"Russia mocks Western tanks" Topic

Russian state TV reacted with acerbic putdowns on Wednesday to the news that the US and Germany had finally agreed to send tanks to Ukraine. The Rossiya-24 TV channel broadcast a series of mocking stories. In one on-air sequence titled 'Toothless cats', the presenter said the German-made tanks were 'more primitive', heavier, less manoeuvrable and had a shorter firing range compared with Russian T-90s. Pointing to an on-screen graphic showing a fictional battle between T-90 and Leopard tanks, the news anchor said half of the Nato platoon would be hit before even reaching the battlefield. Another withering sequence called the US-made tanks 'battered Abrams' and showed footage of the armoured vehicles being struck in a number of past battles

The Guardian: link

Of course, more Putin/Russian sabre-rattling for their own population's consumption.

Does anyone remember all the Russia MBTS, IFVs, etc. destroyed by the IDF or the US/Coalition/NATO forces in the Mid-East in GW I & II, etc.? Those Mid-East crews of those Russian made AFVs are not that good. The Russians are probably not much better based on their performance currently than those Mid-East crews. Again, a weapon is only as good as its crew and how its leader deploys it …

E.g. IDF's Upgraded WWII later versions of US M4s[IIRC M4A3E8, etc.] Shermans with a new 105mm main gun. During the '73 War on the Golan had a 13-1 kill ratio. Verses the then newer Russian types of MBTs, IFVs, etc. Upgunned M4s vs. T54/55s, T62s, BMPs, etc., etc. Guess Putin and his GENs forgot about that.

Or again, the huge loses of Russian MBTs, IFVs, during both Gulf Wars. By US/NATO AFVs, etc., …

Yes, more neo-Soviet propaganda. And, of course, the Old Labour Guardian bought it.

Rofl.

No just repeating a Reuters story and hardly buying into it.

Oryx confirms the loss of 44 T-90 in Ukraine, various versions, and that's just to the systems available to the Ukrainians now. And flicking through the photos it doesn't look like the crews weren't walking away… A quick look at the combat losses for Abrams shows only WIA. Leopard II doesn't have the same combat record but its notable that while the Turkish army famously lost some in Syria the tanks did better in Afghanistan, probably better handled, though still some were lost to IEDs…

I'd second the comments on Russian crew quality.

So does that mean Ukraine is holding up so well because they've been using the same stuff as the Russians so far, old Soviet stockpiles?
And it will all go down the drain with them as soon as they switch to Western tanks, right?
If they weren't such pathetic characters, these Russian clowns would be hilarious.
Shoot the clowns.

Even giving the Russians the benefit of the doubt doesn't help their case.

If a T-90 is as good as two M-1s, it's sill gonna lose when faced with three M-1s.

If a T-90 is as good as two M-1s, it's sill gonna lose when faced with three M-1s.

How about one M-1 versus four T-64s?

I'd second the comments on Russian crew quality.

That is again the bottom line …

Leopard II doesn't have the same combat record but its notable that while the Turkish army famously lost some

Again crew and leadership, IMO. They were not fight combined arms either AFAIK …

Even giving the Russians the benefit of the doubt doesn't help their case.

If a T-90 is as good as two M-1s, it's sill gonna lose when faced with three M-1s.

Bingo !

They've never seen R. Lee Ermy's Abrams ad?

They are going to own one very soon I think

I don't think the Western tanks will be totally invulnerable, so I think we should be prepared to see knocked out and damaged Western tanks.

However, I think the Western tanks will perform better than the Soviet ones that Ukraine has used so far.

I certainly think they are better than T-90s with better armour, ammo and crew protection, sights, ammo and ability to hit at longer ranges.

If the Ukrainian crews use them properly I think they'll do OK.

As Ukrainian crews are probably quite experienced I think they'll do well.

This is typical double-think – they say giving a weapons system will be a provocation/escalation when it is called for, then deride the system when the announcement is made. It was the same with the Patriot.

If a system is so poor, why would it be an escalation?

…

half of the Nato platoon would be hit before even reaching the battlefield.

Calling it a NATO platoon is more of the propaganda that Russia is being attacked by the west rather than Russia being the aggressor.

Druzhina
Illustrations of Costume & Soldiers

Excellent point Arjuna, as some one said "it's not what you have it what you do with it" and then there's the fact that a lot of Ukrainian equipment was "used" when they got it.

Keen to see how Ukrainian crews handle these tanks. US crews are finely tuned, best training you can get. Ukrainians probably have a cadre of experienced crews, but are unlikely to have the same level of training on these vehicles.

One picture is better than a thousand words.
Instruction to Russian soldiers how to use their main weapon against Western tanks.

Unfortunately not all Russian soldiers are armed with almighty shovels, there traditionally are six men per shovel. So when the soldier with the shovel will be killed, the next man pick up the shovel and continue destroying the Western tanks.

"Keen to see how Ukrainian crews handle these tanks. US crews are finely tuned, best training you can get. Ukrainians probably have a cadre of experienced crews, but are unlikely to have the same level of training on these vehicles."

Also moving from a 3 man to 4 man crew, in addition with the Challengers 2 piece ammunition,

Tally Ho!

The reports I've seen suggest that the M-1s are being sent on a scale (total of 31) designed to equip an organization that I would assume is based on the old Soviet one- three tanks per platoon, three platoons and a command tank to a company, three companies to a battalion. Much smaller than the 4x14 organization of a US armored battalion.

Abrams vs Russian tanks reminds me of an old country song, "Pop a Top Again!"

Once again, call the bluff of the bully and they retreat.

It was a huge escalation only a week ago.

Now it's a non-issue.

Mike Bunkermeister Creek

How about one M-1 versus four T-64s?

Depends on how good the crews are. But as we know numbers can make a difference at times.

They are going to own one very soon I think

You mean an M1 ? The Russians already have, I'm pretty sure. We gave some to Iraq. They abandoned 42. IIRC Iran's IRGC in Iraq supporting Shia militias were seen driving some around. So, again I'm betting the Russians already have them.

I don't think the Western tanks will be totally invulnerable, so I think we should be prepared to see knocked out and damaged Western tanks.

That is a given. Pretty much nothing on today's battlefield is totally invulnerable, as we know. Or should …

However, I think the Western tanks will perform better than the Soviet ones that Ukraine has used so far.

As Ukrainian crews are probably quite experienced I think they'll do well.

Agree with both posts … The Russian tank crews like all of their military are poorly trained, motivated & lead.

Ukrainians probably have a cadre of experienced crews, but are unlikely to have the same level of training on these vehicles.

But it appears the Russian tank crews are not that good regardless. My $ is on the Ukraine… again …

"it's not what you have it what you do with it"

Yes as I have said similar before. "A weapon system is only as good as its crew and how its leadership deploys them." … History backs this up, of course. And I'm not the first one to say it.

M-1s are being sent on a scale (total of 31) designed to equip an organization that I would assume is based on the old Soviet one- three tanks per platoon, three platoons and a command tank to a company, three companies to a battalion.

I thought the same but Druzhina sent a link, etc. on another thread here. He is usually well informed.

Ukrainian tank battalion organisation was 4 tanks per platoon, 3 platoons per company + 1 company command tank = 13
3 companies + 1 battalion command tank = 40
This may have changed and there is the possibility that armoured brigade battalions have a different organisation to mech brigade tank battalions.
Source: video by Battle Order, 4th chapter, 27/6/2022.

Druzhina
Illustrations of Costume & Soldiers

Buckmeister +1

Tank crews and mechanics will be trained, likely for quite a few months, in Germany and Poland.

'Toothless cats'

I admit, I got a chuckle out of that… ;-)

I read in a previous post that M1 tanks were given to Iraq and that 42 were abandoned and Irans IRGC were seen driving them around. So, more tanks have already fallen in the hands of Iran than have been given to Ukraine.

Funny how the US have more or less thrown gear at Afghans and Iraqis and gotten NOTHING in return but now, when the US gear is being used in combat and cared for, some Americans feel stingy and do not want to give it away.

At least the Ukrainians use it to protect their country and only stop using it when it is destroyed and not like the Afghans or Iraqis who willfully mistreats it and abandons it immediately.

The US is getting alot of "bang for the buck" for every item given to Ukraine. It is being used to destroy US greatest threat, Russia. So far the US have not lost a single soldier, airman or sailor in the war but Russias armed forces are being reduced to scrap.

Instead of having to possibly fight either (or both) of Russia and China now only China remains a threat, Russia is being destroyed by Ukraine.

As to double think, Russia is the master at it. First they have already destroyed several Bradleys in Ukraine. But if Bradleys are to be deployed to Ukraine it is a provocation and escalation. And IF they are deployed it might escalate inte nuclear war. But that won't happen as Russia have already destroyed the Bradleys already in Ukraine…

And last but not least, the Bradleys are no good anyway, they are just trash. So Russia is not scared of them. But they are still very very dangerous and deploying them will escalate the war as the Bradleys constitute a threat to the existence of Russia, as they can lead an invasion that brings the war to the gates of Moscow. But Russia is not afraid of the Bradleys because they are trash (and already destroyed anyway). So DO NOT ship the first batch of Bradleys to Ukraine!

The Russians are in a class of their own…

soledad +1

When firing gun rounds like APDS or HEAT the NATO tanks will outrange Russian tanks and be more accurate. However, the Russian tanks are capable of firing tube launched ATGM's with a greater range than NATO tanks.

The caveat to this is whether the Russian tanks would be carrying any tube launched ATGM's or not, how many they might carry, and whether the crews would be capable of using them.

+1 Soledad on the reasons why this war is a plus for the US.

what happened to the famous Armata tanks the Russians have?

Rejected for being in bad condition? link

Tank crews and mechanics will be trained, likely for quite a few months, in Germany and Poland.

Yes, I believe you are correct. And that should be the standard. Even US crews and maint. teams had to be trained whenever new equipment is field/added to the inventory.

I read in a previous post that M1 tanks were given to Iraq and that 42 were abandoned and Irans IRGC were seen driving them around. So, more tanks have already fallen in the hands of Iran than have been given to Ukraine.

Well I don't believe all of those M1s fell into Iran's IRGC's hands. Reports were ISIS striped MGs, etc. and set some on fire to. So …

Funny how the US have more or less thrown gear at Afghans and Iraqis and gotten NOTHING in return but now, when the US gear is being used in combat and cared for, some Americans feel stingy and do not want to give it away.

The US's A'stan Debacle with all the US equipment abandoned there has probably made the Taliban the most powerful Light Motorized Infantry Force in the region. With small AFV and FA support. Plus even smaller CAS support. I doubt the Taliban/AQ could mount any bigger than a Bn sized attack regardless.

the Bradleys are no good anyway, they are just trash. So Russia is not scared of them. But they are still very very dangerous and deploying them will escalate the war as the Bradleys constitute a threat to the existence of Russia, as they can lead an invasion that brings the war to the gates of Moscow. But Russia is not afraid of the Bradleys because they are trash (and already destroyed anyway). So DO NOT ship the first batch of Bradleys to Ukraine!

Have to strongly disagree, they are far superior to the M113s I commanded. And they were significantly uparmored making them even more effective. Their TOWs mounted in the sponson are very effective. They even became called a TD by some[not me] and reports are the M2's/M3's TOWs had killed more Iraqi AFVs than the M1s. Which BTW the M1 had to be upgraded with TUSK. To make them more effective in MOUT, etc. IMO the Bradley if used properly using Combined Arms can be very effective.

One problem the US was concern about CD. Which limited the use of our firepower. So, in MOUT, etc. it made our forces a bit more vulnerable. Even having the Bradley getting more Armor, etc. Sort their own version of TUSK, I guess one could say.

Also, the Iranians gave their AT device/AT Mine IIRC called a "Penetrator". To the Shia militias in Iraq. Designed by Iran specifically to destroy US/Coalition AFVs. I had also heard the IRGC was on the ground in Iraq deploying these AT Mines as well. That added to the US Bradley, etc., losses as well. FWIW – we droned the Iran's Queds "SF" unit's top leader, Gen Sulaimani. Who was responsible for deploying the Penetrators. Karma is a bitch. The Iranians are still ed off …

FWIW the US has given M113s to the Ukraine. As well as Australia has sent there "stretch" version. These seem to be doing the job. Albeit taking losses, like everything else. So, as I have said, the M2 is much better armed and armored than the M113.

First they have already destroyed several Bradleys in Ukraine

Have the Bradley's even made it to the Ukraine yet ?

in the war but Russias armed forces are being reduced to scrap.

Yes … very much so … and this will continue.

But they are still very very dangerous

Yes I had mentioned that with the M2's TOW and 25mm automatic cannon.

and deploying them will escalate the war as the Bradleys constitute a threat to the existence of Russia, as they can lead an invasion that brings the war to the gates of Moscow.

IMO highly unlikely … The M2s or any other assets in the Ukraine's Force will Not be leaving their borders and drive on Moscow or any place else in Russia.

williamb +1

@Legion, I think the bit about Bradley's being trash was to highlight the mutual exclusivity of Russian propaganda claims!

And the idea that Bradley's are trash seems to be a Russian propaganda-thing, though it may also have its roots in the testing-saga of the Bradley which resulted in the Pentagon Wars. And gets parroted back by useful idiots who probably wouldn't know an IFV from an APC if it chewed up their car with its chain-gun from a mile away! YouTube link

Apparently the M1s being sent will not have Chobham armour?

I think that 13:1 loss ratio might be outdone in Ukraine.

Doublethink: simultaneously accept two conflicting beliefs as truth. A word invented by George Orwell in the novel Nineteen Eighty-Four

…

Apparently the M1s being sent will not have Chobham armour?

Not a version that includes depleted uranium at least.

Druzhina
Illustrations of Costume & Soldiers

ROU -That makes sense. I find it hard to believe that the M2 is trash. As I said, compared to M113 the M2 is far superior. The Armor was upgraded as well. Now of course we know the M113 is an APC. The M2 an IFV.

Once the M2 gets to the Ukraine as I said those TOWs & 25mm will do a lot of damage. It is superior to the BMP.

Apparently the M1s being sent will not have Chobham armour?

That might still be classified? The Tank Bn in our Hvy Mech Bde had a Co. of M1IPs. Its details were classified. If the armor was damaged in training. The orders were cover it up with a tarp or poncho. And let Higher know. A special Maint. Tm would come do the repair/replacement.

But I would think by now Chobham would not still be classified ?

I think that 13:1 loss ratio might be outdone in Ukraine.

I think so … How much Armor does Russia to support their 2d rate Infantry ?

Legion 4 forgot some were left in the Great Military Equipment Extravaganza Giveaway

@Legion4. I think parts of my text was a bit misunderstood.

The Bradley is a excellent IFV and it is not yet in Ukraine. What I wrote was how the Russians do in "double think". How their propaganda works and what it says. So what you have quoted is NO my views more what Russians propagandists say. And how they contradict themselves even in the same statement.

I have heard a Russian propagandist say in the same sentence " We have already destroyed several Bradleys in Ukraine and if Bradleys are deployed in Ukraine we will see it as a threat to Russia and respond in such, including nukes"

So what he says is that Bradleys ALREADY are deployed in Ukraine. Then, in next breath, IF Bradleys are deployed…

Either they are in the Ukraine or not, make up your fxxking mind russkie… To Russian propagandist, not you Legion4 :)

Legion 4 forgot some were left in the Great Military Equipment Extravaganza Giveaway

No there we No M1s left in A'tan … Now as I said, we gave some to Iraq. But again, none in were given/left in A'stan. They couldn't be maintain or supply them anyway. Do you have a link ?

The list many saw did not include M1s. M113s, MRAPs, F350 Trucks, etc., etc., yes. Here's the list in this article that I and many others saw – link

Note no M1s … yes, M113s … but the difference between the M1 and M113 is very, very clear, Yes ? BTW – I commanded an M113 Co. at Benning, '87-'89. And was attached to a Tank Bn that had M1IPs … I do know I know the difference ! 🤩😎

Either they are in the Ukraine or not, make up your fxxking mind russkie… To Russian propagandist, not you Legion4 :)

Got it … no harm … no foul. As we know if Putin, Russia, etc. says it … it's a lie …😎

The russkies are damm effective. They have already knocked out TWO M1 Abrams in Ukraine! This according to a Russian propaganda tweet!

Eh? Thought Ukraine had not GOT any yet! Wrecks from somewhwere else? lol.

I haven't believed either sides propaganda

The russkies are damm effective. They have already knocked out TWO M1 Abrams in Ukraine! This according to a Russian propaganda tweet!

Now that IS Russian propaganda, no M1s or M2 are even in the Ukraine … yet.

This is one of the images used, from Havoc Six

Druzhina
Illustrations of Costume & Soldiers

Wiki – A destroyed USMC M1A1 Abrams rests in front of a Fedayeen camp just outside Jaman Al Juburi, Iraq in April 2003.

NB. Scuttled.

NB2. Image is Public Domain

More Russian propaganda … And yes M1s are not invulnerable … nothing on the modern battlefield is. But AFVs like the M1 have a higher survivability rate, generally.

The British Army Has An Emergency Plan To Prevent Top Secret British Armor On The Challenger 2 Tank From Falling Into Russian Hands

link

Armand

👍👍