2 ms·

> Russia has 12,000+ tanks only in paper. Russia has only few tank divisions in working condition and equipped. Rest is just Soviet era junk that has not moved

> Russia has 12,000+ tanks only in paper. Russia has only few tank divisions in working condition and equipped. Rest is just Soviet era junk that has not moved in decades. The military modernization program has stalled. How many European countries have countries have even 1 tank division? Russia may have 12,000 pieces of junk tanks + 40,300 of junk APCs, IFVs, ARVs, and engineering vehicles + double of all of that in reserve, salvage, and storage, but who else do you think have? Russia's Achilles heel is low morale, and low number of highly trained specialist, especially pilots. Second, is its military logistics (which itself is bigger, and better than that of most NATO countries) Latest tank modifications Russia ordered was not some rocket munition, but a drive by wire system for tanks, so one can drive a tank like driving a car, as Russia for decades had more pieces of military hardware than pilots for them.

nabla9 6y ago
Just comparing modern main battle tanks that can have a change of making difference in the battle. Russia has: 550 T-90's total. 450 T-80's active, only 170 upgraded. Few thousand outdated tanks unworkable condition. Then maybe up to ~500 T-72B3 (somewhat modernized and in workable conditions). Rest is just junk not touched or upgraded for 30 years after Soviet Union collapsed. Poland+Germany together have 500 Leopard 2's. France has 400 Leclercs. Britain 200 Challenger 2's. (I'm not counting old but modernized tanks Poland has).
- baybal2 6y ago
  You don't use something like T-55 to fight modern tanks. T-55, while is near worthless in tank-on-tank warfare, is still a 100mm self-propelled gun, and armor that will withstand anything, but dedicated anti-tank weaponry. Even from my dated high school military lessons from around 2004-2006, I know the official doctrine of Russian tank forces is to avoid tank on tank combat with equal, or superior tanks. Anything more substantial than 3rd generation tanks will not be engaged with guns, but with few heavy ATGMs per target from 5+ kms away. All T-72 in Russian service can fire 120mm ATGMs, even T-55s are supposed to have some 100mm ATGMs for them. A wide front-offensive will certainly decrease the efficiency of anti-tank weapons on the defending side, and let the majority of attacking force to pass. Biggest anti-tank unit today is an attack helicopter, hence Russian zeal to develop things like Panzir SPAG.
  - nabla9 6y ago
    Old Soviet tanks are useless against against modern army as you can see in Syria, Irak and elsewhere. They have limited used only in defensive warfare if they don't have to move. If they move, they are quickly destroyed. Russia has no logistical capacity to move any of those weapons far beyond it's borders like it had in Soviet Era. They could do single assault with 50-70k troops 300 km from their borders but they could not rotate or supply them or provide enough air cover.
    - baybal2 6y ago
      > Russia has no logistical capacity to move any of those weapons far beyond it's borders like it had in Soviet Era. They could do single assault with 50-70k troops 300 km from their borders but they could not rotate or supply them or provide enough air cover. Unless they can build a staging ground at a leisure pace in an ally country. Not to say that it was building up its already significant military logistics. Now, why do you think such a such a force needs even bigger logistics buildup, far exceeding defensive use scenario? All past of your comments on military strategy give off so much of youthful maximalism. In conflict, always expect the worst past holistic comparison. All things that "could never happen" according to military analysts do eventually happen. A saying is you never expect the enemy to attack where you expect him the most.

nabla9 6y ago

Just comparing modern main battle tanks that can have a change of making difference in the battle. Russia has: 550 T-90's total. 450 T-80's active, only 170 upgraded. Few thousand outdated tanks unworkable condition. Then maybe up to ~500 T-72B3 (somewhat modernized and in workable conditions). Rest is just junk not touched or upgraded for 30 years after Soviet Union collapsed. Poland+Germany together have 500 Leopard 2's. France has 400 Leclercs. Britain 200 Challenger 2's. (I'm not counting old but modernized tanks Poland has).

baybal2 6y ago
You don't use something like T-55 to fight modern tanks. T-55, while is near worthless in tank-on-tank warfare, is still a 100mm self-propelled gun, and armor that will withstand anything, but dedicated anti-tank weaponry. Even from my dated high school military lessons from around 2004-2006, I know the official doctrine of Russian tank forces is to avoid tank on tank combat with equal, or superior tanks. Anything more substantial than 3rd generation tanks will not be engaged with guns, but with few heavy ATGMs per target from 5+ kms away. All T-72 in Russian service can fire 120mm ATGMs, even T-55s are supposed to have some 100mm ATGMs for them. A wide front-offensive will certainly decrease the efficiency of anti-tank weapons on the defending side, and let the majority of attacking force to pass. Biggest anti-tank unit today is an attack helicopter, hence Russian zeal to develop things like Panzir SPAG.
- nabla9 6y ago
  Old Soviet tanks are useless against against modern army as you can see in Syria, Irak and elsewhere. They have limited used only in defensive warfare if they don't have to move. If they move, they are quickly destroyed. Russia has no logistical capacity to move any of those weapons far beyond it's borders like it had in Soviet Era. They could do single assault with 50-70k troops 300 km from their borders but they could not rotate or supply them or provide enough air cover.
  - baybal2 6y ago
    > Russia has no logistical capacity to move any of those weapons far beyond it's borders like it had in Soviet Era. They could do single assault with 50-70k troops 300 km from their borders but they could not rotate or supply them or provide enough air cover. Unless they can build a staging ground at a leisure pace in an ally country. Not to say that it was building up its already significant military logistics. Now, why do you think such a such a force needs even bigger logistics buildup, far exceeding defensive use scenario? All past of your comments on military strategy give off so much of youthful maximalism. In conflict, always expect the worst past holistic comparison. All things that "could never happen" according to military analysts do eventually happen. A saying is you never expect the enemy to attack where you expect him the most.