4 ms·

This a million times. Tanks are ceremonial items at this point, at least against a sophisticated NATO-like enemy. This is just a propagandist display, something

This a million times. Tanks are ceremonial items at this point, at least against a sophisticated NATO-like enemy. This is just a propagandist display, something Russians are prone to do. Russia doesn't even have the autonomy to properly invade a non-military power like Ukraine without the West stepping in, thus all the "that's not really us" shenanigans. I'm not sure what enemy they plan to use this stuff on as anyone within their limited military range can trivially get Western ATGM's or already has them. The reality is that long-range power projection, automation/comm/logistics, long range targeting, advanced arms, drones/UAVs/unmanned, air superiority, quick carrier group deployments, etc decide modern war outcomes. Russia struggles with this level of sophistication, hell, they are trying to get the French to build carriers for them and are woefully behind in several critical key measures. Pretending its still WWII and bulking up in armor, especially ones without counters to modern ATGM's, makes as much sense as building another Maginot line. Russian reactive armor leaves a lot to be desired. ATGM tech usually outstrips armor tech quickly and NATO's current offerings are pretty impressive. Not to mention the cost of reactive armor raises the cost, per tank, anywhere between 300-500k, which makes it economically infeasible to retro-arm older tanks frequently. Russia's tank force is mostly a 1970s relic, the T-72. Constant retrofitting is still lipstick on a pig and to NATO forces. Older DU based munitions like the M829A3's and others punch through these things with ease. Fifth generation M829E4's take out the best Russian armor today. A $10,000 NATO round punches through $500,000 tank armor. Tank armor is a fool's errand at best, as munitions catch up too fast and armor development takes too long/tank lifespan is too long/tank retrofitting is too expensive. The Russians know this, but lack the sophistication to modernize in other ways, so they double-down on tanks, which will probably have a long service life on the usual parade route, but not be effective in combat. Especially now that Putin has rebranded himself anti-NATO, anti-West, anti-Democracy, pro-Autocracy, pro-Annexation, pro-Assad, pro-Jong-Un, etc. He's not partnering up with NATO for some peace mission, he's pointing his guns at them and compared to NATO he's at a massive disadvantage militarily with these tanks, which just become very expensive coffins for Russian tank crews.

MrZongle2 12y ago
"Tanks are ceremonial items at this point, at least against a sophisticated NATO-like enemy. This is just a propagandist display, something Russians are prone to do." I agree with your second point, but not with the first. Armor is useful for claiming and holding territory, especially in the face of infantry. Yes, AT armament has come a long way; I've personally observed the effect of Western arms against Soviet-made armor. But not every opponent will have air supremacy to fly ground attack assets with impunity. And not every soldier equipped with an AT weapon will fire it successfully. And some tanks will be equipped with reactive armor that will work as intended. Armor is not yet at the stage of horse-mounted cavalry, and will likely always have some role in modern military forces. Consider the switch to carrier-based forces the U.S. Navy underwent in WW2: it was a paradigm shift that led to inevitable retirement of the battleship class, but it has yet to eliminate the need for heavy guns or armored ships.
DominikR 12y ago
Yeah, that's also what Napoleon, Hitler and every other major power that tried to invade Russia in the last 500 years also said.
- adventured 12y ago
  That's a strawman. Who is talking about invading Russia? Nobody. The parent comment is talking about the low value proposition offered by Russia's tank upgrade.
exar0815 12y ago
Just look at what the german Bundeswehr did with their Wiesel AFVs to american M1 in Wargames, and thats with 80s tech and the engine of a Volkswagen.
allendoerfer 12y ago
They are ceremonial. Seems like we forgot how cold war works. Merkel does not want to deliver weapons to Ukraine, because she can not imagine to impress Putin with additional weapons, that he fears to lose the conflict, regardless of how many weapons we deliver. And concerning Ukraine: I think in their interest (that is to stop the EU and NATO from expanding) they acted pretty smart. They took a part of the country, that the West will not get back. They know, that the EU only accepts countries without questioned borders, by destabilizing Ukraine they prevented that for a very long time. NATO is not keen on including Ukraine either. Once he is tired of the sanctions, he can stop supporting the rebels or force them to negotiate while keeping the Krim. Meanwhile he can act like a conquerer, protecter and ultimately peacemaker to his own people, which has weakend the rising opposition dramatically. If the West truly wants to weaken Russia, it needs to tighten bonds with China, Turkey and some other countries. But then again, Russia is already pretty poor economically …

MrZongle2 12y ago

"Tanks are ceremonial items at this point, at least against a sophisticated NATO-like enemy. This is just a propagandist display, something Russians are prone to do." I agree with your second point, but not with the first. Armor is useful for claiming and holding territory, especially in the face of infantry. Yes, AT armament has come a long way; I've personally observed the effect of Western arms against Soviet-made armor. But not every opponent will have air supremacy to fly ground attack assets with impunity. And not every soldier equipped with an AT weapon will fire it successfully. And some tanks will be equipped with reactive armor that will work as intended. Armor is not yet at the stage of horse-mounted cavalry, and will likely always have some role in modern military forces. Consider the switch to carrier-based forces the U.S. Navy underwent in WW2: it was a paradigm shift that led to inevitable retirement of the battleship class, but it has yet to eliminate the need for heavy guns or armored ships.

DominikR 12y ago

Yeah, that's also what Napoleon, Hitler and every other major power that tried to invade Russia in the last 500 years also said.

adventured 12y ago
That's a strawman. Who is talking about invading Russia? Nobody. The parent comment is talking about the low value proposition offered by Russia's tank upgrade.

exar0815 12y ago

Just look at what the german Bundeswehr did with their Wiesel AFVs to american M1 in Wargames, and thats with 80s tech and the engine of a Volkswagen.

allendoerfer 12y ago

They are ceremonial. Seems like we forgot how cold war works. Merkel does not want to deliver weapons to Ukraine, because she can not imagine to impress Putin with additional weapons, that he fears to lose the conflict, regardless of how many weapons we deliver. And concerning Ukraine: I think in their interest (that is to stop the EU and NATO from expanding) they acted pretty smart. They took a part of the country, that the West will not get back. They know, that the EU only accepts countries without questioned borders, by destabilizing Ukraine they prevented that for a very long time. NATO is not keen on including Ukraine either. Once he is tired of the sanctions, he can stop supporting the rebels or force them to negotiate while keeping the Krim. Meanwhile he can act like a conquerer, protecter and ultimately peacemaker to his own people, which has weakend the rising opposition dramatically. If the West truly wants to weaken Russia, it needs to tighten bonds with China, Turkey and some other countries. But then again, Russia is already pretty poor economically …