They may not be the most modern models, but they are there. Don't forget, there is still conscription in Russia, which means that there are also trained reserve personnel available. The biggest mistake that can be made is to underestimate your opponent and his abilities.
You forgot to mention Lenin's body, they can use It to summon his soul from Hell at any given moment. He is probably a Demon Lord at this point, which would mean that he could summon entire demon hordes by his own, that cannot be ignored as well.
Jokes aside, never forget how they basically won WWII through sheer numbers. Plus, the fancy tech the US has can be crushed by EMPs and cybernetic warfare. WWIII will not be as simple as NATO vs Warsaw Pact, you have China being DECADES ahead of everyone else in terms of chemical and bilogical warfare (their science has no limits nor ethics, and plenty of human prisioners to experiment on), Russians have supersonic missiles, and only god knows how Lasers, Railguns and Quantum Computing will affect military strategy in the next 20 years.
The "good" thing is that China has a really small window to declare WWIII before 2030, so many of these will probably not impact the battlefield that much. They cannot wait for more than that, because If 2030 comes and the so called "Great Reset" is implemented they will have already lost, and no war will even happen because the entire system will be jammed by the 1% and their interest, and they do not want the Chinese Empire creating problems for them.
@@bigbangrafa8435 China has a small time window for WW3 between 2023 and 2030. The peek of the Chinese growth will be in 2022-2025 and after that it will shrink and loose power.
@@jul1anuhd The peak of Chine growth is already over. The debt crisis will send them back to the 90s so hard, aside from the population problem and the huge corona wave that will hit them in the next weeks and months. Everybody who was saing it will be the chinese century is a fool.
@@3komma141592653 China is collapsing like the soviet union
We ended up massively overrestimating Russia.
Like, wow.
Maybe the Russians should’ve waited until the T-14 rolled out before invading Ukraine. The Ukrainian people really would appreciate the tanks.
Kinda blows my mind that people get upset about 12+ years of development. That's pretty standard for any truly groundbreaking weapon system
Wow, we see now this video was exactly right. Great analysis.
The US, UK, Canada, Australia and other nations that have to travel with their armed forces to get to the battlefield have a much much much better logistical grasp and processes out of necessity. Russia does not seem to have logistics figured out, even to invade their own neighbours.
I've read a Chinese article claiming that during a Sino-Russian joint exercise in 2018, a Chinese combined arms battalion (2100 troops) managed to won against a Russian division of 13000 troops, even severely damaged a motorized infantry regiment of 4390 troops to the point that it completely lost combat ability, and only suffered a loss of 500 troops. They did this by jamming the Russian electronics and having much better recon ability, according to the article.
When I first read this back then I thought this was just a Chinese wet dream, but now I think about it there were probably some truths in it.
do you have a link to that article?
@@emilianoc.5048 Can't post link here. Google "军演场上的交锋：1.3万俄军机械化师遭遇中国合成营，交换比14：1".
I wouldn't trust Chinese sources.
@@OrBerkovich-r4l me neither, but considering Russian performance i think Is believable
2100 vs 13000 wasn't really that crazy of an odd. Considering both sides had the ability to call air support (which the Chinese claimed theirs were much more efficient), I think with American troops you can achieve similar or even better ratio.
Regarding artillery, the main reason so used self-propelled instead of towed is counter battery fire.
Flying in pieces to fixed positions works well against an inferior force without own artillery and artillery radars, but quickly can get very messy against opponents that has them.
Oof.. Logistically, it probably looked great on paper, but in practice, Russian's tanks are just stuck in the mud.
Such things happen when you have to ok your country's missions with your boss(China) and they set the time line😆
The war I hope the world never sees.
Because it's still all about Love, peace, and understanding. Not Nuclear Warfare.
Nuclear Missiles spare noone tho...
Every time I hear about AK-74 being "not so accurate" as its western competition (and I hear it a lot on TH-cam) I recall that I regularly shoot a civilian version of AK-74 on the shooting range and can attest that this particular rifle is extremely accurate at ranges of around 200 meters. Closer range is no sport, farther - I am not 25 anymore)
What's wrong with my rifle?!
200m's lmfao
Well at least you can hit them once the enemy is breathing down your neck.
@@raidenthekat2444 Those MSTA-S, T-14, Iskanders - toys for new generation boys. Oldtimers like me prefer it close and personal.
@@raidenthekat2444 still has much better range performance than the M4 or M16
high level soldiers will testify that the ak is not as accurate as nato 556 counterparts. I think what the ak has going for it is higher energy, arguably better barrier penetration, more reliable in bad conditions and easier to mass produce.
@@smokeshow7691 Dont know if barrier penetration, higher energy and other stuff need any improvement, but reliability is the core feature of AK since the inception ok AK-47.
The weather tests weapons are subjected before acceptance into Russian Army are ridiculously tough already. AK beats any western comptetitors hands down and by far margin.
Accuracy wise, 100 m and 200 m are standard distances in rifle shooting competitions. Maybe high level pro soldiers shoot at farther distances using optics, but to me a 230 mm target popper at 200 m is already pretty little (I use iron sights, no optics) and as mentioned AK-74 is already very accurate.
One thing that is blatantly evident when examining Russian formations and general doctrine, is that it is a deterrent and defense based force. Not built around maintaining wide reaching engagements outside its borders.
Suitably sized for its terrain and territory.
Seems the upgrades are not really worth it, luckily!
Maybe besides the T-90M
At least now a lot of their tanks are getting decommissioned or transferred to the Ukrainian army.
Time proved it so. Didn’t take that long either
dont need to be any good if all you're doing is firing at apartment buildings
Everyone dissing Russian military, but does the US military have megayachts? Hmm? A significant part of the Russian military budget has been put to good use in megayachts. US is behind thirty years.
I myself fear that the Mega Yacht gap is widening by the day.
There is gonna be a Ukraine fisherman stealing one like the farmers and Russian armored vehicles
@@reggienotorious6824 guess there are even more money in that. :P
Yeah, maybe Germany disn't deliver much equipment for Ukraine but sold many expensive cars to corrupt Russians instead, doing their part this way ;)
The US President doesn't even have a yacht. The Presidential Yacht USS Sequoia was retired in 1977; clearly a sign that the US is a fallen empire.
Russia: We have enough Tanks and they are great!
Turkish Bayraktar: Hold my missile
In the first Gulf War of 1991-1992, U.S. artillery already had counterparty fire in many cases. That is, when shot at by enemy artillery, the response fire was already calculated & rounds were already in the air towards the enemy artillery before the enemy rounds hit the ground. Wheras, the older technology used by Iraq enabled the Marines to "shoot & scoot" with their mobile artillery. That is, shoot some rounds & then move position before enemy counterfire could be set up.
Props to binkov. Ukraine has exposed the Russian military.
Not only has Russia devastated the fascist Ukrainian army but it has destroyed a large amount of NATO's arsenal in the process. Russia's on a path of righteousness to eliminate nazism and restore World order. 6 out of 7 Earthlings are rootin' for Putin )
NATO is just waiting for Ukraine and the sanctions to soften Russia to the point where they are begging for help. Their time will come.
A few days ago I watched a video about a Russian tractor plant making armored vehicles for the Russian military shut down because necessary parts from Germany were sanctioned . The Russian management told them to go home without pay or go to Ukraine to fight . That sums up the Russian governments attitude in a nutshell . Russia is stuck in time and has no future if they treat such essential industrial workers as temporary disposable assets . Successful countries treat their skilled workers better and keep alive the vital industries that progress them into the future . Russia has a socially retarded mentality that keeps them from being a contributing member of the modern world . I don't mean to disrespect any of the Russian and Ukrainian people that have emigrated to the US . Some of which I have worked with and considered Brothers and Sisters
If you want to try out many Russian armor vehicles for yourself you can pick them up at sides of roads in Ukraine.
Turns out the russian army is even worse than what predictions said. Turns out most of their stuff hasn't been refurbished in decades and even their newer tanks are getting knocked out by old weapons which means their armor is not good at all.
i wouldn call a javalin a old weapon...
@@ShrimpyMaster I didn't say javelin, read next time.
US armor is similar. New weapons can kill any tank.
Could you cover Japan's military modernization program/expansion? There seems to be many changes as of late.
I like how japan quickly understood their situation and took the neccesary actions:
-the americans were cutting down on military budget overall since obama’s time.
-the north koreans were getting more embolden for some reason
-the chinese were starting to flex their renewed military might
Japan was not gonna wait on allies to help them when and if things got sour, so they beefed up what needed to be beefed up.
So despite their economy bubble bursting in the early 90s, the stagnation of their economic growth AND their population shrinking, they put their heads down n began the necessary work.
The Russian army reminds me of that hoarder that lives down the street you know the guy he’s 40
Bikes in various makes and models in various states of repair and mashed together if your going to modernize you need to commit and do it fully not just slap some bells and whistles on old stuff or buy a few new shiny things your afraid to commit.
"there's no such thing as enough DAKKA, only more DAKKA"
Clicked just for this comment
Orcs are the biggest and the strongest !!!
'Enuff Dakka' iz more than you got, but less than too much. An' there ain't no such thing as too much dakka.
'Enuff Dakka' iz not a state of being, but ratha' a state of strivin'. It iz not a goal to achieve, but ratha' an ideal to emulate.
Hence, in all possible situationz, the only correct phrase is MORE DAKKA. Saying 'Enuff dakka' by itself iz gittery.
As the past week shows - do not bring a tank to a drone fight.
As the past week shows - Russian's should bring their tanks within the range of Javelin's and NLaw's... 😁
It's farming season in Ukraine. Russian tanks are being harvested by Ukrainian farmers. Russia is the biggest arm supplier to Ukraine. 😬
Russia has too many vehicles/weapons
I know that sounds silly being an army, but think about all the spare parts, ammunition, tooling, fuel and training, theres just far too many moving parts logistics must be an absolute fucking nightmare for them.
Their army is general is just too massive on too small of a budget to be effective.
It is not just the total number of vehicles. Look at the Frankenstein nature of all those vehicles. Like five basic types with about 5 varieties each. Imagine trying to match the right part to the right vehicle! Then get it to the right tank, all the while a bloody war is going on. The Germans had the same issue in ‘44 and ‘45. They built three versions of the Tiger and the parts didn’t match. Many Tigers were lost because they were sent the wrong version of the part and had to be destroyed when they couldn’t be repaired. Look at pictures of WWII tanks and many of them are carrying spare parts, especially spare track, on their hulls. Break down, hit a mine, or get a track shot, you can repair it yourself if your friends hold the field. You can’t do that today due to ERA.
It is not just the total number of vehicles. Look at the Frankenstein nature of all those vehicles. Like five basic types with about 5 varieties each. Imagine trying to match the right part to the right vehicle! Then get it to the right tank, all the while a bloody war is going on. The Germans had the same issue in ‘44 and ‘45. They built three versions of the Tiger and the parts didn’t match. Many Tigers were lost because they were sent the wrong version of the part and had to be destroyed when they couldn’t be repaired. Look at pictures of WWII tanks and many of them are carrying spare parts, especially spare track, on their hulls. Break down, hit a mine, or get a track shot, you can repair it yourself if your friends hold the field. You can’t do that today due to ERA.
So Russia has lost somewhere between 10% and 20% of their total tank force in Ukraine depending on which numbers you go by.
also turns out they weren't upgrading most of their soviet Era equipment like was assumed and nothing was maintained
Ukraine is equal power to 2003 Iraq. So that is qiote significant. Now put into perspective that they also have 18000 to 30000 casualties. The war isnt going well for them.
@@vyros.3234 Russia has sustained more than 45,000 casualties(some esrimates put the number at over 60,000), including 6 generals and an admiral confirmed KIA, and has been pushing Russian forces back in recent weeks. Between that and bombing Russian oil reserves just across the border, they're doing extremely well.
Also, they've confirmed that they've splashed an SU-35, several Ka-52's, and captured some of Russia's top secret drone jamming AA systems and turned them over to the Americans.
@@vyros.3234 bot
@@vyros.3234 consider they did it without much of an air force and mostly with infantry artillery.....imagine if Brandon wasn't Brandon but rather Trump-like....start equipping and training Ukrainians last summer with A-10's, stock piling more air defenses, infantry anti-armor weapons, and lend-lease of all that old Soviet stockpiles from former Warsaw Pact countries? The finniest part is that that could have happened under the radar as inventory upgrading of NATO allies and "disposed" of in Ukraine. Everything except for A-10's and Apache gunships. But once Ukrainian pilots had training on those systems it would be another "tool" to use to equip Ukraine with. Instead Brandon was too consumed with his Bolshevik tactics of attacking his domestic opponents and counting his bribes from Russia, Ukraine and China. It is evident that Brandon doesn't want to over-equip Ukraine for god forbid they win and expose the truth about his corruption. I'm sure the Russians will too if they lose to Ukraine. I wonder how many other socialist political leaders in Europe have committed treason with getting bribes from Russia?
Russia never throws anything away. They keep and store Russia is vast and you really need tracked vehicles for mobility. Russia must keep " Stalins Organ" i.e. MLRS system in production. 6/21/1941 is a valuable lesson. I personally think the Russian defense strategy fits their geography and the geopolitical realities that they face.
It would be interesting to know how Russia maintains all this equipment because there is a cost to not decommissioning older weapons. Perhaps their smaller budget has encouraged them to develop ways of performing more efficient maintenance. Or perhaps their equipment is not maintained sufficiently to be reliable. It's hard to know.
They've actually trashed a bunch of tanks in the last 20 years.
So, Russia is overhyped?
They're certainly not good at wars they didnt prepare, or trained for blitzes like they one they pulled off. Russia is basically a siege army with lots of artillery.
They're good at destroying cities and killing civilians.
It sure seems like they banked on a single tactic (shock and awesome) to overwhelm enemies. If that fails however, you get what we have now in Ukraine, a stranded unprepared army that is slowly falling apart in the face of resistance.
@@neothaka Except they completely failed at even that tactic. It seems like they have not got the memo of how modern conflicts are fought. Its essentially a cold war army, stuck in a 21st century war. Where every civilian is essentially an intelligence agent with more tools than the old KGB used to have.
Yup… hardware over hyped, army is just canon fodder
Its all just Javelin and NLAW chow at this point.
You do really excellent and concise analyses! All the facts we should know, and good logical commentary. Well done, every time.
What about comparing all the space forces of the world
I think Russians now recognise a more qualitive military force. Its also where the money is. They just need to demonstrate their military prowess in small engagements around trouble spots with their newest ordinance to get higher value for their exports. And best of all get someone else to pay for it.
There are ever less motorized units needing upgrading. Glory to Ukraine
Many of those vehicles got towed by ukrainian farmers.
Recent events in Ukraine have shown that corruption has made all of these numbers irrevelavent. Soldiers going into battle after 3 weeks of training.
Russia has historically favored fire power over maneuver. This has two roots; firstly, a conscript based army is far easier to train to use firepower and second, Russian strategic needs are focused on regional issues rather than global.
that's bullshit, red army was very mobile during ww2 and before
@@wilhelmu mobile in a theater related sense? I deffinitely don't know enough about the subject to make claims,but I want to remind whoever reads it, that tactical and strategic mobility are unrelated,tanks move very fast within the same theatre of war,but they're the slowest kind of unit to move around when it comes to inter-theater movement.
@@feelthepony yeah, I mean the doctrinal level. The russians are the ones who established doctrines such as wide front or defense in depth, and they also favored irregular warfare by training partisan units to fight behind enemy lines.
Although motorization of the entire army wasn't possible, there were mechanized groups(separate tank battalions within infantry divisions) meant to execute time-constrained operations on limited area. In addition to that, there were also of course also separate divisions that were entirely tank or mechanized.