Strange: why Russians do not fight in Syria with PPSH and T-34?
In a strange time, we live. Sometimes I remember the famous "Do not trust your eyes ..." For some reason, what immediately catches the eye, through the prism of the media and all kinds of blogs, is completely different, often completely opposite to what you see. And there is a feeling of some discomfort. A person is forced not to believe in himself. Imagine: do not believe yourself!
We see the shelling of civilian settlements somewhere in Ukraine or in Syria. We see on which side these settlements are located. We see explosive craters and hear interviews with the victims. It seems to be all clear. But after literally a day or two, according to media reports and blog entries, we begin to doubt it. It turns out that it was self-shelling ... It was a provocation to discredit the militants in Syria or the Ukrainian Armed Forces in Ukraine. People even "suicide" to prove to the mythical "world community" the aggressiveness of militants or Ukrainian warriors.
Exactly the same feeling came to me after reading some statements of quite adequate analysts on the net. Let me remind you that today in many Russian mass media and the world, they comment on the statement of Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu, made by him at an exhibition seized from militants weapons in the framework of the Army-2017 International Military-Technical Forum. I mean the statement on the use of the latest weapons and military equipment during the operation.
In general, the Army-2017 forum is an interesting invention of our Ministry of Defense. Anyone can find exactly what they want. A man in the street can watch favorite "babakhalki" and "dancing fighting vehicles." A professional at private shows - meet with experts in their field and learn about promising developments in the defense industry. And the fact that leaks into the press, always arouses a keen interest among readers.
The figures that have been voiced, I questioned. And intentionally. Just because these numbers "depend" on the counting method. If to adapt the "gizmo" invented at some factory to an old machine gun, would it be a new weapon? And if to adapt the “crap” from another plant to the same machine? Or "figovinu" from the third? Officially, "according to the Ministry of Defense, 160 names of the latest Russian weapons were tested in actual combat. Many of them are already being finalized, taking into account the invaluable combat experience."
Some opinions are striking in their cynicism. Do you know why Russia entered the fight against terrorists? Do not believe it, but only in order to test their new weapons systems! No more and no less ... What are the terrorists? What is the legitimate authority in Syria? What are killed children, women and old people? The main thing - weapons and military equipment! Russia itself is a state-terrorist. Therefore can not fight terrorism a priori.
Another category of commentators is more adequate. Russians have the right to use the weapons that they have. Unless, of course, it is not prohibited by international agreements. Well, and the soldiers? So in Russia they never appreciated the soldiers' life ... And the terrorists are just an excuse for trials ...
Frankly speaking, such articles make an ugly impression. Respect for the authors, they do not add. Moreover, personally for myself, I forever "close" these names. I think that so many do. But the question is different. The question is, have we really experienced much of what is already in service, or will be soon?
The question is not idle. Modern war is quite high-tech. Armament and equipment today are great "help" a fighter in the conduct of the battle. Moreover, sometimes they fight almost independently. This is the choice and evaluation of targets, this is also the aiming of the ammunition at the target, taking into account all amendments, this is also a struggle for survivability. And the very training of a high-class specialist costs a lot of money.
The answer was given by the Minister of Defense of the Russian Federation! Yes, we tested new weapons and military equipment. Yes, among the samples were those for which the final conclusions have not yet been made. But that's why we “remembered” this today? Didn’t last year there was a hard conversation between Minister Shoigu and representatives of the military-industrial complex in the framework of a single day of acceptance of military products? I remember.
Back in May last year, President Putin spoke clearly about the use of weapons and military equipment in Syria.
"Russian President Vladimir Putin, speaking of the results of the operation in Syria, admitted that the fighting revealed" certain problems ", the elimination of which would allow" to correct further directions of development and improvement of military equipment. "
Minister Shoigu put it the same way.
"During the use of military equipment in the Syrian Arab Republic, a number of design and manufacturing flaws were identified."
Moreover, last year not only the military, but also the production workers came to Syria. I will cite the opinion of Andrei Shibitov, deputy general director of the Russian Helicopters holding company for production:
"The experience of the combat use of machines is very specific. In the context of the tasks of the new generation, it revealed a number of flaws that need to be addressed on our machines. Of course, despite the generally successful work, we understand what we need to work on to make our machines even more efficient "We have already formed a program in which we have identified improvements that will improve the efficiency of our machines."
World storyprobably does not know of any complex mechanism that would not be modernized during the operation. Not a simple lever or screw, namely, a complex mechanism. A modern weapon is really a complicated mechanism. This is not a problem today. Not even yesterday. How many weapons and equipment appeared or upgraded during the First World War? And how much in the second? Compare the famous T-34 tank model 1941 and 45's. Compare airplanes.
Why are there weapons. Uniforms and equipment in war sometimes change dramatically. By the way, this happened in Syria. The problem of our equipment and weapons is that we often want to "embrace the immense." We are trying to create such a weapon that would work in any conditions. Those readers who have ever visited exhibitions of Russian weapons will recall one of the lines on the stand in front of the sample. "It works effectively at temperatures ranging from minus 50 to plus 50"! This "universality" often harms weapons.
The war in Syria is really used by the Russian Ministry of Defense to identify the shortcomings of weapons and military equipment. Those who are quite difficult to "notice" during field trials. "A perfect example of this is the Su-35 fighter. I will quote the message of the Russian Defense Ministry:
"Deputy Defense Minister Yuri Borisov said that by the end of this year the Su-35 fighter will install a set of nets in the air intakes that will prevent debris and foreign objects from getting into the engine. The deficiency was revealed during take-offs from the Syrian base Hmeymim located in rocky terrain. Plus “drying” can be equipped with the Hephaestus sighting and navigation complex, which had a good reputation in Syria for Su-24. Initially, the “thirty-fifth” was designed for air combat. But after such an upgrade, Su-35 Not only can cover the bombers, but also strike at ground targets is not worse than the Su-34 ".
But the commander of the Russian group in Syria, Colonel General Andrei Kartapolov, said:
“It’s a pity to waste rockets that are intended for a serious high-tech adversary. Ordinary bombs, which we have enough, are enough for the bandits.”
In general, any war either creates legends or debunks legends. Especially in the field of weapons and military equipment. No exception, and the Syrian war. Look at the Americans. For decades, the whole world believed that American high-tech weapons were invincible. Europeans literally prayed on "Tomahawks", "Abrams" and other "Javelins" ... Some of the Central Europeans continue today. So what?
It turned out that the weapon is not the best. The Americans quickly realized that it was dangerous to go into a direct clash with Russia. It is at least not worse, and more often better than American. And the level of ownership of their own weapons in Russian will be higher. And this is not what we “scared the world” at the Victory parade. Not "Armaty", not Su-57. This is what was recently called "Soviet scrap metal."
According to some Western experts, to sum up all their statements, the Russians were to arrive in Syria on T-34, with PCA assault rifles and in hats with earflaps. It would be "fair to the insurgent people." Then the world order that the Americans “built” would be preserved on the planet. Russian weapons in Syria did something that diplomats and politicians could not do. It is a weapon! The myth of the omnipotence of America collapsed.
Weapon systems, military equipment and the army itself are designed for war. And the only indicator of their effectiveness can only be war. This is an axiom. So, if it so happens that our soldiers and officers participate in the war, they must be equipped with the very best. At least from what is in the world today. They are really expensive for us. But not economically, but in human terms. These are our fathers and children. Our!
We see the shelling of civilian settlements somewhere in Ukraine or in Syria. We see on which side these settlements are located. We see explosive craters and hear interviews with the victims. It seems to be all clear. But after literally a day or two, according to media reports and blog entries, we begin to doubt it. It turns out that it was self-shelling ... It was a provocation to discredit the militants in Syria or the Ukrainian Armed Forces in Ukraine. People even "suicide" to prove to the mythical "world community" the aggressiveness of militants or Ukrainian warriors.
Exactly the same feeling came to me after reading some statements of quite adequate analysts on the net. Let me remind you that today in many Russian mass media and the world, they comment on the statement of Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu, made by him at an exhibition seized from militants weapons in the framework of the Army-2017 International Military-Technical Forum. I mean the statement on the use of the latest weapons and military equipment during the operation.
In general, the Army-2017 forum is an interesting invention of our Ministry of Defense. Anyone can find exactly what they want. A man in the street can watch favorite "babakhalki" and "dancing fighting vehicles." A professional at private shows - meet with experts in their field and learn about promising developments in the defense industry. And the fact that leaks into the press, always arouses a keen interest among readers.
The figures that have been voiced, I questioned. And intentionally. Just because these numbers "depend" on the counting method. If to adapt the "gizmo" invented at some factory to an old machine gun, would it be a new weapon? And if to adapt the “crap” from another plant to the same machine? Or "figovinu" from the third? Officially, "according to the Ministry of Defense, 160 names of the latest Russian weapons were tested in actual combat. Many of them are already being finalized, taking into account the invaluable combat experience."
Some opinions are striking in their cynicism. Do you know why Russia entered the fight against terrorists? Do not believe it, but only in order to test their new weapons systems! No more and no less ... What are the terrorists? What is the legitimate authority in Syria? What are killed children, women and old people? The main thing - weapons and military equipment! Russia itself is a state-terrorist. Therefore can not fight terrorism a priori.
Another category of commentators is more adequate. Russians have the right to use the weapons that they have. Unless, of course, it is not prohibited by international agreements. Well, and the soldiers? So in Russia they never appreciated the soldiers' life ... And the terrorists are just an excuse for trials ...
Frankly speaking, such articles make an ugly impression. Respect for the authors, they do not add. Moreover, personally for myself, I forever "close" these names. I think that so many do. But the question is different. The question is, have we really experienced much of what is already in service, or will be soon?
The question is not idle. Modern war is quite high-tech. Armament and equipment today are great "help" a fighter in the conduct of the battle. Moreover, sometimes they fight almost independently. This is the choice and evaluation of targets, this is also the aiming of the ammunition at the target, taking into account all amendments, this is also a struggle for survivability. And the very training of a high-class specialist costs a lot of money.
The answer was given by the Minister of Defense of the Russian Federation! Yes, we tested new weapons and military equipment. Yes, among the samples were those for which the final conclusions have not yet been made. But that's why we “remembered” this today? Didn’t last year there was a hard conversation between Minister Shoigu and representatives of the military-industrial complex in the framework of a single day of acceptance of military products? I remember.
Back in May last year, President Putin spoke clearly about the use of weapons and military equipment in Syria.
"Russian President Vladimir Putin, speaking of the results of the operation in Syria, admitted that the fighting revealed" certain problems ", the elimination of which would allow" to correct further directions of development and improvement of military equipment. "
Minister Shoigu put it the same way.
"During the use of military equipment in the Syrian Arab Republic, a number of design and manufacturing flaws were identified."
Moreover, last year not only the military, but also the production workers came to Syria. I will cite the opinion of Andrei Shibitov, deputy general director of the Russian Helicopters holding company for production:
"The experience of the combat use of machines is very specific. In the context of the tasks of the new generation, it revealed a number of flaws that need to be addressed on our machines. Of course, despite the generally successful work, we understand what we need to work on to make our machines even more efficient "We have already formed a program in which we have identified improvements that will improve the efficiency of our machines."
World storyprobably does not know of any complex mechanism that would not be modernized during the operation. Not a simple lever or screw, namely, a complex mechanism. A modern weapon is really a complicated mechanism. This is not a problem today. Not even yesterday. How many weapons and equipment appeared or upgraded during the First World War? And how much in the second? Compare the famous T-34 tank model 1941 and 45's. Compare airplanes.
Why are there weapons. Uniforms and equipment in war sometimes change dramatically. By the way, this happened in Syria. The problem of our equipment and weapons is that we often want to "embrace the immense." We are trying to create such a weapon that would work in any conditions. Those readers who have ever visited exhibitions of Russian weapons will recall one of the lines on the stand in front of the sample. "It works effectively at temperatures ranging from minus 50 to plus 50"! This "universality" often harms weapons.
The war in Syria is really used by the Russian Ministry of Defense to identify the shortcomings of weapons and military equipment. Those who are quite difficult to "notice" during field trials. "A perfect example of this is the Su-35 fighter. I will quote the message of the Russian Defense Ministry:
"Deputy Defense Minister Yuri Borisov said that by the end of this year the Su-35 fighter will install a set of nets in the air intakes that will prevent debris and foreign objects from getting into the engine. The deficiency was revealed during take-offs from the Syrian base Hmeymim located in rocky terrain. Plus “drying” can be equipped with the Hephaestus sighting and navigation complex, which had a good reputation in Syria for Su-24. Initially, the “thirty-fifth” was designed for air combat. But after such an upgrade, Su-35 Not only can cover the bombers, but also strike at ground targets is not worse than the Su-34 ".
But the commander of the Russian group in Syria, Colonel General Andrei Kartapolov, said:
“It’s a pity to waste rockets that are intended for a serious high-tech adversary. Ordinary bombs, which we have enough, are enough for the bandits.”
In general, any war either creates legends or debunks legends. Especially in the field of weapons and military equipment. No exception, and the Syrian war. Look at the Americans. For decades, the whole world believed that American high-tech weapons were invincible. Europeans literally prayed on "Tomahawks", "Abrams" and other "Javelins" ... Some of the Central Europeans continue today. So what?
It turned out that the weapon is not the best. The Americans quickly realized that it was dangerous to go into a direct clash with Russia. It is at least not worse, and more often better than American. And the level of ownership of their own weapons in Russian will be higher. And this is not what we “scared the world” at the Victory parade. Not "Armaty", not Su-57. This is what was recently called "Soviet scrap metal."
According to some Western experts, to sum up all their statements, the Russians were to arrive in Syria on T-34, with PCA assault rifles and in hats with earflaps. It would be "fair to the insurgent people." Then the world order that the Americans “built” would be preserved on the planet. Russian weapons in Syria did something that diplomats and politicians could not do. It is a weapon! The myth of the omnipotence of America collapsed.
Weapon systems, military equipment and the army itself are designed for war. And the only indicator of their effectiveness can only be war. This is an axiom. So, if it so happens that our soldiers and officers participate in the war, they must be equipped with the very best. At least from what is in the world today. They are really expensive for us. But not economically, but in human terms. These are our fathers and children. Our!
Information