4 ms·

Russian tank manufacturer shuts down production

49 points by borski 5y ago

h2odragon 5y ago
The factory than makes the HMMWV (Military Hummer) engines is rumored to be shut down 'til August for lack of parts, too.
- maxerickson 5y ago
  The US isn't engaged in a flailing attempt to sieze neighboring territory, so not quite as interesting.
vissi 5y ago
Is the source legit? I found only Ukrainian sources claiming Uralvagonzavod ceasing production, no Russian sources. It also has military and civil branches, even if some civil production stopped it does not mean military branch is affected.
- ekianjo 5y ago
  fog of war. It's going to be very hard to find factual information for a long time about anything.
- spuz 5y ago
  I couldn't find anyone to back up this story except for this Facebook post which appears to be the original source. In it it does not mention lack of computer chips but simply "foreign-made components" https://m.facebook.com/GeneralStaff.ua/posts/277666367879782 https://m.facebook.com/GeneralStaff.ua/posts/277666367879782
- spupe 5y ago
  I would be very surprised if their military operated with a just-in-time inventory instead of a stockpile system for crucial components. But several surprising things have happened recently.
  - sct202 5y ago
    It's been 2 years of semiconductor shortages. They'd be hand to mouth by now no matter what their inventory policies were.
- ed_balls 5y ago
  I don't think it is. > Ukrainian forces have been able to take out Russian tanks using the Javelin anti-tank missile system being supplied by the U.S., and a lighter, more easily transportable missile supplied by Great Britain. That is not true. Vast majority of tanks have been destroyed by artillery (2nd is stugna-p). You can see on the videos publish by UA. They are burning with twisted parts. Javelins don't cause this kind of damage. People with military experience would know that. What is more, they must have a stockpile of chips in case of war (Soviet Union was the only country with aluminum cutlery - side effect of stockpiling resources for potential wars). China and other countries would give them chips quietly.
  - tablespoon 5y ago
    >> Ukrainian forces have been able to take out Russian tanks using the Javelin anti-tank missile system being supplied by the U.S., and a lighter, more easily transportable missile supplied by Great Britain. > That is not true. Vast majority of tanks have been destroyed by artillery (2nd is stugna-p). You can see on the videos publish by UA. They are burning with twisted parts. Javelins don't cause this kind of damage. People with military experience would know that. You're not responding to what you're quoting. It didn't make any mention of what proportion of tanks were destroyed by what weapon. The statement would only be not true if the Ukrainians have not been able to take out any tanks with the Western missiles. > 2nd is stugna-p Given that's an indigenous Ukrainian weapons system, I wonder if they're still capable of manufacturing/resupplying their forces with them (i.e. is the factory in a captured/threatened area and unable to be relocated). > Javelins don't cause this kind of damage. People with military experience would know that. Not necessarily. I'm sure there are plenty of people with military experience who wouldn't know that (e.g. don't have experience with Javelin missiles for one of numerous valid reasons). It's like someone can have lots of programming experience, but not know some specific about how Java works because they haven't worked with Java.
    - ed_balls 5y ago
      > You're not responding to what you're quoting. It didn't make any mention of what proportion of tanks were destroyed by what weapon. The statement would only be not true if the Ukrainians have not been able to take out any tanks with the Western missiles. To be precise UA may take out some tanks with Javelins, but I'd guess it's very tiny minority of tanks. It's a really bad investment. You need 3-7 shots for a tank (40%-30% miss, active and passive protections, $100k for a single shot). The best way to take out a tank is to cut the fuel and ammunition supply and this is what UA does. If someone makes statements like it's an indication that his source are propaganda videos. We don't have a single video from the frontline. > Given that's an indigenous Ukrainian weapons system, I wonder if they're still capable of manufacturing/resupplying their forces with them (i.e. is the factory in a captured/threatened area and unable to be relocated). I can't find the source but they have 10x stugna-p's comparing to Javelins. (can't find the source. They've been producing it for 10+ years and stockpiling for 8) > Not necessarily. I'm sure there are plenty of people with military experience who wouldn't know that (e.g. don't have experience with Javelin missiles for one of numerous valid reasons). It's like someone can have lots of programming experience, but not know some specific about how Java works because they haven't worked with Java. Military analyst that doesn't specialise in ATGMs pointed out to me that almost all videos we see shows the damage from the artillery. Maybe it's like someone can have lots of programming experience, but not know what for loop is. I'm not sure.
aivisol 5y ago
I wouldn't be so optimistic to think Russian tanks are full of computers. I know many things have changed since last time I sat in T-72/T-80 tank but back then the electronics were quite primitive. You would see massive boxes full of cards with rows and rows of low-density chips. Gyroscopes mentioned in the article were mostly mechanical. If they are now being retrofitted with newer electronics nowadays I do not know.
- luciusdomitius 5y ago
  A modern tank is basically useless without a thermal sight. This is what is meant by modernisation - improved sensors + maybe comms & makeshift reactive armor. I don't really think anyone would be crazy enough to attempt using a 1960s' tech tank in today's battlefield. On the other hand it is extremely naive to think that anyone would use a consumer-grade chip in a military project. Security being a much bigger concern than even supply chain issues. This is the hardware they seem to be using (and manufacturing locally). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MCST https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MCST - pretty laughable by today's standards, but secure and seems to do the job. Weren't the space shuttles running 80286 and wasn't 80386 being manufactured until recently?
  - maxerickson 5y ago
    Shuttle used a computer designed in the 60s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_System/4_Pi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_System/4_Pi
    - candiodari 5y ago
      SpaceX, which has been used to launch military hardware, uses "dual-core x86" chips. And, obviously, they use a boatload of microprocessors, some of which are PowerPC chips, all over the rocket. All of this is connected over triple-redundant Ethernet. And as for software: It's C++. Including a version of chrome, with UI components at least partially (but maybe entirely) in Javascript. https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/2y14y4/engineer_the_future_session_with_jinnah_hosein_vp/ https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/2y14y4/engineer_the...
myth_drannon 5y ago
I feel like all these articles and news analysts are copying from Kamil Galeev twitter. Here is his thread about tanks: https://twitter.com/kamilkazani/status/1507820035829497859?t=TA9hTIjTXJOKeaIXEmUwJA&s=19 https://twitter.com/kamilkazani/status/1507820035829497859?t...
aaron695 5y ago
steve_gh 5y ago
The dangerous thing is not the tank production halting, but the tractor production. If the Russian agricultural production fails and they can't feed the population then it is an existential threat to the Russian State. And they have nuclear weapons and a policy that they can use them when faced with an existential threat...
nextweek2 5y ago
Not trying to detract from the current crisis, but it is interesting to think that China would be looking at these issues and changing a lot of aspects to their military over the next half decade or so. You learn more from failure than you do from success.
- candiodari 5y ago
  That's not true. Think about it. In reality there's 10^82348733 or some other ridiculously huge number of things you can do. If you get it right, you know how to make it work, and there may be some obvious routes to improve. That's a LOT of information because you can effectively exclude 99% of possibilities. If you can't make it work, you know that 1 out of 10^82348733 things don't work. Great. You can excluse 1% of possible solutions. Success has WAY more information than failure.

49 points by borski 5y ago

The factory than makes the HMMWV (Military Hummer) engines is rumored to be shut down 'til August for lack of parts, too.

maxerickson 5y ago
The US isn't engaged in a flailing attempt to sieze neighboring territory, so not quite as interesting.

vissi 5y ago

Is the source legit? I found only Ukrainian sources claiming Uralvagonzavod ceasing production, no Russian sources. It also has military and civil branches, even if some civil production stopped it does not mean military branch is affected.

ekianjo 5y ago
fog of war. It's going to be very hard to find factual information for a long time about anything.
spuz 5y ago
I couldn't find anyone to back up this story except for this Facebook post which appears to be the original source. In it it does not mention lack of computer chips but simply "foreign-made components" https://m.facebook.com/GeneralStaff.ua/posts/277666367879782 https://m.facebook.com/GeneralStaff.ua/posts/277666367879782
spupe 5y ago
I would be very surprised if their military operated with a just-in-time inventory instead of a stockpile system for crucial components. But several surprising things have happened recently.
- sct202 5y ago
  It's been 2 years of semiconductor shortages. They'd be hand to mouth by now no matter what their inventory policies were.
ed_balls 5y ago
I don't think it is. > Ukrainian forces have been able to take out Russian tanks using the Javelin anti-tank missile system being supplied by the U.S., and a lighter, more easily transportable missile supplied by Great Britain. That is not true. Vast majority of tanks have been destroyed by artillery (2nd is stugna-p). You can see on the videos publish by UA. They are burning with twisted parts. Javelins don't cause this kind of damage. People with military experience would know that. What is more, they must have a stockpile of chips in case of war (Soviet Union was the only country with aluminum cutlery - side effect of stockpiling resources for potential wars). China and other countries would give them chips quietly.
- tablespoon 5y ago
  >> Ukrainian forces have been able to take out Russian tanks using the Javelin anti-tank missile system being supplied by the U.S., and a lighter, more easily transportable missile supplied by Great Britain. > That is not true. Vast majority of tanks have been destroyed by artillery (2nd is stugna-p). You can see on the videos publish by UA. They are burning with twisted parts. Javelins don't cause this kind of damage. People with military experience would know that. You're not responding to what you're quoting. It didn't make any mention of what proportion of tanks were destroyed by what weapon. The statement would only be not true if the Ukrainians have not been able to take out any tanks with the Western missiles. > 2nd is stugna-p Given that's an indigenous Ukrainian weapons system, I wonder if they're still capable of manufacturing/resupplying their forces with them (i.e. is the factory in a captured/threatened area and unable to be relocated). > Javelins don't cause this kind of damage. People with military experience would know that. Not necessarily. I'm sure there are plenty of people with military experience who wouldn't know that (e.g. don't have experience with Javelin missiles for one of numerous valid reasons). It's like someone can have lots of programming experience, but not know some specific about how Java works because they haven't worked with Java.
  - ed_balls 5y ago
    > You're not responding to what you're quoting. It didn't make any mention of what proportion of tanks were destroyed by what weapon. The statement would only be not true if the Ukrainians have not been able to take out any tanks with the Western missiles. To be precise UA may take out some tanks with Javelins, but I'd guess it's very tiny minority of tanks. It's a really bad investment. You need 3-7 shots for a tank (40%-30% miss, active and passive protections, $100k for a single shot). The best way to take out a tank is to cut the fuel and ammunition supply and this is what UA does. If someone makes statements like it's an indication that his source are propaganda videos. We don't have a single video from the frontline. > Given that's an indigenous Ukrainian weapons system, I wonder if they're still capable of manufacturing/resupplying their forces with them (i.e. is the factory in a captured/threatened area and unable to be relocated). I can't find the source but they have 10x stugna-p's comparing to Javelins. (can't find the source. They've been producing it for 10+ years and stockpiling for 8) > Not necessarily. I'm sure there are plenty of people with military experience who wouldn't know that (e.g. don't have experience with Javelin missiles for one of numerous valid reasons). It's like someone can have lots of programming experience, but not know some specific about how Java works because they haven't worked with Java. Military analyst that doesn't specialise in ATGMs pointed out to me that almost all videos we see shows the damage from the artillery. Maybe it's like someone can have lots of programming experience, but not know what for loop is. I'm not sure.

aivisol 5y ago

I wouldn't be so optimistic to think Russian tanks are full of computers. I know many things have changed since last time I sat in T-72/T-80 tank but back then the electronics were quite primitive. You would see massive boxes full of cards with rows and rows of low-density chips. Gyroscopes mentioned in the article were mostly mechanical. If they are now being retrofitted with newer electronics nowadays I do not know.

luciusdomitius 5y ago
A modern tank is basically useless without a thermal sight. This is what is meant by modernisation - improved sensors + maybe comms & makeshift reactive armor. I don't really think anyone would be crazy enough to attempt using a 1960s' tech tank in today's battlefield. On the other hand it is extremely naive to think that anyone would use a consumer-grade chip in a military project. Security being a much bigger concern than even supply chain issues. This is the hardware they seem to be using (and manufacturing locally). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MCST https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MCST - pretty laughable by today's standards, but secure and seems to do the job. Weren't the space shuttles running 80286 and wasn't 80386 being manufactured until recently?
- maxerickson 5y ago
  Shuttle used a computer designed in the 60s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_System/4_Pi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_System/4_Pi
  - candiodari 5y ago
    SpaceX, which has been used to launch military hardware, uses "dual-core x86" chips. And, obviously, they use a boatload of microprocessors, some of which are PowerPC chips, all over the rocket. All of this is connected over triple-redundant Ethernet. And as for software: It's C++. Including a version of chrome, with UI components at least partially (but maybe entirely) in Javascript. https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/2y14y4/engineer_the_future_session_with_jinnah_hosein_vp/ https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/2y14y4/engineer_the...

myth_drannon 5y ago

I feel like all these articles and news analysts are copying from Kamil Galeev twitter. Here is his thread about tanks: https://twitter.com/kamilkazani/status/1507820035829497859?t=TA9hTIjTXJOKeaIXEmUwJA&s=19 https://twitter.com/kamilkazani/status/1507820035829497859?t...

aaron695 5y ago

steve_gh 5y ago

The dangerous thing is not the tank production halting, but the tractor production. If the Russian agricultural production fails and they can't feed the population then it is an existential threat to the Russian State. And they have nuclear weapons and a policy that they can use them when faced with an existential threat...

nextweek2 5y ago

Not trying to detract from the current crisis, but it is interesting to think that China would be looking at these issues and changing a lot of aspects to their military over the next half decade or so. You learn more from failure than you do from success.

candiodari 5y ago
That's not true. Think about it. In reality there's 10^82348733 or some other ridiculously huge number of things you can do. If you get it right, you know how to make it work, and there may be some obvious routes to improve. That's a LOT of information because you can effectively exclude 99% of possibilities. If you can't make it work, you know that 1 out of 10^82348733 things don't work. Great. You can excluse 1% of possible solutions. Success has WAY more information than failure.