Syrian account
Syrian land has become a testing ground for ideas, concepts and weapons from the world's largest manufacturers. For military leaders and designers to check the news in the case - the opportunity is rare and especially valuable.
A comparison of the Russian and American weapons of the ground forces in terms of their nominal effectiveness (“Technique on the verge of uselessness”), of course, is lame. But the comparison of weapons and military equipment in real combat conditions serves as a starting hot spot for developers and their potential customers.
Syria, as well as Iraq, flows weapons from all over the world. It is supplied to the government army, transferred to the “moderate opposition”, it is bought by the Islamic State, which is prohibited in Russia, and Hezbollah and the Kurdish militia are reserved for them. Here you can find Chinese Yongshi army vehicles and HJ-8 ATGMs, French mines and land mines, Israeli missiles, Canadian sights, and Belgian machine guns.
But the main characters of this “exposition” are Russian and American defense companies. Their place of world leaders in the field of weapons development and their role in the Syrian conflict also oblige this. In addition, Russian and American weapons attract the close attention of the world press to themselves also because the rating positions of both the first and second are being revised.
For the "Blind" like a stone wall
The American Abrams are involved in the fight against jihadists by Iraq. The American car in this region, having jumped over sixty tons, feels confident. Solid soils hold well, and natural obstacles here are too few to impede movement.
"Abrams" almost no rivals, because the IS militants, although they have a certain number of trophy tanksbut still try to protect them. But there are enough opponents - in addition to the traditional RPGs, the arsenals of the warring parties also have modern anti-tank missile systems: Chinese, Russian and actually American.
“Abrams” in this war are burning brightly, being beaten up by their own ATGM and products of competing manufacturers. Still, the thirty-year trampling of American tank-building thought affects old-fashioned tanks, a banal increase in the mass of armor does not respond to the challenges that have arisen in the 21st century.
The Russian military industry in Syria is far from being represented by a single MBT model. Here and T-72 in a variety of export versions, and even the Soviet medium tanks T-62, T-55, T-54. But fame was destined to the already famous T-90. The media scattered widely as T-90 was holding an anti-tank missile strike, presumably TOW-2A, whose tandem warhead, specially designed to combat dynamic defense, could not hit a tank equipped with a rather old DZ Kontakt-5.
The Shtora-1 active defense complex also shows itself well, taking away the missiles of such obsolete anti-tank systems like TOW, HOT, Fagot. Those T-90, which we see in Syria, are far from the latest models, but they also cope with their task. This tank was born for our forests - with a mass of just 46,5 tons and the ability to take a nearly two-meter ford with short training, it reveals itself best of all in the Russian plain, but it also feels good in arid Syria.
He would also have the appropriate crews, and then the Syrians who have undergone an accelerated course, often do not differ either in discipline or training.
The traits of weak training are inherent in both the Assad army and the Iraqi formations that saddle the American Abrams. Tanks often find themselves alone, even without infantry cover, as a result of which they die as predictably.
Well, is not it nonsense?
M2 Bradley feels similar to Abrams from being in the Middle East. If you recall, they created it as a response to the Soviet BMP-1 to stop the red hordes rushing to Western Europe. Since then, "Bradley" seriously gained weight, while the designers tried to protect it by covering the aluminum case with armor plates. As a result, the combat vehicle noticeably lost in maneuverability and lost the ability to overcome water obstacles on the move. But in Iraq it is not critical.
In terms of the protection of the “Bradley”, of course, the machine is obsolete and, when meeting with a motivated opponent, it is unlikely to fulfill its tasks. Any modern and not very RPG is flashing her armor in the forehead and in the side. It is good when the IG fighters have few.
Our BMP-3, which appeared in Syria, didn’t go far from their American counterparts in defense. That is why we a few years ago attended to the development of the project "Kurganets-24". However, the BMP-3 gives the Bradley a hundred points handicap in firepower. In addition to the 100-mm cannon-launcher and the 30-mm automatic guns paired with it, our machine is armed with one machine gun in the turret and two coursework with separate control. There are also loopholes for assault weapons. The American machine of weapons only 25-mm gun and 7,62-mm machine gun, and the side embrasures were closed in modifications 80-s.
A larger number of firing points of the BMP-3 is well suited for suppressing a weakly reinforced enemy, when the landing party may not leave its squad. Just what you need to fight the militants.
Stuck in iraq
It would seem that in the clashes with lightly armed terrorists, combat vehicles of the Stryker family — the only new development for the US ground forces over the past three decades — would have shown themselves well.
Unlike the heavy and clumsy "Abrams" and "Bradley", "Strykers" are notable for their mobility, which, together with excellent communication capabilities and prompt response of the American army, should have been a decisive factor in the fight against jihadists. But something about these machines is not audible at all. The point, probably, is that Stryker is ambiguous. His bulletproof defense turned out to be completely inadequate, and after reinforcing the reservation, mobility was seriously reduced, the equipment began to get bogged down even in Iraqi soil.
Despite the wide range of machines on a common base, even the Stryker infantry combat vehicle is inferior to our last BTR armor. What is no wonder, if you have a machine gun as the main and only caliber.
This series was created in many ways in order to have a combat vehicle that would be livable for the Hercules aircraft, and for this opportunity, Striker is forgiven for much, even its indecent cost.
Because of such contradictory qualities, the Americans themselves struggle to fight in their cars, and transferring them to the Iraqis is the same as throwing them away.
But Russian armored personnel carriers in Syria showed their best. In addition to the BTR-80, two years ago they began to run around the BTR-82А, armed with a 30-mm cannon and an 7,62-mm machine gun paired with it. This armored personnel carrier is really smart and does not require discounts on the nature of the soil. The increased parameters of anti-bullet and anti-shatter protection do not make it invulnerable to RPG shots, but make the crew feel confident in fights with lightly armed terrorists.
The difference between the American army and the Russian army in the 21st century was the active use of armored vehicles as a means of transporting infantry directly to the combat zone. Now we have got promising armored vehicles that promise to grow into a whole family called “Typhoon”. Technique only last year finished the last tests for the bombing and shooting, and now already lit up in Syria. It seems that it delivers cargo in "safe" areas. This confirms the view of the future use of "Typhoon" as a truck, but with excellent anti-mine and anti-bullet protection. In the immediate combat zone, it is still preferable to move on an armored personnel carrier or infantry fighting vehicle.
The best advertisement of Russian weapons will be the fact that it will be with them that the government forces will win over the IG plague. Want to cope with external threats - buy Russian.
But the image is not the most valuable that is extracted from this campaign. We are learning to fight in new conditions and adapt equipment to them, making it universal and truly effective.
This is perhaps the most important thing that the Russian army can take out of the Syrian conflict.
A comparison of the Russian and American weapons of the ground forces in terms of their nominal effectiveness (“Technique on the verge of uselessness”), of course, is lame. But the comparison of weapons and military equipment in real combat conditions serves as a starting hot spot for developers and their potential customers.
Syria, as well as Iraq, flows weapons from all over the world. It is supplied to the government army, transferred to the “moderate opposition”, it is bought by the Islamic State, which is prohibited in Russia, and Hezbollah and the Kurdish militia are reserved for them. Here you can find Chinese Yongshi army vehicles and HJ-8 ATGMs, French mines and land mines, Israeli missiles, Canadian sights, and Belgian machine guns.
But the main characters of this “exposition” are Russian and American defense companies. Their place of world leaders in the field of weapons development and their role in the Syrian conflict also oblige this. In addition, Russian and American weapons attract the close attention of the world press to themselves also because the rating positions of both the first and second are being revised.
For the "Blind" like a stone wall
The American Abrams are involved in the fight against jihadists by Iraq. The American car in this region, having jumped over sixty tons, feels confident. Solid soils hold well, and natural obstacles here are too few to impede movement.
"Abrams" almost no rivals, because the IS militants, although they have a certain number of trophy tanksbut still try to protect them. But there are enough opponents - in addition to the traditional RPGs, the arsenals of the warring parties also have modern anti-tank missile systems: Chinese, Russian and actually American.
“Abrams” in this war are burning brightly, being beaten up by their own ATGM and products of competing manufacturers. Still, the thirty-year trampling of American tank-building thought affects old-fashioned tanks, a banal increase in the mass of armor does not respond to the challenges that have arisen in the 21st century.
The Russian military industry in Syria is far from being represented by a single MBT model. Here and T-72 in a variety of export versions, and even the Soviet medium tanks T-62, T-55, T-54. But fame was destined to the already famous T-90. The media scattered widely as T-90 was holding an anti-tank missile strike, presumably TOW-2A, whose tandem warhead, specially designed to combat dynamic defense, could not hit a tank equipped with a rather old DZ Kontakt-5.
The Shtora-1 active defense complex also shows itself well, taking away the missiles of such obsolete anti-tank systems like TOW, HOT, Fagot. Those T-90, which we see in Syria, are far from the latest models, but they also cope with their task. This tank was born for our forests - with a mass of just 46,5 tons and the ability to take a nearly two-meter ford with short training, it reveals itself best of all in the Russian plain, but it also feels good in arid Syria.
He would also have the appropriate crews, and then the Syrians who have undergone an accelerated course, often do not differ either in discipline or training.
The traits of weak training are inherent in both the Assad army and the Iraqi formations that saddle the American Abrams. Tanks often find themselves alone, even without infantry cover, as a result of which they die as predictably.
Well, is not it nonsense?
M2 Bradley feels similar to Abrams from being in the Middle East. If you recall, they created it as a response to the Soviet BMP-1 to stop the red hordes rushing to Western Europe. Since then, "Bradley" seriously gained weight, while the designers tried to protect it by covering the aluminum case with armor plates. As a result, the combat vehicle noticeably lost in maneuverability and lost the ability to overcome water obstacles on the move. But in Iraq it is not critical.
In terms of the protection of the “Bradley”, of course, the machine is obsolete and, when meeting with a motivated opponent, it is unlikely to fulfill its tasks. Any modern and not very RPG is flashing her armor in the forehead and in the side. It is good when the IG fighters have few.
Our BMP-3, which appeared in Syria, didn’t go far from their American counterparts in defense. That is why we a few years ago attended to the development of the project "Kurganets-24". However, the BMP-3 gives the Bradley a hundred points handicap in firepower. In addition to the 100-mm cannon-launcher and the 30-mm automatic guns paired with it, our machine is armed with one machine gun in the turret and two coursework with separate control. There are also loopholes for assault weapons. The American machine of weapons only 25-mm gun and 7,62-mm machine gun, and the side embrasures were closed in modifications 80-s.
A larger number of firing points of the BMP-3 is well suited for suppressing a weakly reinforced enemy, when the landing party may not leave its squad. Just what you need to fight the militants.
Stuck in iraq
It would seem that in the clashes with lightly armed terrorists, combat vehicles of the Stryker family — the only new development for the US ground forces over the past three decades — would have shown themselves well.
Unlike the heavy and clumsy "Abrams" and "Bradley", "Strykers" are notable for their mobility, which, together with excellent communication capabilities and prompt response of the American army, should have been a decisive factor in the fight against jihadists. But something about these machines is not audible at all. The point, probably, is that Stryker is ambiguous. His bulletproof defense turned out to be completely inadequate, and after reinforcing the reservation, mobility was seriously reduced, the equipment began to get bogged down even in Iraqi soil.
Despite the wide range of machines on a common base, even the Stryker infantry combat vehicle is inferior to our last BTR armor. What is no wonder, if you have a machine gun as the main and only caliber.
This series was created in many ways in order to have a combat vehicle that would be livable for the Hercules aircraft, and for this opportunity, Striker is forgiven for much, even its indecent cost.
Because of such contradictory qualities, the Americans themselves struggle to fight in their cars, and transferring them to the Iraqis is the same as throwing them away.
But Russian armored personnel carriers in Syria showed their best. In addition to the BTR-80, two years ago they began to run around the BTR-82А, armed with a 30-mm cannon and an 7,62-mm machine gun paired with it. This armored personnel carrier is really smart and does not require discounts on the nature of the soil. The increased parameters of anti-bullet and anti-shatter protection do not make it invulnerable to RPG shots, but make the crew feel confident in fights with lightly armed terrorists.
The difference between the American army and the Russian army in the 21st century was the active use of armored vehicles as a means of transporting infantry directly to the combat zone. Now we have got promising armored vehicles that promise to grow into a whole family called “Typhoon”. Technique only last year finished the last tests for the bombing and shooting, and now already lit up in Syria. It seems that it delivers cargo in "safe" areas. This confirms the view of the future use of "Typhoon" as a truck, but with excellent anti-mine and anti-bullet protection. In the immediate combat zone, it is still preferable to move on an armored personnel carrier or infantry fighting vehicle.
The best advertisement of Russian weapons will be the fact that it will be with them that the government forces will win over the IG plague. Want to cope with external threats - buy Russian.
But the image is not the most valuable that is extracted from this campaign. We are learning to fight in new conditions and adapt equipment to them, making it universal and truly effective.
This is perhaps the most important thing that the Russian army can take out of the Syrian conflict.
Information